|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/15/2008 3:59:29 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
The fact that that evolutionary theory works so poorly in explaining the natural origin of earth's biodiversity would explain why evolutionists resort to their philosophical arguments in biology!
Evolutionary theory is the foundation of modern biology and many of the medical sciences. It is accepted as truth by the overall scientific community simply because of it were not thousands to important breakthroughs in the fields of genetics and related biological and medical sciences could not have happened.
It validity is reaffirmed day after day, experiment after experiment.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/15/2008 4:04:12 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7843
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
The very question "to what purpose" implies design and belongs in the realm of philosophy, not science. The exception is biology where design is the well understood product of evolution.
Certainly - but that actually informs my point - any science which claimed it could allow us to reject the supernatural would be infringing on philosophy and theology.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/15/2008 4:05:32 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7843
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Evolutionary theory is the foundation of modern biology and many of the medical sciences. It is accepted as truth by the overall scientific community simply because of it were not thousands to important breakthroughs in the fields of genetics and related biological and medical sciences could not have happened.
It validity is reaffirmed day after day, experiment after experiment.
Actually, evolutionary theory does very little to inform modern medicine, and while evolution is often assumed throughout science, very little of it is experimentally verified, or even verifiable.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/15/2008 4:16:02 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Evolutionary theory is the foundation of modern biology and many of the medical sciences.
quote:
Actually, evolutionary theory does very little to inform modern medicine Yes indeed, Jack! I cannot personally recall a single case in which the unproven "facts" of evolution as rammed down my throat at a godless university 30-some years ago helped me better manage the patient. On the contrary, the fact that we are all fearfully and wonderfully made by a loving God who numbers the hairs on our heads has provided me countless opportunities to positively impact the outcome of my patients' care.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 9:45:35 AM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Evolutionary theory is the foundation of modern biology and many of the medical sciences. It is accepted as truth by the overall scientific community simply because of it were not thousands to important breakthroughs in the fields of genetics and related biological and medical sciences could not have happened.
It validity is reaffirmed day after day, experiment after experiment.
Actually, evolutionary theory does very little to inform modern medicine, and while evolution is often assumed throughout science, very little of it is experimentally verified, or even verifiable.
The National Academy of Sciences would disagree with you.
If there was no religious objection to evolution, it would be as accepted by the general population as the other major scientific theories.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 10:42:52 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7843
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
The National Academy of Sciences would disagree with you.
If there was no religious objection to evolution, it would be as accepted by the general population as the other major scientific theories.
Well, thankfully science is not ultimately the product of the opinion of any group.
The reality is their would be no religious objection to evolution if it were only a purely scientific prospect; but as much as it infers a metaphysical conclusion (or as much as 'scientists' claim it does) it will probably always face resistance from humans who sense consciously or unconsciously that human life is not merely the product of incidental forces.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 2:05:12 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
The National Academy of Sciences would disagree with you.
If there was no religious objection to evolution, it would be as accepted by the general population as the other major scientific theories.
Well, thankfully science is not ultimately the product of the opinion of any group.
The reality is their would be no religious objection to evolution if it were only a purely scientific prospect; but as much as it infers a metaphysical conclusion (or as much as 'scientists' claim it does) it will probably always face resistance from humans who sense consciously or unconsciously that human life is not merely the product of incidental forces.
So what is the secular alternative to evolution that accommodates a 3 billion year biological advancement from simple single cell life forms to the great apes (leaving out the question of humanity for the moment)?
Aliens?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 2:18:23 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
So what is the secular alternative to evolution that accommodates a 3 billion year biological advancement from simple single cell life forms to the great apes (leaving out the question of humanity for the moment)?
Aliens?
It can be anything you want. Evolution is based upon unprovable theory, so run with it.
All theories are unprovable. That is their nature. Gravitational theory is unprovable. The Theory of Relativity is unprovable. If either of these theories conflicted with Christian doctrine we would be having the same debate about them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 2:33:21 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
So what is the secular alternative to evolution that accommodates a 3 billion year biological advancement from simple single cell life forms to the great apes (leaving out the question of humanity for the moment)?
Aliens?
It can be anything you want. Evolution is based upon unprovable theory, so run with it.
All theories are unprovable. That is their nature. Gravitational theory is unprovable. The Theory of Relativity is unprovable. If either of these theories conflicted with Christian doctrine we would be having the same debate about them.
