|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 9:20:24 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:ktquote:
So you've done your introduction, now you have 59 minutes to fill. Are you going to give equal time to Creationism as you do to the evolution of humans?
Once ALL of the actual observational evidence supporting microbe to man evolution has been presented there will still be 59 minutes of class time left. What do you suggest the remainder of the class time be filled with?
quote:
Are you going to spend 30 minutes reading the Bible to your science class?
I know that is not what drmark is suggesting (I read and understand his introduction), but I suppose you think materialist dogma would be better?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 9:29:09 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:ktquote:
A theory cannot be a fact, so which is it?
Then which is evolution, fact or theory?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 10:21:01 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:ktquote:
A theory cannot be a fact, so which is it?
Then which is evolution, fact or theory?
Both, of course.
The fossil record & modern experiments demonstrate that change-over-time occurs and has occurred. This is the fact of evolution.
Darwin developed a theory to explain this change-over-time. The modern version of it is the theory of evolution.
Apples falling from trees demonstrate the fact of gravity.
General relativity is the modern, scientifically accepted theory of gravity.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 12:42:58 PM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 124
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:ktquote:
A theory cannot be a fact, so which is it?
Then which is evolution, fact or theory?
Both, of course.
The fossil record & modern experiments demonstrate that change-over-time occurs and has occurred. This is the fact of evolution.
Darwin developed a theory to explain this change-over-time. The modern version of it is the theory of evolution.
Apples falling from trees demonstrate the fact of gravity.
General relativity is the modern, scientifically accepted theory of gravity.
Creationists believe that there is change-over-time. The disagreement between creationists and evolutionists has to do with what kind of changes can and cannot take place and how much change there is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 1:05:05 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The fossil record & modern experiments demonstrate that change-over-time occurs and has occurred.
quote:
Creationists believe that there is change-over-time. Good point, cih92! Many evolutionists misinterpet the scientific evidence for creationism because it doesn't fit their faith-based assumptions. I would also point out that the fossil record demonstrates a catastrophic global flood which buried millions of plants and animals, but that is discussion for another thread.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 1:27:45 PM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 124
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
You may be dissatisfied that scientists do not resort to miracles to explain the transition between these two states There are thousands, nay tens of thousands, of scientists who are more than comfortable in "resorting to miracles" to explain the presence of life.
My apologies. Many do rely on miracles, but this is not a scientific position, and most of them recognize that.
If there are good reasons for believing that some phenomena require a supernatural explanation, then they are rationally justified in believing that the phenomena was caused by the supernatural. You may not think that this science, but science is not the only means for finding truth.
Just because there are good reasons for believing that some phenomena require a supernatural explanation, does not mean that you have to say, "God did it.", everytime someone asks you, "What is the cause of this phenomenon?". It is true that God causes things to happen, but this does not mean that God is the only cause of the things that happen. There are other kinds of causes besides supernatural causes.
< Message edited by cih92 -- 9/20/2008 1:35:01 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 1:54:05 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
You may be dissatisfied that scientists do not resort to miracles to explain the transition between these two states There are thousands, nay tens of thousands, of scientists who are more than comfortable in "resorting to miracles" to explain the presence of life.
My apologies. Many do rely on miracles, but this is not a scientific position, and most of them recognize that.
If there are good reasons for believing that some phenomena require a supernatural explanation, then they are rationally justified in believing that the phenomena was caused by the supernatural. You may not think that this science, but science is not the only means for finding truth.
In principle, I do not disagree. However, these supernatural explanations are not science, and should not be taught as science.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 2:09:11 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, these supernatural explanations are not science, and should not be taught as science. The so-called "natural explanations" fail to explain those phenomena. Why should only they be taught as science? Your inconsistency is glaring, es.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 3:30:37 PM
|
|
|
Zuniceratops
Posts: 23
Joined: 3/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Science is a secular endeavor. It has to be. It has to assume a natural explanation for every natural phenomena. Anything else is not science, but philosophy or theology.
This claim doesn't remove philosophy from the science class. The worldview stating that all phenomena can be explained solely by natural causes is the definition of the philosophy called Naturalism. I thought it interesting you should say this in this thread, because this is exactly why some YEC's claim that the theory of evolution is itself a religion. This is also why some claim that modern science encourages belief in atheism and agnosticism and discourages all other religions. The fact is, one can't insist that everything must have a natural explanation and at the same time say there is a god of some sort that created the universe. If there is a god who created the universe, then at some point or other one is going to run into a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon, whether God created the world in six days or whether he was the "First Cause" that started up the Big Bang.
And why does science have to assume a natural explanation, anyway? Why can't it at least occasionally allow a supernatural explanation?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 3:44:42 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
And why does science have to assume a natural explanation, anyway? Why can't it at least occasionally allow a supernatural explanation? Ah, the $64,000 question. The obvious answer is that observational science, as practiced through the scientific method, has no ability to evaluate "supernatural explanations". Thus, the practitioners of scientism simply deny or reject supernatural possibilities and attempt to categorize them as religious philosophy so as to give themselves the appearance of "real" scientists. In reality, these naturalists are deluding themselves by failing to understand their position to be likewise a religious philosophy which actually excludes real knowledge from any source other than scientific methodology.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 5:31:02 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:esquote:
In principle, I do not disagree. However, these supernatural explanations are not science, and should not be taught as science.
