.
Suppose a scientist conducts an experiment where he measures how much salt will dissolve in a glass of water. Does the amount of salt depend on Gods mood at the time of the experiment or does it depend on the chemical properties of water and salt?
For science to work and be effective, it must assume that the latter explanation is always correct. Thus, science assumes that the atheists are correct. And this assumption is not by choice but rather by necessity. Without this assumption science just does not work.
Most of the time, this naturalistic assumption does not create controversy. That is if the chemistry of water and salt determine how much salt dissolves in water, everyone is happy. This finding does not go against anyone’s religion. So we don’t have any controversy and science works as it should.
But what about evolution and more specifically the origin of life. When science starts to investigate these events, it can and does create controversy. In this case, science is applying the philosophy of atheism to investigate events that most believe can be attributed to Gods handiwork or will.
Now we have controversy. And interestingly enough, it is this controversy that forces science to fail. Because of the attention, scientists are no longer allowed to say we dont know. Instead, they often promote a hypothesis with no experimental support to the status of theory (for example, self replicating RNA molecules).
And they claim they know how things happened when in reality they don’t have a clue.
Furthermore, many things are just assumed true. For example, science assumes that evolution is true. This assumption arises directly from the naturalistic axiom. So when Darwin proposed his theory, science did not have to test it. Instead it just set about trying to prove it correct.
.
Yes Dear ProP…..
We could while away more than a few hours and more than a few snap~n cold suds
contemplating a riddles of the ages with to many sages,but we’ll be the one that gauges those to many sages!
ghost ceiling cat….
Assuming Intelligent design in the first place ……..it does not assume that the axiom on which it rests (theistic evolution) is correct. By using probability theory to calculate the odds of something happening, intelligent design theory can either infer design and no design. In other words, if the scientific evidence does not suggest a designer was required to create life, then intelligent design will not infer one. Thus, in my opinion, intelligent design offers a better way to investigate origin of life theories.
gotoswaitig4U………
any self replicating RNA molecule that cannot also synthesize activated nucleotides (like ATP or IMPA) will only be able to replicate in a test tube with the help of researchers who supply these nucleotides.
This leads to the conclusion that simple self replicating RNA molecules do not exist and that the RNA world hypothesis should instead be called the myth of the RNA world because it did not exist, and it does not help explain any of the mysteries surrounding the origin of life.
Dude, believe in a diety that speaks magic words and poofs everything into existence for all I care.
Now quit copy/pasting someone else’s ignorance and try asking a question. http://theory-of-evolution.net/intelligent-design-blog/
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:44 am
Science wins.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:19 am
Dude, believe in a diety that speaks magic words and poofs everything into existence for all I care.
Now quit copy/pasting someone else’s ignorance and try asking a question. http://theory-of-evolution.net/intelligent-design-blog/
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:24 am
Wow….my seven year old knows more about science than you. Thanks for the laugh.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:07 am
Didn’t read.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:54 am
Suppose fish had titties.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:06 am
And you are the one who thinks that fully grown People and animals where chanted into existance and that whales are fish and bats are birds.
Evolution is a FACT that can be tested and falsified.
There is more evidence for evolution then gravity or MUSIC.
Do your homework and understand what the FCUK you are talking about before you open your mouth and make yourself sound stupid.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:35 am
And how naturalistic is it to not apply naturalism to nature itself?
Science need not concern itself with folks’ hurt feelings.
Besides, Darwin as theist when he embarked on the Beagle speaks volumes about his intent.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 am
This is not going to work…You are trying to talk logic to people who believe in magic based on fairy tales
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:30 am
We don’t assume Evolution is true, every time we dig up a fossil or catalog the genome of a new species, it is an attempt to falsify the existing paradigm.
We don’t assume the earth is billions of years old, we’ve come to that number through thousands of independent observations.
We don’t assume that all species share a common ancestor, we’ve reached that conclusion through tens of millions of pieces of independent evidence.
If we’re only looking to confirm, surely some creationist somewhere has found a piece of evidence that doesn’t fit evolutionary theory and therefore leaves it in shambles. Do the creationists have exclusive access to some body of evidence that refutes evolution?
Oh yeah, I guess they do, a 2000 year old tome.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:39 am
If God did create the universe then He also created the science which governs it. Science will never be able to "disprove" God. It can only explain how He did what He did.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:53 am
I understand, and agree with, the second half, but the first two paragraphs seem a little lacking in the logical deduction department.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 am
Studies of drosophila melanogaster, a short-lifecycle species, have revealed evolution. As have numerous studies at the microbial level.
