In science we end with a conclusion In faith we start with 1

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Couldn't fit the title in. This is off my blog a while back and I thought I'd posted it here but I discovered I hadn't, so here we go:

In science, we end with a conclusion. In faith, we start with one.

In science, all the information and evidence is gathered, and then a conclusion is made.
`
In subjects such as God, heaven and, I am sad to say, evolution, people start with a conclusion, and then gather evidence to back up their belief. This is an extremely biased method, as we will ommit information that is condridictory to our conclusion, and will miss information that will undermine it.
`
The famous Edward de Bono says that debate is actually a rather primitive way of exploring an idea. If the defensive layer has some information that is vital to the case, but helps the opposing side, will he/she bring it forth? Or course no.
`
It is exactly the same in belief.
`
You may argue that both sides come up with all the evidence when it is all put together, which may indeed be true, but there is a vital flaw. You are far less likely to listen to accept information that is given to you by a person who is your enemy, than if you come up with it yourself. Indeed, we are all too busy screaming out support for our views that we don't listen to what others are saying, and in the end, nothing is gained. Nobody is richer in knowledge or wisedom.
`
We need all the information in order to make a conclusion.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,555 • Replies: 43

No top replies

yeah, and in science, a "conclusion" means: "great job. now publish, and keep looking!"

with faith, it means "close your eyes."

not always true, i'm quick to point out.

but we were talking about the place where science and faith bleed together, and "closing your eyes" would seem to be the only act of faith there.

0 Replies

Maybe you didnt mean it to sound this way but,I dont know where you come up with the conclusion that evolution starts with a conclusion. The theory has been re assessed and renewed from new data for over 100 years.
Its the responsibility of the student to "catch up" with what has been discovered before. Not the responsibility of science to "start over fresh" with each discourse.

If you feel that evolution has been a conclusion searching for evidence , its more likely that the person posing that belief is either
1too lazy to go back and learn the foundations of the evidence
or
2Its a religious POV where the religion cannot afford to lose control of Biblical inerrancy.

Im not surprised at the level of ignorance that is presented by those who believe that evolution is a conclusion, the science is often dull and arcane. However, it is there. Unlike Creationism or "God centered" science, where NO EVIDENCE EXISTS AT ALL.

Kind of a major discrepency no?

Ignorance parading as a valid scientific principle is sad. SCience is always self correcting. How come the same doesnt occur in religious inquiries in science

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

. . .Ignorance parading as a valid scientific principle is sad. SCience is always self correcting. How come the same doesnt occur in religious inquiries in science

Good question.

OF course, science is not always self correcting.

0 Replies

eventually it is. I cant think of any times when it hasnt

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

eventually it is. I cant think of any times when it hasnt

In time . . . ?

The truth will always out.

0 Replies

As far as I'm aware, no scientist has yet been able to produce evidence of anything other than say, a bird evolving into another species of similar bird.

That a dog can become a cat (etc etc) still needs to be taken on faith.

It started with an observation, and a law of nature, came to a conclusion, and has been looking for evidence ever since to show that a chimp (or some ape/monkey) did in fact become a human. It hasn't yet found it.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

farmerman wrote:
eventually it is. I cant think of any times when it hasnt
In time . . . ?

The truth will always out.

Ah, so you agree with FM? After all, if you've ever checked the history of science, you will find that it's always scientists that out the truth. Just recently, I read something in NewScientist about a new study that suggests prion proteins aren't the infectious matter in prion diseases such as vCJD.

vikorr wrote:

As far as I'm aware, no scientist has yet been able to produce evidence of anything other than say, a bird evolving into another species of similar bird.

Rubbish. Scientists have recently found the genes that prove fingers formed from fins. Per Ahlberg from Uppsala University did some neat work on the Hoxd13 gene and presented his findings to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.

We have fossil records that proved dinosaurs turned into birds.

Quote:

That a dog can become a cat (etc etc) still needs to be taken on faith.

Yeah, Evolution doesn't say that.

Quote:

It started with an observation, and a law of nature, came to a conclusion, and has been looking for evidence ever since to show that a chimp (or some ape/monkey) did in fact become a human. It hasn't yet found it.

I can't remember all the transitional fossils that show humans evolved from apes, but it's pretty well documented. That chimps and humans share the same genetic mutation that disrupts Vitamin C synthesis is proof that they inherited the gene from a common ancestor. The likelihood of two species developing the exact same mutation twice is very low.

0 Replies

Quote:

Rubbish. Scientists have recently found the genes that prove fingers formed from fins. Per Ahlberg from Uppsala University did some neat work on the Hoxd13 gene and presented his findings to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.

Quote:

We have fossil records that proved dinosaurs turned into birds.

Do you mean, we have fossil records that show animals with varying degrees of similarity between air and ground creaturesjust like we do now?

Or do the fossil records also come with a timeline? And perhaps you have a link? Or a reference?

Quote:

Yeah, Evolution doesn't say that.

Of course it does, otherwise how else would all these differing varieties of animals be alive - evolution says they come from something similar, and eventually become dissimilar. They must come from somethingso a cat may as well be able to come from a dog, seeing they aren't too dissimilar.