And that is the rub. The corresponding materialistic explanations are not science either, “and should not be taught as science” although they are.
That being the case then why is anyone who wants materialist dogma removed from the science class labeled a religious fanatic?
Why don't you support the removal of materialist dogma (religious philosophy) from the science class?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 6:03:55 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Why should only they be taught as science?
Why should only science be taught as science? Sometimes I just don't understand you.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 6:16:00 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Sometimes I just don't understand you. Yes, that's quite obvious! You can read what I posted - why should only failed and failing naturalistic explanations be taught as science? Because the religious dogma of uniformitarian naturalism must be preserved at all costs, that's why!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 6:27:33 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
The obvious answer is that observational science, as practiced through the scientific method, has no ability to evaluate "supernatural explanations".
Ok, so science has no ability to evaluate supernatural explanations. I'm with you so far. If science can neither validate nor invalidate a supernatural explanation, then scientists can make no statement about these supernatural explanations, as a part of their scientific work.
quote:
Thus, the practitioners of scientism simply deny or reject supernatural possibilities and attempt to categorize them as religious philosophy...
Well, we just established that these supernatural explanations are not a part of science. Science doesn't deny or reject supernatural, it just doesn't have any supernatural tools in its toolchest.
quote:
In reality, these naturalists are deluding themselves by failing to understand their position to be likewise a religious philosophy which actually excludes real knowledge from any source other than scientific methodology.
The whole point of having a scientific methodology is so that people know when they're doing science or not. If you don't play by the rules, you're not doing science any more. If you play baseball, you're not denying the validity of soccer. You just don't use the rules of soccer when you wear your baseball outfit. If you do science, you're not denying the validity of theology. You just don't use the rules of theology when you wear your lab coat. If science had to accept all 'ways of knowing,' it would cease to be its own field of knowledge.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 6:49:00 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:esquote:
Well, we just established that these supernatural explanations are not a part of science.
We have also established that the corresponding materialistic explanations are not a part of science, but are in fact nothing more than dogma. As such, why do you believe they should be taught as science?
quote:
If you don't play by the rules, you're not doing science any more.
What rule of science states that unsupportable materialistic dogma is science?
quote:
You just don't use the rules of theology when you wear your lab coat.
Why do you make exception to that rule for materialistic dogma? Don’t you think that rule should have universal application?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 7:04:11 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:esquote:
Well, we just established that these supernatural explanations are not a part of science.
We have also established that the corresponding materialistic explanations are not a part of science, but are in fact nothing more than dogma. As such, why do you believe they should be taught as science?
I don't agree with your interpretation. Evolution is certainly a part of science and should be taught as such. You can deny it if you like, but soccer players don't get to decide what goes in the baseball rulebook, and you don't get to decide what is and isn't a part of science.
Since there is no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis, it is not taught dogmatically.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 10:27:50 PM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 124
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The whole point of having a scientific methodology is so that people know when they're doing science or not. If you don't play by the rules, you're not doing science any more. If you play baseball, you're not denying the validity of soccer. You just don't use the rules of soccer when you wear your baseball outfit. If you do science, you're not denying the validity of theology. You just don't use the rules of theology when you wear your lab coat. If science had to accept all 'ways of knowing,' it would cease to be its own field of knowledge.
Suppose that it is actually true that the only cause for the origin of life is a supernatural cause. What should scientists do in this case? Do you think that scientists should declare that finding out what caused life to come into existence is outside the bounds of science?
Scientific theories should reflect what reality is really like. If the only cause for the origin of life is a supernatural cause, then coming up with a completely naturalistic explanation of how life came into existence would not reflect what reality is like.
< Message edited by cih92 -- 9/20/2008 10:33:54 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 10:52:58 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
quote:
The whole point of having a scientific methodology is so that people know when they're doing science or not. If you don't play by the rules, you're not doing science any more. If you play baseball, you're not denying the validity of soccer. You just don't use the rules of soccer when you wear your baseball outfit. If you do science, you're not denying the validity of theology. You just don't use the rules of theology when you wear your lab coat. If science had to accept all 'ways of knowing,' it would cease to be its own field of knowledge.
Suppose that it is actually true that the only cause for the origin of life is a supernatural cause. What should scientists do in this case? Do you think that scientists should declare that finding out what caused life to come into existence is outside the bounds of science?
Scientific theories should reflect what reality is really like. If the only cause for the origin of life is a supernatural cause, then coming up with a completely naturalistic explanation of how life came into existence would not reflect what reality is like.
If the origin of life is a nail, and science is a screwdriver, then there are two possibilities. Either the screwdriver can determine that it will never be able to do anything with the nail, or it can't determine that.