Gravitational theory and Theory of Relativity both have the added benefit of being mathematically demonstrable. Theory of Evolution has evidence that can be just as easily interpreted as being driven from an originally created ecosystem of created kinds. Natural selection is postulated to have been going on for a long time based on what one wants to believe about evidence from other fields. The theory survives because there is no naturalistic alternative, and that which is not naturalistic is considered "not science".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 2:51:48 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
So what is the secular alternative to evolution that accommodates a 3 billion year biological advancement from simple single cell life forms to the great apes (leaving out the question of humanity for the moment)?
Aliens?
It can be anything you want. Evolution is based upon unprovable theory, so run with it.
All theories are unprovable. That is their nature. Gravitational theory is unprovable. The Theory of Relativity is unprovable. If either of these theories conflicted with Christian doctrine we would be having the same debate about them.
Gravitational theory and Theory of Relativity both have the added benefit of being mathematically demonstrable. Theory of Evolution has evidence that can be just as easily interpreted as being driven from an originally created ecosystem of created kinds. Natural selection is postulated to have been going on for a long time based on what one wants to believe about evidence from other fields. The theory survives because there is no naturalistic alternative, and that which is not naturalistic is considered "not science".
The Theory of Evolution survives because it meets all the requirements of a scientific theory, just as Gravity and Relativity do. It is varifiable through emperical observation and is capable of predicting future observations of the same kind.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 2:59:30 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7843
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
So what is the secular alternative to evolution that accommodates a 3 billion year biological advancement from simple single cell life forms to the great apes (leaving out the question of humanity for the moment)?
Aliens?
Even if it didn't have an alternative (though I think ID is a fine one) that still wouldn't make it correct, or a non-metaphysical consideration.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 3:14:03 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7843
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Theory of Evolution survives because it meets all the requirements of a scientific theory, just as Gravity and Relativity do. It is varifiable through emperical observation and is capable of predicting future observations of the same kind.
What empirical oservations can we make that verify the Cambrian explosion was the product of evolutionary mechanisms? What predictions can we make about life's future evolution can make based on said observations?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 3:22:02 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
All theories are unprovable. KaseyTom, you're not going to get very far on these forums if you persist in making such wildly unsupportrd assertions. Why just last week I theorized that a certain patient was having an unusual side effect due to a new medication. She stopped the drug, got better, then worsened again after restarting therapy. Thus my theory was proven.
Now, if you can show us just a single example of one organism evolving into a more complex kind of new organism, then you have proven evolution. Likewise, if you can show us just a single example of specified complexity resulting from random, unguided precesses, then you have disproven ID. So, I wish you well in your endeavors, KT.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 3:35:21 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
The Theory of Evolution survives because it meets all the requirements of a scientific theory, just as Gravity and Relativity do. It is verifiable through empirical observation and is capable of predicting future observations of the same kind.
What empirical observations can we make that verify the Cambrian explosion was the product of evolutionary mechanisms? What predictions can we make about life's future evolution can make based on said observations?
Evolution needs to do neither of these things. What in can and repeatedly does do is predict that such and such an organism or adaption must have existed and provide information as to how it can be found. More often then not evidence of such an organism or adaption is found. There are many event in natural history that are not explained fully by evolution, but none of these events invalidate the theory. Once these events are fully understood the theory will be modified as necessary to accommodate the event, or the theory will be invalidated.
The former has happen many times and is normal in science. The latter has not happened and it is very unlikely it ever will.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 3:45:07 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7843
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Evolution needs to do neither of these things. What in can and repeatedly does do is predict that such and such an organism or adaption must have existed and provide information as to how it can be found. More often then not evidence of such an organism or adaption is found. There are many event in natural history that are not explained fully by evolution, but none of these events invalidate the theory. Once these events are fully understood the theory will be modified as necessary to accommodate the event, or the theory will be invalidated.
The former has happen many times and is normal in science. The latter has not happened and it is very unlikely it ever will.
So which of the Cambrian organisms did evolution predict would be found? Which of the organisms of the Avalon explosion?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 4:09:03 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Evolution needs to do neither of these things. What in can and repeatedly does do is predict that such and such an organism or adaption must have existed and provide information as to how it can be found. More often then not evidence of such an organism or adaption is found. There are many event in natural history that are not explained fully by evolution, but none of these events invalidate the theory. Once these events are fully understood the theory will be modified as necessary to accommodate the event, or the theory will be invalidated.
The former has happen many times and is normal in science. The latter has not happened and it is very unlikely it ever will.
So which of the Cambrian organisms did evolution predict would be found? Which of the organisms of the Avalon explosion?
We will know that once the nature of these events are better understood. They did, after all, occur 500+ million years ago. In particular we need to refine the timescales and understand what environmental events might have influenced the phenomena.
