First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Religion vs. Science is a Myth
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/27/08 , edited 7/28/08
The flawed assumption that most people make about the topic is that they are somehow fundamentally opposed, like dark and light. The point of the OP is to dispel such notions.

This is not my post. This is from the Thought-Provoking Discussion Forum of a competitive gaming league website and written by a member called Red_X_Thirteen:


I think you may be confusing science's assumptions with ontological or Metyphysical Naturalism, which makes the bold claim that there is no supernatural and that only the natural exists. While this might be an interesting philosophical position, it does not reflect what scientists are doing and what you're accusing science to be. Scientists practice Methodological Naturalism, where they use naturalistic assumptions to understand the world, but make no philosophical commitment as to whether the supernatural exists or not. Scientists don't exclude deities from their hypotheses because they're inherently atheistic or unwilling to consider the existence of God; they simply cannot put supernatural events in their hypotheses.

You may ask yourself, "why not?"
It is because these kinds of hypotheses, when introduced with the supernatural, have no way of being falsified or tested. The Omphalos Hypothesis, which said that God created everything to look as if it had a history and made life to look as if it had evolved, but in reality, the world was created quite recently. Now when you think of science, after a hypothesis has been created, it must be testable and falsifiable, or at least lead to some predictions, in order for it to be science.(Karl Popper: Logic of Science, 1935) If there is no way to test a hypothesis, then it can never be supported or rejected by evidence, but in two different ways. It can't be supported because the Omphalos Hypothesis is so inherently concurrent with reality that the only thing it was missing was the untestable creator to begin with, its like Bertrand Russel's Last Thursdayism. It can't be rejected, because no amount of evidence would ever be able to falsify it(unfalsifiable), because whatever evidence a scientists finds, such as radioactive decay, can just be refuted by saying God just made it look as if the radioactive isotopes had decayed. So, if the hypothesis is untestable and unfalsifiable, then it has left the realm of science. Same goes for creation science or I.D., whatever you want to call it, in the realm of science, its untestable and unfalsifiable, thus its not science. It may be a good explanation for someone who wants to believe that, and that's fine, just don't call it science.

Now, an idea as strange as Omphalos didn't go over well with religious people at the time(1857), anyway, because it implies that God created a fake world and makes God into a deceiver, not a benevolent deity. Christians and atheists alike looked at it and laughed, and threw it away. Believer, Charles Kingsley, remarked on the idea, "I can not believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous superfluous lie."

But the deities aren't the only exclusion made when you don't allow for supernatural hypotheses. Parapsychology, ESP, alchemy, phrenology, and astrology all fail to meet the standards of scientific methodology.(Isaak, 2006) The supernatural isn't being unfairly excluded, it just fails the test of science and must be rejected as not science, unscientific, or pseudoscience.

Now, you and your creation science say that the assumptions of science, and the theory of evolution, lead to the idea that there is no god, which horridly confuses metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism, and in fact does not. Well, perhaps the deity of a fundamentalist born-again, but not the deity of theistic evolutionists, who are willing to say that God used evolution as his tool to modify nature. Nor does it conflict with the Deistic view(the view of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and other founding fathers), which claims that God created the universe long ago, but no longer interferes with his creation. In addition, many religious believers view god as a universal life force or mystic unity, not the omni-max old man that interacts with the world. In accordance with your assertions, all these people, including the founding fathers, are virtual atheists.(Prothero, 2007) Apparently if they don't believe in your specific interpretation of God, then they must take the position of no god, all together.

Science takes no stance on the supernatural or metaphysical questions, not because it makes the assumption that it doesn't exist(metaphysical naturalism), but because its not a question of science. Once you allow supernatural explanations, it stops becoming useful science, and does not follow the scientific method, once it does(being why they practice methodological naturalism), because it fails to make any useful predictions, cannot be tested, and thus fails science’s foundational test of falsifiability.




There you go. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. THE MORE YOU KNOW...

