I am puzzled.

[NMplayer]

Re: I am puzzled.

Originally posted by azfyrfyter63:<br /> Faith and Science do not cohabitate. Faith is a belief in the unseen. Science is a study based upon facts and proven theories... no faith is needed or exerted in the study.<br /><br />I don't believe it takes any faith to not believe something (in a creator).

The only science that that is anything like what you say scence is; is the research and experimentation that can be duplicated. Macro evolutionary theory can't fit in that box for obvious reasons. Postulating about fossilized skeletal remains that are almost never complete and require guesswork to put together doesn't work. <br /><br />Starting biology textbooks with words like "millions of years ago" and drawing charts with pictures of evolutionary "links" that haven't ever even been proven to exist in the fossil record doesn't work either.

 

[Kenneth Brown]

Re: I am puzzled.

I think some folks need their light bulbs changed. Lets say ya'll non believers are right. Those of us who have faith are still protectected under your thoughts. If those of us with faith are right the non believers shall perish in hell. Any odd takers?

 

[JB]

Re: I am puzzled.

KB, don't make the assumption that we "non-believers" reject everything some "believers" believe, or that all "believers" believe more than half of what they profess.<br /><br />It is possible, though not likely, that in some future day scientists and theologians will meet and say to one another, "You were right all along, but you just didn't express it in my language."

 

[Boomyal]

Re: I am puzzled.

Originally posted by NMplayer:<br /> Evolution followers look at science as the most pure thing that ever existed (aka another religion) They cant posiibly believe that scientists, or the folks that fund them might have world views or motives that can change what they choose to research and what their findings are.

Ya hit one big fat nail on the head with this one NM.

 

[JB]

Re: I am puzzled.

I don't agree, NMPlayer.<br /><br />The phenomenon of "Investigator's Bias" is well known and widespread. Its effect is that a low ethics or unskilled "scientist" sets out to prove what (s)he believed in the first place.<br /><br />That is why scientific papers are so carefully scrutinized before being published or read at scholarly gatherings.<br /><br />An ethical investigator wonders about something, gets funding by presenting a sound case for why it would be valuable to find out, then goes and tries to find out without prejudicing the results.<br /><br />If and when (s)he has found out (s)he writes up a paper stating all of the methods used to gather and verify data, quality control procedures, statistical analyses of the data and any conclusions (s)he has reached.<br /><br />A scientific committee then examines the paper for flaws in scientific ethics or procedure. If it passes, it gets read and published. If not the whole investigation is rejected.<br /><br />That is why published research has credibility.

 

[JB]

Re: I am puzzled.

One other point.<br /><br />I still see more derision and denial of scientific fact.<br /><br />I don't see how attacking someone elses belief justifies, elevates or supports your own.<br /><br />You sound just like the Liberals you deride so glibly. Why someone else is wrong, but nothing about why you are right.<br /><br />How about some argument other than "It is my truth and it is the only truth" to support creation theory?

 

[Kenneth Brown]

Re: I am puzzled.

No fight here JB. My bible tells me to tell you about it, and then let you make your own choices. As the Muslims would say "Asa lama lakim" which means piece be unto you my brother.

 

[agitator]

Re: I am puzzled.

Its easier to believe that more people have been healed by doctors thru science than those cured by preachers and faith healers. And how could a creator be so vicious and uncaring as to let tragedies of the most horrible kind befall children and innocents by the thousands daily? Left untreated, many ailments are going to kill you without fail. All of this can be rationalized but not in a rational way.

 

[theriver]

Re: I am puzzled.

Anyone heard any good jokes lately?

 

[NOSLEEP]

Re: I am puzzled.

In my life the fear of God is the beginning of<br />wisdom.<br />Published research is not infallible, and at times<br />retracted.<br />A little science estranges men from God,<br />But much science leads them back to him.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: I am puzzled.

Originally posted by theriver:<br /> Anyone heard any good jokes lately?

Sure have tr. It'll get you rollin in the aisle and spittin up your coca cola.<br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />><br />We all evolved, by happenstance, from primordial fauna!

 

[NMplayer]

Re: I am puzzled.

Originally posted by JB:<br /> I don't agree, NMPlayer.<br /><br />The phenomenon of "Investigator's Bias" is well known and widespread. Its effect is that a low ethics or unskilled "scientist" sets out to prove what (s)he believed in the first place.<br /><br />That is why scientific papers are so carefully scrutinized before being published or read at scholarly gatherings.<br /><br />An ethical investigator wonders about something, gets funding by presenting a sound case for why it would be valuable to find out, then goes and tries to find out without prejudicing the results.<br /><br />If and when (s)he has found out (s)he writes up a paper stating all of the methods used to gather and verify data, quality control procedures, statistical analyses of the data and any conclusions (s)he has reached.<br /><br />A scientific committee then examines the paper for flaws in scientific ethics or procedure. If it passes, it gets read and published. If not the whole investigation is rejected.<br /><br />That is why published research has credibility.

I got back a little late. What you say about scientific review is completely true and it works pretty well for most things. The problem is that the scientific community as a whole reviews its own work within itself. Belief systems and what is researched is detmerined by this community. This would be akin to having the republican party peer review George Bush's abortion stance. While they may disagree with him and even be critical of many of his policies, they won't mess with that one. The larger part of the scientific community has the same dogma on evolution theory.

 

[QC]

Re: I am puzzled.

This reminds me that the Scientific community had a huge problem with the Big Bang when first proposed. Sounded a little too much like creation . . . <br /><br />There is a great writer on this whole science/religion connection i.e. discussing where they agree mostly. His name is Gerald Schroeder an Israeli physicist. I have not read any of the books noted at the link below, but I have heard him speak. Very hard guy to dismiss and he helps link Science to biblical contentions. My favorite link is that he argues the beginning of everything appears to be pure energy, AKA light. "let there be light" . . . Sound familiar.<br /><br />I am going to continue to note that I am not particularly religious although I believe in a creator or intelligent designer, whatever label you are more comfortable with. This seems important to me as the rate of dismissal increases with the level of faith admitted IMHO. Also, I am going to change my signature sometime soon as again, sadly, I believe it increases the opportunities to dismiss my posts on these subjects. Actually it is an engineering axiom, not a religious one <br /><br /> Schroeder books

 

[NMplayer]

Re: I am puzzled.

Originally posted by agitator:<br /> Its easier to believe that more people have been healed by doctors thru science than those cured by preachers and faith healers. And how could a creator be so vicious and uncaring as to let tragedies of the most horrible kind befall children and innocents by the thousands daily? Left untreated, many ailments are going to kill you without fail. All of this can be rationalized but not in a rational way.

I'd like to be really clear here. I in no way would belittle the scientific contributions that have been made to society. A lot of folks have worked very hard to help a lot of people. As for arguing about a creator's attributes or actions, I'd rather not get into that except to say that it makes my point in a way. We can't imagine a creator who would do things the way they are done, so we have scientific evidence to back the point that there isn't one.

 

[jtexas]

Re: I am puzzled.

Does nobody else think that evolution is implied in the Biblical (Genesis chap 1) story of creation?<br /><br />And it doesn't rule out a big bang, either.

 

[NMplayer]

Re: I am puzzled.

Sure , but that isn't really the argument. Well it is I guess in some people's minds. You can argue about evolution as a process until the cows come home, but the real deal is the actual origin of life.

 

[QC]

Re: I am puzzled.

Originally posted by NMplayer:<br /> the real deal is the actual origin of life.

And the origin of this thing where the ooze got oozin' and schmoozin' on . . .