Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

Please, thunder_runner32, prove cicerone imposter wrong and argue your case through rationally...

Agreeing with gospelmancan2 that the scientific community is attempting to write natural history in its own way to suit its own ends is a long way from proving it.

Once again:

Quote:

To prove the affirmative of the thread's title, you'd need to establish:
(1) The previous definition of the word 'science'.
(2) The new definition.
(3) That the change between the two was achieved by atheists
(4) That the motive of these atheists was to 'get rid of God'.

0 Replies

gospelmancan2 wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Er... I think you're trying to change the focus of the topic. Evolution isn't what the topic is about.

The topic is whether atheists have redefined science in general to get rid of God. Evolution is only a tiny part of the debate.

I realize that that isn't what the topic is called but I was following the chain of conversation that was going on. Maybe I should start a new topic and call it "Evolution is BS". Seems like a waste of time though. You could avoid my question there as well when I asked for proof of the existence of the of evolution as the origin of man. (Still waiting for the proof by the way)
Anyway, I think that evolution is a much larger part of the debate as I see it as a prime example of the scientific community attempting to write natural history in it's own way to suit it's own ends. I do not believe in evolution and many in science agree. The fact that anyone who does not bow down to evolutionist theory is either ignored, sidelined or outright attacked proves the point of this topic. I haven't seen one person in this topic line who supports evolution actually accept the fact that there may be other avenues of thought that are as considered as their own.
I again remind all that the scientific community has made some pretty wild conclusions in the past which have been proven wrong. At the time those conclusions were in vogue, they would not suffer criticism either.

Gospel, I find it interesting that you accuse the other side of having no proof but can't present any proof to back up your side. The preponderance of evidence points to science being right because of the simple fact that science can demonstrate how it reached its conclusions. Because you don't like the conclusions in no way invalidates everything that went into creating them.

Some simple facts that point to evolution...
creatures adapt to their environment.
DNA often has errors in it during replication, some bad, some good and some with no real effect due to redundancy of functions
New species have evolved in our lifetimes. (species only requires that they no longer be able to mate with other progeny of ancestors but they can still mate with closely related.)

Those are 3 facts that fit nicely into evolution... Do you agree that they are facts or disagree?

I haven't seen you present any other "avenue of thought" that has been as well studied and tested. I haven't even seen you present ONE simple observation that can lead to any conclusions that you seem to support.

0 Replies

parados, Creationists only know only to refute evolution. Nothing else fits in their religion.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

djbt, Your approach is too logical; the same arguments will remain, because 'one' side will never accept what is so obvious to scientists.

And "the other" side will never accept anything that is so obvious to those who believe other than they do.
I think that it should be mentioned that c.i. should have said "some scientists" or "a large number of scientists" because to say just scientists implies that there is no dispute in the scientific community over evolution, creation and the age of the universe. There are a growing number of scientists who are concluding that the earth could be much younger than previously thought. There are many who also believe that the universe was designed and not just a series of random acts. A number of these people can match the evolutionists degree to degree and scientific method to scientific method.
Both sides can't be right.
If the evolutionists are wrong, we would have to rewrite virtually every textbook on biology that is in existence. Grant money to institutions who have based their research on evolution would dry up and a great number of those in the scientific community would have to admit they were wrong.
There seems to be a lot more at stake for the evolutionists to keep up a ruse than the creationists.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

parados, Creationists only know only to refute evolution. Nothing else fits in their religion.

Evolutionists only know only to refute creation. Nothing else fits in their religion.

0 Replies

gospel, If you can show a scientist with the respect and credentials who refutes evolution, please post their name here so we can all see who they are. The only so-called scientists who refutes evolution are those with creationist beliefs.

0 Replies

gospel,
I see you failed to refute or accept my three facts that point to evolution.

And also failed to present any facts that point to your claim.

I would consider your argument the "ruse" here gospel since you refuse to address any facts but only attack with nothing to support your claim but your own assertions.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think that evolution is a much larger part of the debate as I see it as a prime example of the scientific community attempting to write natural history in it's own way to suit it's own ends. I do not believe in evolution and many in science agree.