Please reveal the hypothesis that is claimed to be a theory i.e. lacks peer-review but is claimed anyway.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:54 am
Wow. How can you fail this utterly?
Scientists DO examine and test hypotheses, and Darwinian evolution HAS been tested repeatedly. Take a look at talkorigins.org and you’ll find lists of transitional fossils and even lists of instances of observed speciation. There is no massive conspiracy within the scientific community to eliminate God; if he would just come out of hiding and show himself in a way that was quantifiable and observable, the scientific community would be more than happy to include him in future theories. Of course, he HASN’T come out of hiding and he HASN’T shown himself, and he’s apparently REALLY GOOD at hiding, because we can’t even find any evidence that conclusively shows he’s hiding ANYWHERE or that he even exists. As such, we really don’t have any good reason to think he exists.
Oh, and by the way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXCzfWMiGDU Self-replicating RNA molecules are indeed the key to abiogenesis, and we’ve figured out how they developed. This was discovered around the time of the Ida hysteria, but because the media is retarded Ida took the headline instead.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:59 am
So……….what we believe either condemns us or saves us? Right or wrong.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:36 am
Science didn’t assume evolution was true Bilbo.
In fact, it tried to prove it wrong.
That’s what Science does.
That’s what it’s all about.
But evolution just CAN’T be proven wrong,
even after all these years.
And not only in biology but other fields as well.
Agriculture, anthropology, ecology, medicine, paleontology, philosophy, psychology..
You know, it’s awfully hot today.
Whaddayasay we grab our fishing poles and a cooler-full of suds
and head up to the lake to sit under a tree
and contemplate everything and nothing?
It’s a perfect day for it..
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:54 am
Ren’s pretty much cracked it. Science is about hypothesis testing not hypothesis proving. In order that scientists remain objective we try to disprove hypotheses. It takes away the all too human foible of finding what we’re looking for no matter what the evidence says.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:33 pm
tell me about the rabbits, George.
Tell me about the furry little rabbits we’ll have when we get the farm, George
Come on George please tell me about rabbits?
BANG!
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Your position is heavily flawed.
First, science does not inject any kind of philosophy when dealing with evolutionary theory. Scientific investigation deals with scientific principles. There is no room for any kind of philosophy or religion as such things cannot be applied or quantified scientifically. The only reason you bring this up is because science never injects any kind of divine, deistic or theistic explanation into anything it studies. Why? Because there is no basis to do so. There is no scientific evidence of any kind of divine, deistic or theistic force that influences or directs anything in nature. Since that is the case, science is left with purely scientific rationale to employ.
Second, scientists NEVER simply make the claim they "know how things happened". Scientists forms idea…then forms hypothesis…then tests hypothesis…then begins to formulate theory…continues to test theory…etc. etc. Science never claims to have all the answers; it merely posits theories that, at the moment, seem to be the most credible. See, that’s why it’s called science…it constantly checks, rechecks and tests itself and updates it’s data.
Third, science does not assume evolution to be true; rather, it is an observed, verified, process.
Finally, it is impossible to assign any kind of probability to ID, evolution…whatever. The ‘what are the odds of evolution happening’ is one of the weakest arguments going. Tell me…how many other planets that were just like Earth under the same exact conditions as Earth has been throughout the ages have we observed? In order to assign probability, the model requires more than a single item. For example, if there was only one cat ever in the history of the world and the cat was white, it would be pointless to ask ‘what are the odds of a cat being white?’. It would inherently be 1:1…just like with evolution.
References :
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:16 pm
"But what about evolution and more specifically the origin of life. When science starts to investigate these events, it can and does create controversy. In this case, science is applying the philosophy of atheism to investigate events that most believe can be attributed to Gods handiwork or will.
"
Applying the philosophy of atheism", first time I ever heard of that one. I don’t know how you can say that because Darwin was a theist, In 1831 Charles Darwin graduated from Christ’s College at Cambridge with a BA degree in the classics and theology. On December 27 of the same year Charles Darwin departed on the HMS Beagle for a five year voyage of exploration." when he began his studying and evolution from his observation sort of evolved at that point, because he was a scientist who could acknowledge the truth despite his prior beliefs of theism.
again, the dumbing down of America continues big time
References :