EDIT: The reason I'm posting this is because I'm sick of people thinking religion and science must be entirely separate. You can use science either in defense of religion or as evidence against it, but by no means is it the complete opposite of the other.
Posted 7/27/08
I agree.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/27/08
I LOVE YOU

totally agree.
Posted 7/27/08
dats is some annoyingly long text!
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/27/08

zendude wrote:

From a competitive gaming league forum? "LAWL"

Anyways, nice post.


It's the best place where I can have thought-provoking discussion that's not exclusively devoted to it, like Free2Think or other websites. Plus I do compete for money.
5103 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / it's all in your...
Offline
Posted 7/28/08
Religion and science may be like oil and water if you think about its foundations generally. Even so, there are similarities regarding on some of their principles. In which case, I would greatly commend your post. It was a refreshing and good read.

It is true that the body of science doesn't disregard the assumption of deities responsible for creation. In fact, these religious beliefs serve as a basis for numerous scientific conquests.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/28/08

leviathan343 wrote:

The flawed assumption that most people make about the topic is that they are somehow fundamentally opposed, like dark and light. The point of the OP is to dispel such notions.

This is not my post. This is from the Thought-Provoking Discussion Forum of a competitive gaming league website and written by a member called Red_X_Thirteen:


I think you may be confusing science's assumptions with ontological or Metyphysical Naturalism, which makes the bold claim that there is no supernatural and that only the natural exists. While this might be an interesting philosophical position, it does not reflect what scientists are doing and what you're accusing science to be. Scientists practice Methodological Naturalism, where they use naturalistic assumptions to understand the world, but make no philosophical commitment as to whether the supernatural exists or not. Scientists don't exclude deities from their hypotheses because they're inherently atheistic or unwilling to consider the existence of God; they simply cannot put supernatural events in their hypotheses.

You may ask yourself, "why not?"
It is because these kinds of hypotheses, when introduced with the supernatural, have no way of being falsified or tested. The Omphalos Hypothesis, which said that God created everything to look as if it had a history and made life to look as if it had evolved, but in reality, the world was created quite recently. Now when you think of science, after a hypothesis has been created, it must be testable and falsifiable, or at least lead to some predictions, in order for it to be science.(Karl Popper: Logic of Science, 1935) If there is no way to test a hypothesis, then it can never be supported or rejected by evidence, but in two different ways. It can't be supported because the Omphalos Hypothesis is so inherently concurrent with reality that the only thing it was missing was the untestable creator to begin with, its like Bertrand Russel's Last Thursdayism. It can't be rejected, because no amount of evidence would ever be able to falsify it(unfalsifiable), because whatever evidence a scientists finds, such as radioactive decay, can just be refuted by saying God just made it look as if the radioactive isotopes had decayed. So, if the hypothesis is untestable and unfalsifiable, then it has left the realm of science. Same goes for creation science or I.D., whatever you want to call it, in the realm of science, its untestable and unfalsifiable, thus its not science. It may be a good explanation for someone who wants to believe that, and that's fine, just don't call it science.

Now, an idea as strange as Omphalos didn't go over well with religious people at the time(1857), anyway, because it implies that God created a fake world and makes God into a deceiver, not a benevolent deity. Christians and atheists alike looked at it and laughed, and threw it away. Believer, Charles Kingsley, remarked on the idea, "I can not believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous superfluous lie."

But the deities aren't the only exclusion made when you don't allow for supernatural hypotheses. Parapsychology, ESP, alchemy, phrenology, and astrology all fail to meet the standards of scientific methodology.(Isaak, 2006) The supernatural isn't being unfairly excluded, it just fails the test of science and must be rejected as not science, unscientific, or pseudoscience.

Now, you and your creation science say that the assumptions of science, and the theory of evolution, lead to the idea that there is no god, which horridly confuses metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism, and in fact does not. Well, perhaps the deity of a fundamentalist born-again, but not the deity of theistic evolutionists, who are willing to say that God used evolution as his tool to modify nature. Nor does it conflict with the Deistic view(the view of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and other founding fathers), which claims that God created the universe long ago, but no longer interferes with his creation. In addition, many religious believers view god as a universal life force or mystic unity, not the omni-max old man that interacts with the world. In accordance with your assertions, all these people, including the founding fathers, are virtual atheists.(Prothero, 2007) Apparently if they don't believe in your specific interpretation of God, then they must take the position of no god, all together.

Science takes no stance on the supernatural or metaphysical questions, not because it makes the assumption that it doesn't exist(metaphysical naturalism), but because its not a question of science. Once you allow supernatural explanations, it stops becoming useful science, and does not follow the scientific method, once it does(being why they practice methodological naturalism), because it fails to make any useful predictions, cannot be tested, and thus fails science’s foundational test of falsifiability.




There you go. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. THE MORE YOU KNOW...


This is not over. I'll be back. I'm simply doing a bit of background work. You've haven't won, all you've shown is that you're a confused misguided ignoramus. Later
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/28/08

leviathan343 wrote:


zendude wrote:

From a competitive gaming league forum? "LAWL"

Anyways, nice post.


It's the best place where I can have thought-provoking discussion that's not exclusively devoted to it, like Free2Think or other websites. Plus I do compete for money.


This is a continuation from where actually left off.
Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. Take a look at Darwin’s observation of the changes in finches. Isolated in the Galapagos Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks than those found off the island. His assumption was that evolution was changing this species. However, these finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18 year study of the finches on this island. He concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food. We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.

Therefore the presence of micro evolution does not offer irrefutable proof of the presence macro-evolution. You ignoramus. Now please STOP EMBARASSING YOURSELF.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/28/08 , edited 7/28/08


hmmm? I think you confuse yourself with lamarck theory of evolution (even though you give example with darwin's example). You only prove lamarck is wrong. NICE... congratulation. if you were to live hundreds years ago, you would be darwin's supporter.
For your next reading please read :
1. everything about speciation.
2. Hardy Weinberg Law
3. Ronald A Fisher's theorem
4. Sewal Wright's Theorem
5. John Burdon Sanderson Haldane's theorem (I think he created law of biology too)

Let's see your comment after reading this revolutionary biology (don't only read the popular biology) If you had, let's talk about it as I am also learning this stuff

Peace

2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/28/08

Narc_7 wrote:

This is not over. I'll be back. I'm simply doing a bit of background work. You've haven't won, all you've shown is that you're a confused misguided ignoramus. Later


LOL. Call me an ignoramus after you actually present an argument with weight to it. I doubt you even understand the post.
16324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bangalore,India
Offline
Posted 7/28/08
i honestly admit to not following a word here. Can anybody summarize?
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/28/08

h4x0rz wrote:

i honestly admit to not following a word here. Can anybody summarize?


science never study God, as there is no way to experiment on "God". So, Science takes neutral position on God, and only excluded God in the study. Not denying it.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/28/08 , edited 7/28/08

Narc_7 wrote:

This is a continuation from where actually left off.
Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.


Ahem. The fact that God created all animals and plants in the beginning of time doesn't go against evolution? The idea that humans are entirely separate beings from other primates and other animals in general doesn't defy the theory of evolution?

I suppose the sun stopping in the middle of the sky for an entire day doesn't exactly go against all scientific knowledge about Earth and the solar system. Or the fact that multiple people was resurrected from the dead. Nice try though.

Add in the fact that evolution doesn't attempt to show the origins of life at all, but merely attempts to describe changes in life over time, and this part of the post fails entirely.


Narc_7 wrote:
The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.


Uh, read my other post on the fallacy of defining 'transitional forms'. Not to mention, there are transitional forms.


Narc_7 wrote:
Therefore the presence of micro evolution does not offer irrefutable proof of the presence macro-evolution. You ignoramus. Now please STOP EMBARASSING YOURSELF.


One, this argument is in the wrong thread genius boy. Second, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. If there was, theories would be dogmatic as Catholic theology. Luckily, we see it fit to alter theories according to the evidence and not the other way around. Which is why quantum mechanics and relativity can be accepted by the scientific community; because the evidence suggests it. Stop called people ignoramuses when you clearly know nothing about the subject you criticize so passionately.

