Apparently, science is dead

Discussion in 'Archive' started by Dave Matthews, Aug 27, 2006.

  1. Nefro

    Nefro Guest

    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?
     
    #41
  2. FireWall

    FireWall Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    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.
     
    #42
  3. TheNesMan

    TheNesMan Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    21,774
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent post firewall, i'm interested in seeing a rebuttal.
     
    #43
  4. FireWall

    FireWall Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #44
  5. intoTheRain

    intoTheRain Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wouldn't dare argue with you, as you'd put me in my place :lol: .. but it doesn't change what I believe :D

    I Heart Firewall
     
    #45
  6. maca2kx

    maca2kx Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
    #46

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice