Atheism, Evolution, Origin of Life, Scientific Method

I may have seen something on them before - just guessing, before I look into it - these folks say the Earth can be measured in 1000's of years, something like that (in part, by counting the generations, listed in the OT - "and X begat Y, who begat Z," and going from there)?

Edit: Hah! Did sound familiar - you and I were both here before, with a "Young Earth" feller....lol.

 

It just goes round and round like a merry-go-round.

Check out the Ussher chronology


4004 BC - Creation
*2348 BC - Noah's Flood
1921 BC - God's call to Abraham
1491 BC - The Exodus from Egypt
1012 BC - Founding of the Temple in Jerusalem
586 BC - Destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity
4 BC - Birth of Jesus

*Around this time the world's population was 30 million so god wiped out 29,999,992 people in less than 40 days, quite the mass murderer.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxJoCzLJyw

 

all i see is the debunking of some religious scripture. i do not see a claim that would conflict with existence of god.
nevertheless, i believe that god of scripture was an ET or a race of ETs. this would explain the whole thing.

 

Pizza, nothing you write in the above post has anything to do with what has been written in this thread. The issue is on how we approach unknowns in nature; how the existence of unknowns yet to be tapped doesn't necessitate the existence of deity; and the purposes and methods of science, relative to this subject.

Your above post doesn't address this, in any way.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
How can scientific method, even be mentioned in the discussion of creation, origin of life, etc.. Its definition alone rules it irrelevant.

 

It appears you haven't read page 1 of this thread, Simply. I'd ask you to do that, and then come back.

To your question, how could it deal with "origins of life questions" - again, from page 1...

 

Why would needing to have observable, empirical and measurable evidence invalidate science as a means for determining the origin of life?

You aren't under the incorrect impression that any of that implies one has to actually see it happen, are you?

It's the evidence which has to be observable, empirical and measurable, not the event it's self.

 

A certain lunch meat comes to mind, and its not ham, turkey, chicken, or salami.

 

Thank for your your cogent contribution to the discussion, loaded with logic and supportable data, from one theist's mindset.

 

lol, its always a pleasure North . Im just messing around with you guys, Enjoy your discussion.

The only thing that frightens me is that so many people think that science is perfect, and the influence it has on the people in this world. Thats what frightens me.

Science has had it wrong just as much as any religion.

 

"Aw, Baloney" doesn't really move the discussion forward, Simply.

Neither do blanket vagaries:

or illogical, or missing understandings. Not sure where you got the notion "science is perfect" when you have posts such as:

That there is more to discover, means science is constantly assessing, and re-assessing its findings. "Perfect" is the realm of faith - not science.

I asked for credible discussion, Simply. If "aw, baloney" is the most you can muster, I'd appreciate your taking it somewhere else. Thanks.

 

Like I said, I was messing with you. And i know science isn't perfect, but believe or not, a lot of people think that it is.

 

Simply, this is off topic, and not responsive in any way to the issues raised. I'd really ask you to post some credible thought relevant to the thread, or, respectfully, I'd ask you bid us adieu. Thanks.

 

Simpleg, if science thought it was pefect it would stop. But as it is it's still working tirelessly to improve and prolong your life. You are welcome, regardless how ungrateful you are.

 

1) Science was never "wrong". With every new generation, the (established) theories are just being upgraded, not replaced. Because for a theory to be valid and acceptable you don't need the blessing of the pope: but a long list of successful experiments, which stand for eternity, u can't jump dump them.
Think of it as this: each new theory allows us to press the "zoom in" into the innerworkings of nature.
2) Science come from a different place than religion. A scientist that manages to convince the community that a certain belief was wrong - earns a place in the scientific hall-of-fame. A priest that will even dare to challenge any irrelevant small detail about the life of jesus, god, and earth, is doomed for being expelled and boycotted.

 

and the things known does not prove its nonexistence, and have no conflict with its existence.
show me a conflict with god

 

Pizza, again, you're talking in vagaries...as an example:

It appears you wish to say something along the lines of "by science, we know a stone is made of a certain mineral, and that science - a known mineral - doesn't deny the existence of god."

The example I gave is specific, not a vagary.

It also isn't relevant to the discussion, as I'll say again.

The discussion isn't whether science, and what we know so far, denies God.

The discussion is whether the fact there are unknowns yet to be discovered means (1) science is deficient, as it hasn't yet answered the unknowns; and (2) because there are unknowns, God is necessarily evidenced. I made this thread, because these two things have been pretty routinely trotted out here lately, across a good many threads, and I felt it was time to respond, in a specific thread.

Again, as I said before, I'd ask you to please stay on topic. Your statements are both vagaries, and off-topic, so far.

I have to say, so far, the only theist contributions have been: "science is lame, dude"; "aw, baloney"; and "what's the question?"

Can we do better, folks?

 

Careful there

 

You've misunderstood what has been said, Simply. I'll try again.

You'll note the "wrong" of Chaos's post is in quotes. If you'll look at the second paragraph of the quote you've extracted, Chaos talks about:

Obviously, Chaos cannot believe that science is some immutable, perfected dogma, as you can't have that, and also discuss scientists who disprove prior hypotheses.

In fact, lots of hypotheses have been shown to be wrong, after further inquiry. This is what science does - it constantly seeks to improve our understanding of nature, by comparison of working hypotheses with new discoveries. This is what I mean when I say science is a heuristic discipline...I've said it before, many times. One such time:

Look closely, once again, at what Chaos says, as it is apt, in my opinion:

Yes, I'd agree - this is what science does. The realm of "revealed, immutable perfection" is the realm of faith, and not the "zooming in" that scientific progress attempts to achieve. Basically, I believe what Chaos is talking about is the different nature of what is called "right" or "wrong" in matters of faith, and matters of science. He can speak on this more, if he chooses.

But yet again, this is not the subject of the thread. I will post again, and ask for you to contribute something germane, or find another place to say "aw, baloney."

For yet another time, the issue isn't whether science disproves God's existence. The issue is whether the fact there are unknowns yet to discover both deny science's usefulness, and prove the existence of deity. Can you understand this, as discussed from page 1?