Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

To Thunder_Runner 32

Hey, I just do it for the fun of it. Although the lack of new ideas is a little boring. All I am trying to say is that there are other conclusions to their own facts. I don't write for them to be convinced. My aim is always for people to think for themselves. Don't form your conclusions on other people's say so. Find out for yourself.
I just try to point out that science is neither infallible or all supreme. (Sounds like deity envy to me)
I still contend that evolutionary theory is faith based. They must believe in evolution because the alternative is too scary for them to consider. In one post someone said (and I paraphrase) "that would mean that everything I have believed for years is wrong"
Yup. That's right. That is exactly what that would mean.

Quote, "I just try to point out that science is neither infallible or all supreme. (Sounds like deity envy to me)" You have absolutely no idea what science is all about. All scientists understand and accept the fact that science is fallible. Christians on the other hand can never accept the falacies of the bible.

gospelman said

You can contend whatever you like because you do so out of ignorance, not the lofty perch you wish to believe that you occupy. "The most dangerous thing is active ignorance". I posted the 30 years experience in the relevant science field as an example of authority by practise, I feel comfortable in mine and it does not include adopting a book of mythology as science refernce. Theres where we differ.What do you bring to the table besides a bunch of great moral stories and a bi-polar deity with some antisocial traits.
On the contrary, it is the Creation ID camp that cannot stand the alternative that perhaps we are alone and should spend more time appreciating each other rather than taking up sides as to whose god is the most "real", and whose religion is "best".
Im glad that your only a vocal minority cause you could really be dangerous to creative thought.

I speak from my years as a Bible scholar and teacher. If my experience does not enter into the validity of my argument then yours does not either.
It only shows that you are well versed in what you believe and not that what you believe is true.

It's just their conclusions that can't be questioned.

Wrong again! Theories are always questioned by repeated and observable evidence. If they fail this test, it is not scientific theory.

Quote, "It's just their conclusions that can't be questioned." That's very funny coming from a christian.

Show us one scientific theory that has not been repeatedly tested. Show us all the flaws of the bible that christians continue to support. If you have a problem with this, I can always provide you many examples.

From Wikipedia:

Science
In the sciences, a theory is a model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon. Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.

In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean a mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be "electromagnetic theory", which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell's equations.

The term theoretical may be used to to describe a certain result that has been predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce such predictions that are later confirmed by experiment, but failed predictions do occur. Conversely, at any time in the study of physics, there can also be confirmed experimental results which are not yet explained by theory.

For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to characterize a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any established theory.

Unfortunately, the usage of the term is muddled by cases such as string theory and "theories of everything," each probably better characterized at present as a bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience. A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data, and is often a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism.

Other claims such as Intelligent Design and homeopathy are not scientific theories, but pseudoscience.

Introduction to the Scientific Method


The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

Your arguing against impartial hard evidence with what? Im not arguing AGINST scripture, Im arguing for science as a scientist. Youre basically unarmed.

It is faith based. They contend that they can test everything about their theories, but I was under the impression that there guesses, particularly about the Earth, are not much better than that...guesses. Billions of years cannot be tested no matter how much we test rock and movement of stars. The timeline is influenced heavily by their desires, biases, and preconcieved notions.

At least my equations balance.

The arguments that are presented to refute "faith" in the sciences are quite, shall I say, schizophrenic. First we go and get argued at, by a bunch of "CREATION SCIENTISTS" (your gangs words not ours) The argument is based upon a premise that Creationism is as science centered as standard geo, or physics or molecular bio, or paleo. When you cannot demonstrate that point with any degree of scientific certainty (all the arguments used by Creationists are easily dismissed), then you do a 180 and say that science is also faith based.

I agree, there are points to science that are "faith based", but its a faith grounded in cold evidence. There would be no basis for a "Theory of evolution by natural selection" if , in the ensuing 150 years anything came up in evidence that countered Darwin. It would be as dead as Marley.

The evidence and facts support the theory to a level that even Darwin couldnt suspect. No amount of wishful thinking and praying will negate that fact. The supporting disciplines of science that form a tight ring of evidence around Darwin include all the above disciplinesplus many more.