So far, the screwdriver has not come up against anything that has utterly frustrated it.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 11:10:48 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:esquote:
I don't agree with your interpretation.
So now you are going to claim that abiogenesis is scientifically valid, even though you admitted earlier that it is nothing more than dogma?
quote:
Evolution is certainly a part of science and should be taught as such.
Now you are just sticking your head in the sand - again. Drmark and I have challenged the evolutionists on this board time and time again to provide the empirical support for evolution and that challenge is STILL unanswered. Without empirical support evolution is nothing more than a belief, i.e. materialistic DOGMA.
quote:
you don't get to decide what is and isn't a part of science.
The requirement for empirical support is not my decision. It is part of the scientific process. You keep talking about the need to follow rules that you ignore.
quote:
Since there is no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis, it is not taught dogmatically.
When school kids are told that “perhaps” abiogenesis happened this way or “maybe” it happened that way or even “we don’t know how abiogenesis happened” they are being told dogmatically that it did in fact happen.
Why is it acceptable to say “maybe” abiogenesis happened this way or “perhaps” it happened that way, but not acceptable to say “perhaps” abiogenesis didn’t happen at all? Your little word games don’t change the facts.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 11:45:00 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
So do you folks think those areas of science that do not contradict the OT are as flawed as those that do?
If not, why?
<crickets>
Anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/20/2008 11:56:18 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
quote:
Evolution is certainly a part of science and should be taught as such.
Now you are just sticking your head in the sand - again. Drmark and I have challenged the evolutionists on this board time and time again to provide the empirical support for evolution and that challenge is STILL unanswered. Without empirical support evolution is nothing more than a belief, i.e. materialistic DOGMA.
There's plenty of evidence for evolution. Morphology, fossil evidence, DNA evidence. It's there. Get YOUR head out of the sand.
quote:
quote:
Since there is no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis, it is not taught dogmatically.
When school kids are told that “perhaps” abiogenesis happened this way or “maybe” it happened that way or even “we don’t know how abiogenesis happened” they are being told dogmatically that it did in fact happen.
According to my dictionary, dogma is defined as "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true". As an example they give the Christian dogma of the Trinity. There's no room for "perhaps" or "maybe" or "we don't know how..." in dogma. Christians don't present the dogma of the Trinity with "perhaps God has three Persons", or "maybe God has three persons". The Trinity is dogma. Abiogenesis is not taught dogmatically. See the difference?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/21/2008 12:50:46 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:esquote:
I don't agree with your interpretation.
So now you are going to claim that abiogenesis is scientifically valid, even though you admitted earlier that it is nothing more than dogma?
I did not admit any such thing.
quote:
Now you are just sticking your head in the sand - again. Drmark and I have challenged the evolutionists on this board time and time again to provide the empirical support for evolution and that challenge is STILL unanswered.
Yawn. The fact that you are incorrigible and impervious to the scientific evidence is no fault of the evidence. Evidence has been presented and you have pooh-poohed it, protecting your insulated worldview. You can believe as you like, but the scientific community does not have to follow your lead.
quote:
quote:
Since there is no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis, it is not taught dogmatically.
When school kids are told that “perhaps” abiogenesis happened this way or “maybe” it happened that way or even “we don’t know how abiogenesis happened” they are being told dogmatically that it did in fact happen.
Earlier you agreed that "There is no dispute that at one time physical life did not exist and now it does." Surely, saying that "we don’t know how abiogenesis happened" doesn't add any dogma (or nefarious interpretation) to a fact that you yourself do not dispute. 'Maybe', 'perhaps', and 'possibly' are not the words of dogma.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/21/2008 8:23:38 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
So do you folks think those areas of science that do not contradict the OT are as flawed as those that do?
If not, why? There are no areas of true science which contradict Scripture. Your assumptions are as flawed as your question, KT!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/21/2008 12:58:59 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
So do you folks think those areas of science that do not contradict the OT are as flawed as those that do?
If not, why? There are no areas of true science which contradict Scripture. Your assumptions are as flawed as your question, KT!
So none of the below are true sciences?
Anthropology: the study of human cultures both past and present
Archaeology: the study of the material remains of cultures
Astronomy: the study of celestial objects in the universe
Astrophysics: the study of the physics of the universe
Biology: the science that studies living organisms
Botany: the scientific study of plant life
Entomology: the study of insects
Genetics: the science of genes, heredity, and the variation of organisms
Geology: the science of the Earth, its structure, and history
Marine Biology: the study of animal and plant life within saltwater ecosystems
Ornithology: the study of birds
Paleontology: the study of life-forms existing in former geological time periods
Petrology: the geological and chemical study of rocks
Physics: the study of the behavior and properties of matter
Seismology: the study of earthquakes and the movement of waves through the Earth
Taxonomy: the science of classification of animals and plants
Thermodynamics: the physics of energy, heat, work, entropy and the spontaneity of processes
Zoology: the study of animals
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/21/2008 1:02:21 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4932
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: online
|
The point is, they don't contradict scripture. Take archeology for example. The events in the Bible can be verified by the findings of archeology.
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
