..........Science is not a faith, not a belief system......
It is a fact that "Scientists" DO NOT understand the fundamental nature of the universe.
Also, you MUST accept by faith to know truly what you do not understand fully.
(Also, I'm not going to sit here are tell sillybobsky, et al, that they are not doing important, eye-glazing, mind-bending work. I respect those efforts in academia.)
epistimologically you don't need a belief to know what you do not know or understand. we are capable of realizing things we do not understand without having faith in that we don't know it. take for instance the following phrase which most people on this board wouldn't understand: alpha helices are the preferred secondary structure of transmembrane peptides. I take that fact from experimental evidence, but to many people reading it it could just seem like i took a random set of words and combined them making up something completely arbitrary like: beta sheets rarely contain proline (there is a joke in here, ah its good to have a scientific vocab...). you do not have to take it on faith that my statements are true to realize you do not understand them.
furthermore, it has been proven mathematically that we can never know all of math and by extension science. this is a proof and not a belief...
If you're referring to Godel's proof, it's more accurately stated that no system of assumptions and logic can prove *itself*... the assumptions (axioms) cannot be proven by the system which is based on those assumptions.
This seems pretty obvious to most people - if you assume A, you can't *prove* A... you assumed it in the first place.
Which kind of throws a monkey wrench in the works of proving God if you assume His existence in the first place. :P
It is a fact that "Scientists" DO NOT understand the fundamental nature of the universe.
Also, you MUST accept by faith to know truly what you do not understand fully.
(Also, I'm not going to sit here are tell sillybobsky, et al, that they are not doing important, eye-glazing, mind-bending work. I respect those efforts in academia.)
First off, thanks for being such a good sport (bunching bag) in helping to keep this fun thread going!
Now, duck here come some more punches:
Obviously, we don't know all aspects of the Universe, but we know a lot more than we did just 100 years ago. No one person can from first principles prove to themselves that what the totality of humanity has discovered is true and correct. We scientists work in our little corners. You may refer to this as faith, and evidence that we rationally minded folks are accepting things based on assumptions and scientific dogma. I disagree since I beleive in the methods that have been used to discover these truths. Sure scientists do get caught up in dogmas, but most scientists I know would love to completely trash a good dogma given a chance- it would likely lead to a good Nature paper. You see, in the long run scientists are always trying to get the better of each other, it keeps us honest. That is why I beleive it when the astronomers tell me that the Universe is going to come to an end in a big crunch, and then when they tell me that maybe they were wrong because they miscalculated the weight of the Universe.
Now, I ask you how can there be a global flood causing an ice age. There is just not that much water. Maybe a flood when the Mediteranean Sea burst the banks of the Black Sea, but the World?? If you respect the efforts of academics, then doesn't that suggest that maybe you even believe a little of it? We're not just trying to make up and use fancy words, we are trying to understand the history and future of the Universe. The Universe is the book we are trying to read. I beleive the answers are far more likley to come from that effort than from the study of a Book written and re-written thousands of years ago by ignorant people trying to forment revolutions and yield power of the populace. So much of the Bible is outright wrong or outdated. I wouldn't trust it much for any kinds of historic details and I certainly have never put my faith in it.
You've ignored five of my posts now. Five of them.
Now I can reasonably not expect a reply I can quite quite safely call you 'chickenshit'.
I've seen this before from Biblebashers (as a loose catch-all) before right here on these boards so I can't say that this comes as a surprise.
Should you grow testicles, I'd welcome the debate. Until then, I wouldn't call billybobsky 'sillybobsky' when he gets the upper hand if I were you. It lessens the (already hilariously slight) gravity of your argument, and you need all the dignity you can get.
The Genesis account does not say that the Sun and the planets revolve around the Earth. That was a superstition held to by the religious nuts that had it in for Galileo.
If you're going to ridicule the Creationist account at least stick to Genesis.
You are right it just say that earth is the center of universe, that in an humancentric point of vue is true. But because the earth is the center of the universe, everything is then turning around her.
Sea levels would decrease in an ice age, not increase.
After a flood, not before. If there were a global flood, it provides a solution to the causes of an Ice Age. There is good deal of argument in academia over workable conditions that cause, sustain, and then end an Ice Age.
Herald:
.....on the Mars thing....I'm not altogether sure why certain molecules are allowed on Mars and some are not.
It is a fact that "Scientists" DO NOT understand the fundamental nature of the universe.
Which is why we *do* science in the first place. We will never know all there is to know about Life, the Universe, and Everything, and science or scientists never claimed to in the first place. The role of science is to find out why things are the way they are by providing the best possible, unbiased answer that accounts for all of the collected evidence.
