Apparently, science is dead

[Nefro]

Well, the whole point of getting to heaven through finding salvation through Jesus Christ would be pretty pointless if everybody knew that God existed and that they should follow the teachings of Jesus, wouldn't it?

 

[FireWall]

Which is interesting. But hasn't religion also done that. Martin Luther being the most prominant of the people to go "Hold fire - I don't think this is right." But then you also have Henry 8th. But that was more a "I don't like it, lets change it." Almost like a scientist changing the results to suit his needs if we are to draw parallels.

No, not "almost like a scientist changing the results to suit his needs." Religions change because normative ideas change; theories and hypotheses change because experimental results spark new problems. There is a stark textural distinction between the former and the latter.

Are you sure? Scientists need people to believe them. If you don't have people believing that scientists are right then what can the scientists do exactly? They still have to convince people that their developments and findings are beneficial to be accepted by the population. Religion has been around far longer than the concept of 'science' so it has a head start. The argument now is that Science has to convince Religion that it has some basis in fact.

Actually, I take back what I said earlier: specifically, that science does not require faith. It is important to understand that experimental science does not seek to "prove"; indeed, the basis of the philosophy of science is that it is impossible to draw an infinite number of conclusions from a finite quantity of experimental data. Nevertheless, scientific theories are incredibly sound because they require a multitude of supportive evidence. Consequently, religious faith is profoundly different than scientific faith; the former does not rely on facts, and the latter does. In the final analysis, therefore, the basis of science will always be cushioned by the irrefutability of verifiable facts, and the same cannot be said about religion, which is dependent on cultural dynamics.

 

[TheNesMan]

Excellent post firewall, i'm interested in seeing a rebuttal.

 

[FireWall]

As far as the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is concerned, I have a few points:

Science is based on both empiricism and deduction, and the former is not superior to the latter. Consider, e.g., subatomic particles: it is impossible to empirically verify that they exist, but we know that they do because there is a prodigious quantity of evidence that implies their existence. In other words, scientists cannot observe subatomic particles in atoms; deduction from other evidence is the only option. However, it would be naive to deny that subatomic particles exist.

Similarly, there is no empirical evidence that macroevolution occurs because it is presently impossible to empirically verify the progression of organisms through enormous spans of time. However, through other kinds of evidence (e.g., fossilized biological remains), it is possible to deduce that speciation occurs.

Also, I appreciate the support from those of you who complimented me.

 

[intoTheRain]

As far as the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is concerned, I have a few points:

Science is based on both empiricism and deduction, and the former is not superior to the latter. Consider, e.g., subatomic particles: it is impossible to empirically verify that they exist, but we know that they do because there is a prodigious quantity of evidence that implies their existence. In other words, scientists cannot observe subatomic particles in atoms; deduction from other evidence is the only option. However, it would be naive to deny that subatomic particles exist.

Similarly, there is no empirical evidence that macroevolution occurs because it is presently impossible to empirically verify the progression of organisms through enormous spans of time. However, through other kinds of evidence (e.g., fossilized biological remains), it is possible to deduce that speciation occurs.

Also, I appreciate the support from those of you who complimented me.

I wouldn't dare argue with you, as you'd put me in my place :lol: .. but it doesn't change what I believe

I Heart Firewall

 

[maca2kx]

"Adaptation becomes evolution when successful traits manifested from superior genes are continued on due to the extended survival of the 'owner' of the stronger genes"

That's exactly what happens when pesticides are used for farming. The majority of the pests are killed, but the ones that aren't are the ones that carry on their genes to their children, so the children are then immune from the pesticide. I never thought about it as evolution until i read what you wrote.

Ok I'll change that slightly:

"Adaptation becomes evolution when successful traits manifested from superior genes are continued on due to the extended survival of the 'owner' of the stronger genes to such an extent that the continued genetic line can be considered a separate species to the genetic lines that have remained unchanged and this can be determined by seeing if a member from each group can successfully mate and produce fertile offspring."

Sam