There are thousands of world class scientists who would love to immortalize themselves by finding evidence that difinitivly contradicts evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 4:14:30 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
There are thousands of world class scientists who would love to immortalize themselves by finding evidence that difinitivly contradicts evolution. Frankly, it would be a whole lot more impressive if just one of these world class scientists would find any single shred evidence that supports evolution!  To refute creationism is the Holy Grail of atheism, it would seem to me.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 4:30:31 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Why just last week I theorized that a certain patient was having an unusual side effect due to a new medication. She stopped the drug, got better, then worsened again after restarting therapy. Thus my theory was proven.
Doc, that's a pretty low standard of 'proof'.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 4:51:13 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
The FDA considers it causality class "Definite". You got a problem with the Agency? 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 5:02:43 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
So what is the secular alternative to evolution that accommodates a 3 billion year biological advancement from simple single cell life forms to the great apes (leaving out the question of humanity for the moment)?
Aliens?
It can be anything you want. Evolution is based upon unprovable theory, so run with it.
All theories are unprovable. That is their nature. Gravitational theory is unprovable. The Theory of Relativity is unprovable. If either of these theories conflicted with Christian doctrine we would be having the same debate about them.
Gravitational theory and Theory of Relativity both have the added benefit of being mathematically demonstrable. Theory of Evolution has evidence that can be just as easily interpreted as being driven from an originally created ecosystem of created kinds. Natural selection is postulated to have been going on for a long time based on what one wants to believe about evidence from other fields. The theory survives because there is no naturalistic alternative, and that which is not naturalistic is considered "not science".
The Theory of Evolution survives because it meets all the requirements of a scientific theory, just as Gravity and Relativity do. It is varifiable through emperical observation and is capable of predicting future observations of the same kind.
What it is capable of predicting is: 1) mutations will lead to new, complex structures, 2) mutations and genetic regulatory functions will change existing structures, 3) natural selection will allow the best changes to survive
The last two of these observations are also compatible with ID and Creation. The one that you NEED to happen is number 1. Two and 3, however are predictions that can be made by Creationists also, since only two representatives of each kind were present on the ark. Let's not go thinking that we particularly need evolution to be successful scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 5:04:29 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
There are thousands of world class scientists who would love to immortalize themselves by finding evidence that definitively contradicts evolution. Frankly, it would be a whole lot more impressive if just one of these world class scientists would find any single shred evidence that supports evolution! To refute creationism is the Holy Grail of atheism, it would seem to me.
If you actually think there is not a single shred of evidence supporting evolution, then you haven't even performed a simple Google search or performed even the most rudimentary investigation of the subject.
Here is some middle school level information you can start with:
http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf (there will be a quiz in the morning)
Scientist have no more interest in disproving Creationism then the existence of the Great Spaghetti Monster.
What they would like to do is stop the teaching of Creationism in schools as science, or a valid scientific theory, as it is neither.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 5:15:12 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
So what is the secular alternative to evolution that accommodates a 3 billion year biological advancement from simple single cell life forms to the great apes (leaving out the question of humanity for the moment)?
Aliens?
It can be anything you want. Evolution is based upon unprovable theory, so run with it.
All theories are unprovable. That is their nature. Gravitational theory is unprovable. The Theory of Relativity is unprovable. If either of these theories conflicted with Christian doctrine we would be having the same debate about them.
Gravitational theory and Theory of Relativity both have the added benefit of being mathematically demonstrable. Theory of Evolution has evidence that can be just as easily interpreted as being driven from an originally created ecosystem of created kinds. Natural selection is postulated to have been going on for a long time based on what one wants to believe about evidence from other fields. The theory survives because there is no naturalistic alternative, and that which is not naturalistic is considered "not science".
The Theory of Evolution survives because it meets all the requirements of a scientific theory, just as Gravity and Relativity do. It is verifiable through empirical observation and is capable of predicting future observations of the same kind.
What it is capable of predicting is: 1) mutations will lead to new, complex structures, 2) mutations and genetic regulatory functions will change existing structures, 3) natural selection will allow the best changes to survive
The last two of these observations are also compatible with ID and Creation. The one that you NEED to happen is number 1. Two and 3, however are predictions that can be made by Creationists also, since only two representatives of each kind were present on the ark. Let's not go thinking that we particularly need evolution to be successful scientists.
Neither ID or Creationism are verifiable through empirical observation or experimentation. Neither ID or Creationism can predict anything. Neither ID or Creationism meet ANY of the requirements of a scientific theory.
In a purely secular world, neither "theory" would ever be proposed by serious scholars.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/16/2008 5:35:54 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
Neither ID or Creationism can predict anything.
Actually, I take that back, ID predicts everything and anything.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
