JUICETIME BENEFIT - Sept 27th Club Underground $7
Chooglin'-Ouija Radio-Casanatra-Orange Blank-Country Dollar Love-Condo$-Landspeeder
CLICK TO DONATE
Topher:It's implied. Like with his post directly above yours, Newuser.
It's simply the logical conclusion from the above logic. But let's try and keep this about science at least. This has been incredibly on-topic so far and it'd really nice if it were to stay that way. There's already a philosophy/religion/theology thread for what you are talking about.
Fair enough. I'll post it in the other thread where I'm sure you'll tackle it?
G.G.:Fair enough. I'll post it in the other thread where I'm sure you'll tackle it?
I can do that I guess. Are we all done here? If you want to talk about scientific theory, it gets kinda cumbersome and inconclusive once you start bringing philosophy and religion into it and this will just degenerate into a screaming match between somebody.
I'm willing to defend scientific theories because they have demonstratable evidence and make falsifiable predictions. This is the problem with most science vs. religion debates. Religion can't stand on its own when you start beating it with science and once enough of the purely biblical accounts of earth creation are disqualified, religious proponents start diluting their arguments with topics outside of the scope of the scientific method. That's exactly what this is starting to turn into.
rost0031:I'm willing to defend scientific theories because they have demonstratable evidence and make falsifiable predictions.
Yet the scientific method does have its limits. It can only study that which is already observable by and through the human mind.
Is it so far fetched to say that the mind has not yet evolved (and the scientific method with it) to the point where we could possibly comprehend the origins of the universe?
I mean... we were convinced there were only 4 elements for quite a while there. Heck, less than 700 years ago we thought the cold was the byproduct of a microscopic life-form. Based on historical evidence of it's fallibility... to assume the scientific method has already been perfected seems just as far fetched as intelligent design, don't you think?
Folkerts:Yet the scientific method does have its limits. It can only study that which is already observable by and through the human mind.
Yes. I can't argue that.
Folkerts: Is it so far fetched to say that the mind has not yet evolved (and the scientific method with it) to the point where we could possibly comprehend the origins of the universe?
Completely unfounded statement. The method itself has shown that it's very robust and self correcting by its very definition.
Folkerts: I mean... we were convinced there were only 4 elements for quite a while there. Heck, less than 700 years ago we thought the cold was the byproduct of a microscopic life-form. Based on historical evidence of it's fallibility... to assume the scientific method has already been perfected seems just as far fetched as intelligent design, don't you think?
It can reach the wrong conclusions but they'll always be corrected once new evidence comes to light. Newton's theory of gravity was pretty bad ass until Einstein came around and proved him wrong. Based on its evidence of fallibility and self-correctness, I am able to assume that the scientific method is very mature. If you want to talk about rigid and unchanging laws, look no further than any religion. How long did it take the Catholic Church to apologize for Gallileo? Fallibility and lack of willingness to self correct. Because to admit that your religion is wrong is to admit that god is fallible.
G.G.: how come there aren't tons of skeletons of missing links all over the place? They should be considerably younger and, therefore, closer to the Earth's surface than dinosaurs, right?
how come there aren't tons of skeletons of missing links all over the place? They should be considerably younger and, therefore, closer to the Earth's surface than dinosaurs, right?
rost0031: There are and yes. A quick google search will find all this for you. I suggest avoiding obviously religious sites. Any university website will do.
There are and yes. A quick google search will find all this for you. I suggest avoiding obviously religious sites. Any university website will do.
Let's go back here for a second. The sites I checked indicate that "hobbit-like" finds of missing link bones are extremely rare. Far more rare than finding the bones of dinosaurs even though dinosaurs roamed the earth WAY before these ape/human hybrids. In fact, one of the sites suggested that its entirely possible that the "missing links" could well have been random mutants like modern-day dwarves.