G-MAN
Well, the scientific community is the only community that Im aware that is systematically and dispassionately investigating natural history. The tried and true method of collecting evidence, testing the evidence by lab or models, scrutinizing the evidence, and then letting colleagues take shots at it, is a helthy way to arrive at facts that are important to the theory . So far, I dont know of any evidence that refutes evolution and Im one of those in the scientific community dealing with much of this very stuff.

Im not so concerned about how the Creationists and IDers "try" to attack evolution (without providing anykind of counter evidence). Im more concerned that the basic underlying sciences are being similarly attacked from a position of "ignorance is bliss"that feeds Creationist rhetoric. The latest rerun is the resurrected attack on isotope decay and the age of the Earth. That goes to basic physics and chemitry.
Another attack is on Plate Tectonics-even though the evidence is so strong that we use this data to plan drilling programs for ancient forearc terranes.

Lately, emboldened by something I suspect is related to national politics, the Creation crowd is trying to deny molecular biology as evidence to evolution.
If you start a thread criticizing evolution, Im sure a number of us would be there, not ignoring you. However, you just plopped into this thread demanding somekind of evidence when you havent even presented any cogent position
"I dont believe in evolution" should be followed by "HERES WHY".
Like most creationists , that last part is usually missing, and when its there, it stands on no evidence and tries to make us believe that the world is only 10000 years old. I have a zircon in my collection from the Urals which has been dated at close to 250 million years. Howcome the discrepancy? Have we been blowing all this money (SKAZZILLIONS) on fancy equipment, lab instruments, training grad students , conferring degrees, hiring these people to work in the field---and were wrong?? WoW! What have I wasted almost 30 years of my life doing?
As I said, start a thread, but ya better keep some references handy. Even if its "Answers in Genesis"

0 Replies

parados wrote:

creatures adapt to their environment.

Which creatures do you speak of? If you speak of a species being well suited for a specialized environment I could counter and say that is a result of divine design and not adaptation. I would be interested in a viable major adaptation of an existing species that I haven't heard about (one that more than just supposition based on fossilized remains, that is)

parados wrote:

DNA often has errors in it during replication, some bad, some good and some with no real effect due to redundancy of functions

And this has relevance to evolution because????

parados wrote:

New species have evolved in our lifetimes. (species only requires that they no longer be able to mate with other progeny of ancestors but they can still mate with closely related.)

Not knowing which species you speak of hampers me in my response. Please clarify this.

parados wrote:

Those are 3 facts that fit nicely into evolution... Do you agree that they are facts or disagree?

Even if they are facts (and I still need more info) there is nothing here to prove evolution as the origin of man. I still only see supposition and conjecture.

0 Replies

ci-There are a few hard edge cases of scientists who are devout creationists. One such guy was a top notch mineralogist who, after having a crisis of faith , decided to make a 180 and try to have his data support a young earth. Ive gotta admit, he tries to present his data at conferences and always gets chewed up by things like fact and evidence.
The fact that I can name a goodly chunk of the Creationist scientists working today, means that there are thousands and thousands of others who, well never know the names. These people are the vast majority of scientists who let the evidence fall where it may. Also, the Creationists are fond of "out of context" quotes to try to make it appear thats some scientists are saying something totally opposite of their positions. This is deceitful and almost criminal but we let em get away with it. (Im less forgiving cause I dont worry about how people consider my opinions. If Im right, good, If Im wrong , and I can be shown to be wrong also good because after that, Ill be right again) The Creationists dwell on totaaly bogus positions and phony evidence and broad position statements without any foundations. Its always fun.

0 Replies

I don't believe in evolution and here's why. I have read much on evolutionary theory and see no concrete evidence. This was my belief before I became a Christian (which happened later in my life) and has continued because all I have ever seen to back evolution is faulty conclusion built on faulty conclusion. I don't dispute any true evidence collected I just do not agree with the conclusions. There are scientists out there who agree with me. The fact that the bulk of scientific thought goes the other way does not prove anything.
There was a time where the majority of scientists thought that yellow fever was caused by night vapors and that antiseptics were wrong and at the scientific thought bore those fallacies out.

