Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

[This_person]

Science doesn't .... but it's looking into it.

Let me know what they find.

 

[Xaquin44]

God is very visible through actions, IMO.

Bold that "IMO". Show me his actions. Better yet, show me him. Or, show me proof of him (that couldn't be explained another way).

I am fully aware that science hasn't founded the origins of life the universe and everything, but neither has anyone else.

So show me something we know about that has unquestionably come from up on high.

 

[This_person]

Bold that "IMO". Show me his actions. Better yet, show me him. Or, show me proof of him (that couldn't be explained another way).

I am fully aware that science hasn't founded the origins of life the universe and everything, but neither has anyone else.

So show me something we know about that has unquestionably come from up on high.

I'll bold the IMO, and you bold the "that couldn't be explained another way", and we'll both be right to ourselves forever.

 

[Xaquin44]

Let me know what they find.

I will, when they find it =)

I don't have a random excuse for not looking.

 

[Xaquin44]

I'll bold the IMO, and you bold the "that couldn't be explained another way", and we'll both be right to ourselves forever.

....

save for science disproving many biblical ideals (ahahaha dinosaurs and man hanging out together) (ahahahha 6000 year old earth) (etc. etc.)

 

[This_person]

I will, when they find it =)

I don't have a random excuse for not looking.

Nor do I, I believe I've found the answer. I stop once I've found the answer. Science can keep looking into the details, but that doesn't interest me as much as the big picture.

 

[Xaquin44]

ah, but it's the details that make up the big picture.

 

[This_person]

....

save for science disproving many biblical ideals (ahahaha dinosaurs and man hanging out together) (ahahahha 6000 year old earth) (etc. etc.)

Neither of those things are exactly Biblical ideals, but a few people's interpretation of what's written.

How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden? No one knows (nor does it matter). Also, the repeated "40 days and 40 nights" was a phrase at the time for the meaning of "a long damned time", and not literal. While I believe in a pretty literal interpretation of the events, the wording must be taken by the standards of the time. The 6000 years is a Catholic priest's reckoning, not the overall Word of God.

 

[This_person]

ah, but it's the details that make up the big picture.

True, but I don't need to know pixel by pixel to understand the drawing.

 

[Xaquin44]

Neither of those things are exactly Biblical ideals, but a few people's interpretation of what's written.

How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden? No one knows (nor does it matter). Also, the repeated "40 days and 40 nights" was a phrase at the time for the meaning of "a long damned time", and not literal. While I believe in a pretty literal interpretation of the events, the wording must be taken by the standards of the time. The 6000 years is a Catholic priest's reckoning, not the overall Word of God.

and here we get into crazy biblical interpretation where some things should be taken literally and some are metaphors etc. etc.

 

[crazyfella]

There are mathematical theories, but 2 + 2 = 4 is fact, not theory.

Strictly speaking, it qualifies as an axiom. It is true because we say it is true and for no other reason. Mathematics is built on a handful of axioms without which the rest is meaningless, but upon inspection seem immediately obvious.

My disagreement with equating the Bible, Intelligent Design and other religion based arguments with evolution, natural selection and the like is, science has at its basis the ability to adapt or be disproven. That is, for any theory, there is at least one observation or experiment that if seen or shown to occur will automatically DISPROVE the theory or at least, show it to be partially wrong.

Religious based arguments do not attempt to satisfy this requirement, because no bona fide adherent to them could honestly say "I'm totally prepared to believe the Bible is wrong if you can show" something that actually *could* be shown. Further, most of the strongest claims made by such do not have palpable "proof", nor do they generally expect it.

Not only does science rest on the pillar of repeatable experiments and continued observation - it also makes future predictions. Without such, we could not invent the world we live in. We could not throw the switch and say to ourselves, "if theory is correct, this should happen". These other 'sciences' do not do this.

I think if people want to have faith in something that can't be proven, that's fair enough. I don't see science and faith as antagonistic. They are only that way when men of faith insist that science is faith based, or when men of science dismiss faith as a reason to believe.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

I think if people want to have faith in something that can't be proven, that's fair enough. I don't see science and faith as antagonistic. They are only that way when men of faith insist that science is faith based, or when men of science dismiss faith as a reason to believe.

...put.

 

[This_person]

and here we get into crazy biblical interpretation where some things should be taken literally and some are metaphors etc. etc.

Just wording, that's all.

All I was saying is that those things you pointed to are not Biblical claims, they're individuals' claims regarding their interpretations of what was written.

Some people are better at interpretting the Bible than Nostradamus. Some are a bit more literal.

 

[Xaquin44]

Great post crazy.

 

[This_person]

Strictly speaking, it qualifies as an axiom. It is true because we say it is true and for no other reason. Mathematics is built on a handful of axioms without which the rest is meaningless, but upon inspection seem immediately obvious.

My disagreement with equating the Bible, Intelligent Design and other religion based arguments with evolution, natural selection and the like is, science has at its basis the ability to adapt or be disproven. That is, for any theory, there is at least one observation or experiment that if seen or shown to occur will automatically DISPROVE the theory or at least, show it to be partially wrong.

Religious based arguments do not attempt to satisfy this requirement, because no bona fide adherent to them could honestly say "I'm totally prepared to believe the Bible is wrong if you can show" something that actually *could* be shown. Further, most of the strongest claims made by such do not have palpable "proof", nor do they generally expect it.

Not only does science rest on the pillar of repeatable experiments and continued observation - it also makes future predictions. Without such, we could not invent the world we live in. We could not throw the switch and say to ourselves, "if theory is correct, this should happen". These other 'sciences' do not do this.

I think if people want to have faith in something that can't be proven, that's fair enough. I don't see science and faith as antagonistic. They are only that way when men of faith insist that science is faith based, or when men of science dismiss faith as a reason to believe.

People say we can't ask for science to be proven by religious standards. Religions, also, cannot be proven by scientific standards.

However, I'm a pretty strong adherant to Intelligent Design. "I'm totally prepared to believe the Bible is wrong if you can show" me life developing and transforming into the several billion different ways that it did through mere happenstance.

Let me make it easier. Many people here have asked for proof of God. Prove God does NOT exist. Disprove my theory. Without your disproof, it's no less acceptable than your theory.

 

[This_person]

...put.

I, too, agree with most of what was quoted here. However, until proven, science is a faith unto itself, and faith requires no reason, it's reason unto itself for belief.

I guess what I agree with is that the two concepts are not inately antagonistic, just some people's way of putting them forth.

 

[Xaquin44]

Science isn't faith .... that's kind of one of its points.

 

[This_person]

Science isn't faith .... that's kind of one of its points.

But, you said above that you have faith science will answer all the questions. That's the kind of faith I mean - faith that it will eventually be right, even if it doesn't have answers now.

 

[Xaquin44]

ah, gotcha. I thought you meant that science itself was faith.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

But, you said above that you have faith science will answer all the questions. That's the kind of faith I mean - faith that it will eventually be right, even if it doesn't have answers now.

...but that is THE fundamental difference between faith and science.

One can have 'faith' that science will provide the answer which is to day that a repeatable process will produce a repeatable result which is to say science, scientific process, will either prove something or disprove it unless there are variables that are not repeatable and then science says "we're best guessing here'.

Faith is just and only that; faith. By definition there can never be proof of God of proof of not God. If so, it would be, by definition, something other than faith. All 'truth' and/or facts regarding faith are based on faith.

Yes?