P.S. If you copy and paste an argument, have the decency to alert other people to it. You know, like this (your site):

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

The fact that you're the most blatant plagiarist I've ever seen makes me lose the little respect I had for you before.
16324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bangalore,India
Offline
Posted 7/28/08

leviathan343 wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:

This is a continuation from where actually left off.
Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.


Ahem. The fact that God created all animals and plants in the beginning of time doesn't go against evolution? The idea that humans are entirely separate beings from other primates and other animals in general doesn't defy the theory of evolution?

I suppose the sun stopping in the middle of the sky for an entire day doesn't exactly go against all scientific knowledge about Earth and the solar system. Or the fact that multiple people was resurrected from the dead. Nice try though.

Add in the fact that evolution doesn't attempt to show the origins of life at all, but merely attempts to describe changes in life over time, and this part of the post fails entirely.


Narc_7 wrote:
The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.


Uh, read my other post on the fallacy of defining 'transitional forms'. Not to mention, there are transitional forms.


Narc_7 wrote:
Therefore the presence of micro evolution does not offer irrefutable proof of the presence macro-evolution. You ignoramus. Now please STOP EMBARASSING YOURSELF.


One, this argument is in the wrong thread genius boy. Second, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. If there was, theories would be dogmatic as Catholic theology. Luckily, we see it fit to alter theories according to the evidence and not the other way around. Which is why quantum mechanics and relativity can be accepted by the scientific community; because the evidence suggests it. Stop called people ignoramuses when you clearly know nothing about the subject you criticize so passionately.

P.S. If you copy and paste an argument, have the decency to alert other people to it. You know, like this (your site):

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

The fact that you're the most blatant plagiarist I've ever seen makes me lose the little respect I had for you before.


Nice. It never occurred to me to Google Extended Discussion's arguments before ....
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/28/08

leviathan343 wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:

This is a continuation from where actually left off.
Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.


Ahem. The fact that God created all animals and plants in the beginning of time doesn't go against evolution? The idea that humans are entirely separate beings from other primates and other animals in general doesn't defy the theory of evolution?

I suppose the sun stopping in the middle of the sky for an entire day doesn't exactly go against all scientific knowledge about Earth and the solar system. Or the fact that multiple people was resurrected from the dead. Nice try though.

Add in the fact that evolution doesn't attempt to show the origins of life at all, but merely attempts to describe changes in life over time, and this part of the post fails entirely.


Narc_7 wrote:
The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.


Uh, read my other post on the fallacy of defining 'transitional forms'. Not to mention, there are transitional forms.


Narc_7 wrote:
Therefore the presence of micro evolution does not offer irrefutable proof of the presence macro-evolution. You ignoramus. Now please STOP EMBARASSING YOURSELF.


One, this argument is in the wrong thread genius boy. Second, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. If there was, theories would be dogmatic as Catholic theology. Luckily, we see it fit to alter theories according to the evidence and not the other way around. Which is why quantum mechanics and relativity can be accepted by the scientific community; because the evidence suggests it. Stop called people ignoramuses when you clearly know nothing about the subject you criticize so passionately.

P.S. If you copy and paste an argument, have the decency to alert other people to it. You know, like this (your site):

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

The fact that you're the most blatant plagiarist I've ever seen makes me lose the little respect I had for you before.


My apologies for the plagiarism. You have all failed to prove that evolution (Macro) exists. At this particular point in time as I stated earlier it requires more faith to accept evolution as opposed to biblical creation. But very impressive effort but you take this thing why too too .............passionately. Its at the end of the day more or less a triviality and people there's no need to be unkind
Are you all die hard atheists or agnostics? Yo leviathan theories, you misinterpret, once theories posses irrefutable evidence then they become a fact but if there is the absence of irrefutable evidence (which consequently is what evolution lacks fundamentally) it remains a theory.Genius.
But serious calm down and try not to get unnecessarily passionate about this argument because it is fundamentally opinionated.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.