This is the fundamental problem that Biblical Science (Creationism, Intelligent Design, Flood Geology) faces. It already carries with it a built-in bias. That's not to say that science is innocent in that regard -- like any agency of man, science is not 100% infallible. But scientists know that and acknowledge that. That's why there's so much emphasis on Peer Review in the professional literature, and why there's so much debate between theories in science (which outsiders mistakenly see as "abandonment" of a theory).
Biblical Science doesn't seem to understand that, sadly enough. Science doesn't make any claim to absolute truth -- Biblical Science implicitly (or explicitly, as in researchers like Gish and Morris) does.
Quote:
Also, you MUST accept by faith to know truly what you do not understand fully.
If you're talking about religion, yes. I don't understand God, or Christ. Yet I believe in them both.
If you're talking about science, most definitely not. In science, if you don't understand something fully, you do more work on it, or check your results with someone who has.
huh? Although I think I know what you are trying to say, I think you have over-reached a bit. I guess it depends on your definition of metaphysical, but the scientific method is limited to things that can be measured and tested. Metaphysics and God, in most of His forms, are beyond science. Offcourse our ability to measure the Universe around has expanded greatly from the subatomic to nearly being able to view the beginnings of time-I guess this is what you were getting at.
I'm merely suggesting that because metaphysics is concerned with the nature of reality (and I'm thinking of Aristotle and Plato here, not Kant), science necessarily emerges out of that same impulse, which is simply the belief that there is more to a thing than what can be seen.
This is going to make me really unpopular on this thread, but we should also admit a few things about science. Human history is in large part a series of shifts between acceptable ways of explaining the nature of the reality. For the last 200-odd years science has been privileged. In addition, the notion of what can be "tested," the facticity of fact, and what constitutes "proof" keep changing.
dmz appears to have me on 'ignore'. Could someone please reply to my posts quoting their content? Better still, could someone just reply and copy and paste what I said pretending it's from them?
dmz appears to have me on 'ignore'. Could someone please reply to my posts quoting their content? Better still, could someone just reply and copy and paste what I said pretending it's from them?
It's not worth it. Really. Seriously.
But then, I'm more interested in the debate about science as another form of metaphysics.
After a flood, not before. If there were a global flood, it provides a solution to the causes of an Ice Age. There is good deal of argument in academia over workable conditions that cause, sustain, and then end an Ice Age.
Ice caps lock up water. Sea levels decrease during an Ice Age.
Could someone point this out? Harald? (Be polite.)
Comments
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
..........Science is not a faith, not a belief system......
It is a fact that "Scientists" DO NOT understand the fundamental nature of the universe.
Also, you MUST accept by faith to know truly what you do not understand fully.
(Also, I'm not going to sit here are tell sillybobsky, et al, that they are not doing important, eye-glazing, mind-bending work. I respect those efforts in academia.)
Originally posted by dmz
It is a fact that "Scientists" DO NOT understand the fundamental nature of the universe.
And rational 'scientists' don't claim to.
Also, you MUST accept by faith to know truly what you do not understand fully.
Example?
furthermore, it has been proven mathematically that we can never know all of math and by extension science. this is a proof and not a belief...
This seems pretty obvious to most people - if you assume A, you can't *prove* A... you assumed it in the first place.
Which kind of throws a monkey wrench in the works of proving God if you assume His existence in the first place. :P
Originally posted by dmz
It is a fact that "Scientists" DO NOT understand the fundamental nature of the universe.
Also, you MUST accept by faith to know truly what you do not understand fully.
(Also, I'm not going to sit here are tell sillybobsky, et al, that they are not doing important, eye-glazing, mind-bending work. I respect those efforts in academia.)
First off, thanks for being such a good sport (bunching bag) in helping to keep this fun thread going!
Now, duck here come some more punches:
Obviously, we don't know all aspects of the Universe, but we know a lot more than we did just 100 years ago. No one person can from first principles prove to themselves that what the totality of humanity has discovered is true and correct. We scientists work in our little corners. You may refer to this as faith, and evidence that we rationally minded folks are accepting things based on assumptions and scientific dogma. I disagree since I beleive in the methods that have been used to discover these truths. Sure scientists do get caught up in dogmas, but most scientists I know would love to completely trash a good dogma given a chance- it would likely lead to a good Nature paper. You see, in the long run scientists are always trying to get the better of each other, it keeps us honest. That is why I beleive it when the astronomers tell me that the Universe is going to come to an end in a big crunch, and then when they tell me that maybe they were wrong because they miscalculated the weight of the Universe.