0 Replies

farmerman, I've concluded on my own that creationists can't possibly provide the necessary "scientific" evidence to prove their argument. That they are able to fool others and themselves that evolution doesn't exist doesn't surprise me; their whole belief system of religion would be destroyed, and they fear that more than anything. How these people trained in the sciences can continue to fool themselves is a mystery; they throw logic and science out the window to support their god.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

gospel, If you can show a scientist with the respect and credentials who refutes evolution, please post their name here so we can all see who they are. The only so-called scientists who refutes evolution are those with creationist beliefs.

I see. You are a scientist if you agree with evolution and a so called scientist if you don't. Go back to the links I posted earlier in this topic line. There are some names there.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

they throw logic and science out the window to support their god.

Alas, I threw logic and science out the window. What ever will I do? Where ever will I go? I know! I will blindly follow something because the majority says I should. (please note: the previous section is dripping with sarcasm)

0 Replies

What about the gaps in evolution?

Hey.

What about the gaps?

0 Replies

I am not a scientist. Belief in science is self-perpetuating when there are so many ways the theory proposed has so many ways to prove it. If a theory in science is found to be faulty, they prove it through research and factual data. If anybody questions the bible with all its contradictions and errors, people of religion get all bent out of shape, rather than agree there are mistakes. Quite a big difference between science and evolution vs the bible and creationism. The first admits its errors, the second never does.

0 Replies

gospelman said

Quote:

I would be interested in a viable major adaptation of an existing species that I haven't heard about (one that more than just supposition based on fossilized remains, that is)
parados wrote:

Thats quite a loaded question cause it assumes that you dont acept any fossil evidence . Is there a reason? Are you that far advanced that you can look at fossil evidence and tell whether its significant? WOW, Id like you to consider a new career.
Ill give one example, whales. The distinctive feature of all cetaceans are a series of otolith bones that persist from the days of the Eocene when they were an "otterlike animal" living partly on land and partly in brackish bays (We know this because their fossils, from around the world have been found in shallow brackish bay deposits and associated withnear shore regolith material) The otolith structures , and a few other facial and dentition features remain the same as fossil cetaceans were found from the Eocene through the Miocene , when whales were pretty much fully developed as modern forms. DNA evidence , from toothed, baleen, porpoises and Beluga whales(only ones who can move their heads around)
all share almost identical mDNA when viewed on a comparison basis. The baleens are, by DNA, later developments .
Most of the whale story has been provided by fossil finds from the circumIndian Ocean region, and , it looks like that , while the Gondwana section was rearranging itself into the new sub continent, that entire area was dotted with small intertidal basins and alluvial fans (A model of today would be like the Chesapeake Bay). All the otterlike creatures with the otolith and other unique facial structures were playing around, and, as the entire area became gradually submerged, these beasts adaptively eveolved over the next 30 million years or so.
We know the ages pretty well becauase we can magnetically date the sediments that bear the fossils , as well as correlate the fossils positionally within supersedious sediment layers. (We know that something on top is younger than something on the bottom, unless the whole pile has been turned over).
To say that "its only a fossil " and then attempt to dismiss the data that such fossils present make me suspicious that were not discussing this on equal levels. However, I will give you the data that is presently been tested HARD and accepted by the vast number of geologists who use these fossil data to explore for mineral deposits based upon sedimentary clues.

0 Replies

Once religious people has to believe that the bible is the word of god, mistakes are verboten. Science has no precondition.

0 Replies

Quote:

Alas, I threw logic and science out the window. What ever will I do? Where ever will I go? I know! I will blindly follow something because the majority says I should. (please note: the previous section is dripping with sarcasm)

Funny, I see no sarcasm. I see a pitiable ossified position based on no evidence at all. Youre just hangin there like a kielbasi

0 Replies

Religion is the disbelief.

0 Replies

Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know