Someday, maybe someone will find the bones of Shaquille O'Neal and the dude who played Mini-me. Maybe they'll draw all sorts of wild conclusions (i.e. humans were 2 feet tall or 7 feet tall and humongous). Neither assumption would be correct but it would make sense for them to draw these conclusions based on these finds especially if they found a tribe of pygmies or a busload of Phoenix Suns.
rost0031:Because to admit that your religion is wrong is to admit that god is fallible.
I think it's pretty easy to see that there's often a very serious disconnect between religion and God.
There is even a Biblical reference to this in Matthew 16:17-23. Just four verses after Jesus commissions Peter (the "first Pope") with building the church he says "You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men".
How true this is to the church / the Christian religion/right even today, wouldn't you say?
Is our religion, which was crafted and molded by man, fallible? Absolutely. This is shown by the reformation, and the continually reforming doctrine among progressive churches all over the world. Like any form of scientific study, so is the study and practice of the church evolving. Just as Einstein proved Newton wrong, some may say Martin Luther proved the Pope wrong... or that John Calvin proved Martin Luther wrong.
Ideally, a Christian will struggle with "truth" in their religious practice just as much as any scientist in a lab. Their conclusions are often wrong... but that doesn't mean that God, the source that is being studied, is fallible.
To put it in another way... you can't say that the Earth is fallible when scientists find that there are more than just 4 elements in it. Yet any Christian (I would hope) is willing to admit without a doubt that the ability of the small minds that we have (if they are evolving or not) is still no where near the place where complete comprehension of God is attainable.
G.G.: G.G.: how come there aren't tons of skeletons of missing links all over the place? They should be considerably younger and, therefore, closer to the Earth's surface than dinosaurs, right? rost0031: There are and yes. A quick google search will find all this for you. I suggest avoiding obviously religious sites. Any university website will do. Let's go back here for a second. The sites I checked indicate that "hobbit-like" finds of missing link bones are extremely rare. Far more rare than finding the bones of dinosaurs even though dinosaurs roamed the earth WAY before these ape/human hybrids. In fact, one of the sites suggested that its entirely possible that the "missing links" could well have been random mutants like modern-day dwarves. Someday, maybe someone will find the bones of Shaquille O'Neal and the dude who played Mini-me. Maybe they'll draw all sorts of wild conclusions (i.e. humans were 2 feet tall or 7 feet tall and humongous). Neither assumption would be correct but it would make sense for them to draw these conclusions based on these finds especially if they found a tribe of pygmies or a busload of Phoenix Suns.
You're looking at the wrong bones. The hobbit bones are actually a different species of humans. They just found a new set that actually indicate that they are different yet from the original hobbit bones. But if you want to see actual pre-human bones:
http://www.livescience.com/history/071129-social-relatives.html
In fact, if you click around, there is a ton of info about prehumans, humans, and the like.
How would you respond to this?
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5451
Folkerts:I think it's pretty easy to see that there's often a very serious disconnect between religion and God.There is even a Biblical reference to this in Matthew 16:17-23. Just four verses after Jesus commissions Peter (the "first Pope") with building the church he says "You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men".How true this is to the church / the Christian religion/right even today, wouldn't you say?Is our religion, which was crafted and molded by man, fallible? Absolutely. This is shown by the reformation, and the continually reforming doctrine among progressive churches all over the world. Like any form of scientific study, so is the study and practice of the church evolving. Just as Einstein proved Newton wrong, some may say Martin Luther proved the Pope wrong... or that John Calvin proved Martin Luther wrong.
How can any of them prove anybody wrong? They had nothing to back up their opinions. They just decided to go a different direction. Catholics are still around.
Folkerts: Ideally, a Christian will struggle with "truth" in their religious practice just as much as any scientist in a lab.
Ideally, a Christian will struggle with "truth" in their religious practice just as much as any scientist in a lab.
Do you realize how silly of statement that is?
Folkerts: Their conclusions are often wrong... but that doesn't mean that God, the source that is being studied, is fallible.
Their conclusions are often wrong... but that doesn't mean that God, the source that is being studied, is fallible.