How is it that many religions can feel unthreatened by the sciences and exist in harmony, while other, more fundamental sects, need to transform science so that it agrees with a literal genesis? It aint gonna happen, no matter how you wish it. There are too many advances in the sciences to turn the clocks back 200 years or more.
I assumed that this thread was started by a fundamentalist who needed to have a position argued on his or her behalf. What has happened , instead, is that most people who showed up here were unable to accept such narrow minded naive world views. For me, its trying to draw out newer arguments that fundamentalists have been working on. So far, no luck.

At first, I read a post of yours that gave me the general impression that you didn't think science was faith-based, now you give an argument that says it is? I'm confused by your stance.

The timeline is not heavily influenced "by their desires, biases and preconceived notions".

For example, I just read an article that states that a team have found evidence in Australia, zirconium evidence that proves that the period known as the Hadean wasn't as hot as originally thought. Their zirconium evidence basically contradicts current evidence for the age of the Earth.

If they were truly biased, they would have ignored this evidence. They would have claimed it was an error and ignored it completely.

They didn't. They tested it and other samples from the area and found that indeed, the very nature of the zirconium proved that the Earth isn't as old as Evolutionists currently think it is, but that it's much older.

As far as I can see, it is the creationists whose timeline is "influenced heavily by their desires, biases, and preconcieved notions."

However, I must admit the scientists investigating the causes or Alzheimer's do tend to fit your description. However, the argument between the Tauists and Baptists of Alzheimer's research is influenced by data and last I saw, it looked as if they were making amends.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4178924

There are two different types of science: science that can be proved day to day, it has been tested, observed, and has become a law, then there is historical sciences, which are based on guesses on things based in the present and applied to billion-year timelines, timelines that have many problems, one being the fact that we have observed such a small part of the actual timeline. To assume that we could make accurate guesses about the rest of the timeline is completely preposterous.

thunder runner said
I assume youve just made this up because the two "sciences" as youve proposed, are both grounded in the same methodology, discovery then experiment, then prediction (there can be arguments as to which comes first in any given discipline).
In our "billion year old earth concept, we apply radiochemistry and the observations that all elements in the .40 Atomic number, occur at roughly the same orer of magnituse. So the reason that many radioisotopes are lesser concentrations has to do with the fact that theyve decayed over time. Since we can measure and characterize their product half lives we can apply these rates of decay.
We find fossils in differeing layers showing differing chemical strata we can measure the radioisotopes, as well as the ratios of stable isotopes and do relative mass balances of the availability of certain stable chemicals at those times. We can also apply records of magnetic pole shifting by its marking on lavas that cooled during specific times.
We can look at sedimentary rates and fossil development. We can look a t evidence of the planets cooling and crustal development as well as the "road map" that continental masses leave on each other as they smash together in orogenies. These occurences "reset" the atomic clocks and so we can recreate how the plates actually moved by measuring the last times the smooshed together or split apart.

There are many more techniques that can be used to "date" past occurences that take it far from the line of conjecture and turn it into good data. So far, nobody has found anything to counter the "mountains of evidence" (as stated by SCientific American back in April) that show te world to be a relatively old hunk of real estate.

If you would spend more time trying to understand some of this rather than posting poor arguments out of some failing that can be attributed to your education, then perhaps you could post and answer these points your self.
As it stands, what I read in your posts is , and I paraphrase
"I dont understand all this science stuff, I cant believe its true. I dont want it to be true. Hey, maybe Ill just blast it, even though I have no idea what Im talking about"

I dont want to appear nasty buit your questions and posts are no different from the committed Creationists who, after a life time of stubborn ignorance, have honed their argumentum ad abrsurdem skills down to a priesthood. I take it that youre still a student. My admonition is not to stifle your own curiosity about all this, so that , 40 years from now, you dont wind up being part of the "Great Ignoranti" about science. Youll be no different than the Cargo Cultists of the Sunda Sea. ( They didnt understand airplanes but, because they saw them in the sky, they developed a worship system around cargo planes in WWII)