0 Replies

vikorr

Quote:

Do you mean, we have fossil records that show animals with varying degrees of similarity between air and ground creaturesjust like we do now?

Or do the fossil records also come with a timeline? And perhaps you have a link? Or a reference?

Fossils do come with a "Timeline" please go to a library where they keep books and learn something about stratigraphy. (Its all the rage for Biblical archeologists who wish to incorporate temporal correlation to sites .

Also the Treatise Of Paleontology will show how the evolution of body styles and morphology of higher taxa are arranged through time

Quote:

Of course it does, otherwise how else would all these differing varieties of animals be alive - evolution says they come from something similar, and eventually become dissimilar. They must come from somethingso a cat may as well be able to come from a dog, seeing they aren't too dissimilar.

Twaddle, this shows a contemptuous adherence to ignorance of facts. Cats and dogs shared a common ancestor back as early as the Paleocene, then the group diverged (fossil record again). You are trying to push the evidence forward in time and evolutional predictions may attempt an evolutionary prediction of each species but not a return to the common ancestor.
The fact that amphibian-like fish occured in the late Silurian, and then , during the Devonian, these fish became more and more adapted to terrrestrial living has much to do with the increasingly oxygenating atmosphere and shifting continents and shallow marine embayments than any forced evolutionary mandate. Since evolution is primarily a response to an environment, the environment presented itself. And of this we have much evidence and clusters of data..

The fact that you are not surprised by homologous genes in divergent species (that occupy similar niches but maybe are separated by vast geography) shows the interrelation of the mobile environment and morphology. The genes that are similar are surrounded by scads of other genes that are not. EVolution does some "cleaning up" when function is involved. We share about 25% of our genes with a common housemouse. The gene compliment harkens back to before the Jurassics, when most everything mammalian was an insectivore

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Since evolution is primarily a response to an environment......

You're gonna get yourself in trouble with that one...... Cool

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

neologist wrote:
farmerman wrote:
eventually it is. I cant think of any times when it hasnt
In time . . . ?

The truth will always out.

Ah, so you agree with FM? After all, if you've ever checked the history of science, you will find that it's always scientists that out the truth. Just recently, I read something in NewScientist about a new study that suggests prion proteins aren't the infectious matter in prion diseases such as vCJD.

Agreed, with exception taken to use of the words 'always scientists.'

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

...Since evolution is primarily a response to an environment, the environment presented itself. And of this we have much evidence and clusters of data...

Evolution is actually (and primarily) a response to creation for if nothing is created - there is nothing to evolve. If you choose to label 'creation' as an "environment" - I have no problem with that.

0 Replies

Quote:

You're gonna get yourself in trouble with that one

After reading Baddog's post , I dont think I have a thing to worry about. Are you gonna give me your shot?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
You're gonna get yourself in trouble with that one
After reading Baddog's post , I dont think I have a thing to worry about. Are you gonna give me your shot?

Exactly the type of (non)response I was expecting. :wink:

0 Replies

so glad I meet your expectations. The feeling is entirely mutual.

PS-The Creation story is made up---pass it on.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

so glad I meet your expectations. The feeling is entirely mutual.

PS-The Creation story is made up---pass it on.

Who mentioned the "Creation" story on this thread?

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Considering I said "As far as I'm aware", good manners would be appreciated, and the use 'rubbish' isn't necessary.

Would you perhaps have a link?

No. Actually, maybe... No. All I can tell you is that the news article was posted in NewScientist Issue 2627 on page 14.

Quote:

True, but then you'd have to answer the question of "Why would he?" Whereas with Evolution, no such question is needed as it already explains why these similarities should be so.

Quote:

Of course it does, otherwise how else would all these differing varieties of animals be alive - evolution says they come from something similar, and eventually become dissimilar. They must come from somethingso a cat may as well be able to come from a dog, seeing they aren't too dissimilar.

It may as well be, if you can prove that it is so. However, since evolution doesn't say anything that specific nor is there any proof of anything that specific, then as far as we know it is not true.

As for Baddog1's post, no, Evolution is not a response to Creation. It is a response to the environment. Natural selection pressures and all that. Even if God did create everything in six days and we all evolved from what he created, Evolution would still not be in response to Creation. It would still be in response to the environmental pressures on organisms.

0 Replies

vikorrs creation process would have to be an ongoing process as new environments present themselves. Unless he, Like RL, believes that everythibg that ever was, was created at once and then just appears at the right time. (with no evidence of precursor generations that just sat and waited till their turn came up). RL thinks that mammoths were alive in the Devonian and just failed to fossilize until much later in the Miocene and Pliocene

0 Replies

Farmerman believes that different strata took lllllllllllllloooooooooooonnnnnnnnnngggggggggg ages to form (and thus calls them by different names), when actually there is good reason to indicate that they did not take long.

Fossils of whole critters (in whichever strata you choose to discuss them) are usually formed when something is buried rather quickly, without completely decaying or being torn apart by scavengers.

To postulate that they were buried millimeter by millimeter over lllllllllllllloooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggg ages is to fly in the face of common sense.

0 Replies

In science we end with a conclusion In faith we start with 1

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know