Yet every account of everything he's done is being undone by science. Either he's been wrong hundreds of times or every religion based around him is based on pure fabrication.
Folkerts: To put it in another way... you can't say that the Earth is fallible when scientists find that there are more than just 4 elements in it. Yet any Christian (I would hope) is willing to admit without a doubt that the ability of the small minds that we have (if they are evolving or not) is still no where near the place where complete comprehension of God is attainable.
Can you tell me any progress made in understanding god? Measurable progress that is? That doesn't contradict somebody else's findings from a different religion? Has any other religion been shown to be more right than other religion? How do you even determine that? Is there a peer review process? How do you know if you're right? Can you make a falsifiable prediction?
G.G.:How would you respond to this? http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5451
It was pretty reasonable until the last few paragraphs. Yeah, we assume an evolutionary link. There is TONS and TONS of other evidence for it, if not for humans, then for other species. Just because you hit a snag, that's no reason to go, "Well, all these other bones are clearly put here by god". As long as there's progress being made, all's well. Look around on that lifescience link I posted.
Rost, I'm not arguing that religious study is just like the scientific method.
All I'm saying is, you can't call the subject matter of a study fallible, only the method and/or the conclusions of that study.
You said that if religion (the study of God) is fallible, then God (the subject matter of that study) is fallible. I said this statement was akin to saying that the universe is fallible if scientists (who study the universe) find another element in it.
Rost's enevitable response: "It's not a "study" at all, neither is there a "subject matter" because it doesn't exist."
And that's why this entire discussion is pointless. For the record, I'm 100% in the evolution camp and 0% in the 7-day creationist camp.
Folkerts:Rost, I'm not arguing that religious study is just like the scientific method.
You did earlier. I'm not going to be a stickler about it but you said, "just like scientist in the lab". Just sayin'.
Folkerts: All I'm saying is, you can't call the subject matter of a study fallible, only the method and/or the conclusions of that study.
Yeah, you're right. However, I believe the method is flawed as well. At least from a scientific point of view.
Folkerts: You said that if religion (the study of God) is fallible, then God (the subject matter of that study) is fallible. I said this statement was akin to saying that the universe is fallible if scientists (who study the universe) find another element in it.
I concede that point. You're right.
Folkerts: Rost's enevitable response: "It's not a "study" at all, neither is there a "subject matter" because it doesn't exist."
Nah, I'll be fair about it regardless of what I don't believe.
Folkerts: And that's why this entire discussion is pointless. For the record, I'm 100% in the evolution camp and 0% in the 7-day creationist camp.
You're a rare breed these days. I'm fine with the concept of god as long as it's the kind that just set up the laws of physics and set everything off and now doesn't do anything (observable). Unfortunately, people keep trying to inject religion into science and get mad that their "studies" about evolution get laughed at. Or they keep trying to get it to be taught in classrooms. This will make our kids dumber than they already are and they are pretty dumb.
I wouldn't say I'm a "rare breed". I just think the dying star that is 7-day creationism is just a little more visible right now considering its enevitable collapse.
And the "just like a scientist in a lab" thing, was simply pointing to the work load every theologian puts on him/herself. There is a method to the seeming madness that you may not be entirely familiar with. You don't become a Biblical "scholar" just by going to church every Sunday.
Let the record show that I'm not a seven (literal) day Creationist either but I do believe that God is and that He directly involves himself in our world. (i.e. He's not an impartial observer) BUT I think when He DIRECTLY affects the world around us, it miraculous and not something that happens all the time. In other words, when a person reaps what he has sown, I don't think its God directly doling out recompense or reward but, rather, the system He has implemented functioning according to the way He built it to function.
G.G.:Let the record show that I'm not a seven (literal) day Creationist either but I do believe that God is
Let the record show that I'm not a seven (literal) day Creationist either but I do believe that God is
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Folkerts: G.G.:Let the record show that I'm not a seven (literal) day Creationist either but I do believe that God is ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Congratulations. Welcome to evolution.