Now, I ask you how can there be a global flood causing an ice age. There is just not that much water. Maybe a flood when the Mediteranean Sea burst the banks of the Black Sea, but the World?? If you respect the efforts of academics, then doesn't that suggest that maybe you even believe a little of it? We're not just trying to make up and use fancy words, we are trying to understand the history and future of the Universe. The Universe is the book we are trying to read. I beleive the answers are far more likley to come from that effort than from the study of a Book written and re-written thousands of years ago by ignorant people trying to forment revolutions and yield power of the populace. So much of the Bible is outright wrong or outdated. I wouldn't trust it much for any kinds of historic details and I certainly have never put my faith in it.
You've ignored five of my posts now. Five of them.
Now I can reasonably not expect a reply I can quite quite safely call you 'chickenshit'.
I've seen this before from Biblebashers (as a loose catch-all) before right here on these boards so I can't say that this comes as a surprise.
Should you grow testicles, I'd welcome the debate. Until then, I wouldn't call billybobsky 'sillybobsky' when he gets the upper hand if I were you. It lessens the (already hilariously slight) gravity of your argument, and you need all the dignity you can get.
Originally posted by Frank777
No Powerdoc, they aren't.
The Genesis account does not say that the Sun and the planets revolve around the Earth. That was a superstition held to by the religious nuts that had it in for Galileo.
If you're going to ridicule the Creationist account at least stick to Genesis.
You are right it just say that earth is the center of universe, that in an humancentric point of vue is true. But because the earth is the center of the universe, everything is then turning around her.
One time more, and this thread will be closed.
Do you really expect honest discussion from someone making the arguments he is?
One more thing, if a global flood provides a workable solution to a recent Ice Age---why not investigate?
Sea levels would decrease in an ice age, not increase.
MARS.
IF YOU PLEASE.
Originally posted by groverat
Hassan:
Do you really expect honest discussion from someone making the arguments he is?
Dude. If he or she thinks those arguments are defensible he or she can defend them.
Originally posted by Stoo
Sea levels would decrease in an ice age, not increase.
After a flood, not before. If there were a global flood, it provides a solution to the causes of an Ice Age. There is good deal of argument in academia over workable conditions that cause, sustain, and then end an Ice Age.
Herald:
.....on the Mars thing....I'm not altogether sure why certain molecules are allowed on Mars and some are not.
Originally posted by dmz
It is a fact that "Scientists" DO NOT understand the fundamental nature of the universe.
Which is why we *do* science in the first place. We will never know all there is to know about Life, the Universe, and Everything, and science or scientists never claimed to in the first place. The role of science is to find out why things are the way they are by providing the best possible, unbiased answer that accounts for all of the collected evidence.
This is the fundamental problem that Biblical Science (Creationism, Intelligent Design, Flood Geology) faces. It already carries with it a built-in bias. That's not to say that science is innocent in that regard -- like any agency of man, science is not 100% infallible. But scientists know that and acknowledge that. That's why there's so much emphasis on Peer Review in the professional literature, and why there's so much debate between theories in science (which outsiders mistakenly see as "abandonment" of a theory).
Biblical Science doesn't seem to understand that, sadly enough. Science doesn't make any claim to absolute truth -- Biblical Science implicitly (or explicitly, as in researchers like Gish and Morris) does.
Also, you MUST accept by faith to know truly what you do not understand fully.
If you're talking about religion, yes. I don't understand God, or Christ. Yet I believe in them both.
If you're talking about science, most definitely not. In science, if you don't understand something fully, you do more work on it, or check your results with someone who has.
There is a difference.
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
huh? Although I think I know what you are trying to say, I think you have over-reached a bit. I guess it depends on your definition of metaphysical, but the scientific method is limited to things that can be measured and tested. Metaphysics and God, in most of His forms, are beyond science. Offcourse our ability to measure the Universe around has expanded greatly from the subatomic to nearly being able to view the beginnings of time-I guess this is what you were getting at.
I'm merely suggesting that because metaphysics is concerned with the nature of reality (and I'm thinking of Aristotle and Plato here, not Kant), science necessarily emerges out of that same impulse, which is simply the belief that there is more to a thing than what can be seen.
This is going to make me really unpopular on this thread, but we should also admit a few things about science. Human history is in large part a series of shifts between acceptable ways of explaining the nature of the reality. For the last 200-odd years science has been privileged. In addition, the notion of what can be "tested," the facticity of fact, and what constitutes "proof" keep changing.
Anyway. Just stoking the fire a little.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
dmz appears to have me on 'ignore'. Could someone please reply to my posts quoting their content? Better still, could someone just reply and copy and paste what I said pretending it's from them?
It's not worth it. Really. Seriously.
But then, I'm more interested in the debate about science as another form of metaphysics.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by dmz
After a flood, not before. If there were a global flood, it provides a solution to the causes of an Ice Age. There is good deal of argument in academia over workable conditions that cause, sustain, and then end an Ice Age.
Ice caps lock up water. Sea levels decrease during an Ice Age.
Could someone point this out? Harald? (Be polite.)