Don't be afraid of scientific theory

Don't be afraid of scientific theory (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Godhead -> Don't be afraid of scientific theory (6/29/2008 9:13:38 PM)
Or off men who try to use it to destroy your faith. Scientist see the world through the wrong premise, they believe it is billions of years old and that life evolved from some primordial slime. They view everything they see through that premise, which is going to lead them in the wrong direction because it is false. They try and fit all they find into that premise. They will not see anything else no matter what. These men do not love the Lord and seek mans Glory above His. They are proud men and blinded by Satan. They will totally dismiss evidence for the bible given by God fearing men, while dote on whatever theory pops up into the mind of unbelievers. They are fools who are wise in their own eyes. There is no fossil evidence of evolution. No chain of fossils showing the gradual change of one species to the other. Until they find that, evolution is just a theory, one started by men who hate God. When Christ returns, these men will be put to shame, don't glory in their shame or be enticed by the Devil. A fossil is just the remains of a dead animal, not proof that it evolved into something else. All these scientist and men are doing is telling you their interpretation of things they see. They were not around for billions of years. It is a Christians job to encourage faith not destroy it. These men are liars who serve the father of lies. Will we doubt Gods word and ability just as our first parents did?

gluadys -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (6/29/2008 9:46:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Godhead Scientist see the world through the wrong premise, they believe it is billions of years old Actually, that is not a premise. That is a conclusion derived from a great many observations in many independent sciences. The rest of your post is irrelevant since your premise is incorrect.

evry1needsgod -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (6/30/2008 12:33:00 AM)
quote: That is a conclusion derived from a great many observations in many independent sciences. Ya, but its not fact. Just because you come up with a conclusion does not mean it is fact. Therefor, Godhead's thread has merit. If you want to debate his post, great, but don't dismiss those who do not agree with your interpretation of evidence. That's childish, and typical of evolutionists like yourself.

gluadys -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (6/30/2008 2:02:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod quote: That is a conclusion derived from a great many observations in many independent sciences. Just because you come up with a conclusion does not mean it is fact. That is why, in science, conclusions are tested against observations. This conclusion has withstood more than a century of such testing. quote: Therefor, Godhead's thread has merit. If you want to debate his post, great, but don't dismiss those who do not agree with your interpretation of evidence. That's childish, and typical of evolutionists like yourself. Well, let's see. quote: Scientist see the world through the wrong premise, they believe it is billions of years old and that life evolved from some primordial slime. A false statement that misidentifies a conclusion as a premise. quote: They view everything they see through that premise, which is going to lead them in the wrong direction because it is false. They try and fit all they find into that premise. They will not see anything else no matter what. These men do not love the Lord and seek mans Glory above His. They are proud men and blinded by Satan. They will totally dismiss evidence for the bible given by God fearing men, while dote on whatever theory pops up into the mind of unbelievers. They are fools who are wise in their own eyes. Ad hominem fallacy quote: There is no fossil evidence of evolution. No chain of fossils showing the gradual change of one species to the other. A false statement easily refuted with a half-minute or less of googling. quote: Until they find that, evolution is just a theory, Inadequate understanding of what a scientific theory is. quote: one started by men who hate God. When Christ returns, these men will be put to shame, don't glory in their shame or be enticed by the Devil. Another ad hominem quote: A fossil is just the remains of a dead animal, not proof that it evolved into something else. All these scientist and men are doing is telling you their interpretation of things they see. They were not around for billions of years. It is a Christians job to encourage faith not destroy it. These men are liars who serve the father of lies. Will we doubt Gods word and ability just as our first parents did? More claptrap and ad hominems. The post also completely ignores the fact that more Christians accept evolution than those who have problems with it. Where is the merit you spoke of?

swan42 -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (6/30/2008 4:49:49 AM)
quote: Scientist see the world through the wrong premise, they believe it is billions of years old Oddly, this was never a premise at all. In fact, for the past 500 years, scientists kept discovering evidence of an older and older planet and only "recently" has the evidence pointed toward 4.5 billion years. The estimate keeps getting older, not younger. quote: which is going to lead them in the wrong direction because it is false. If so, then I'm not bothered... and will easily change my mind when when a contradiction is encountered.

unclemonkey -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 11:10:49 AM)
ORIGINAL:gluadys quote: That is why, in science, conclusions are tested against observations. And THAT is why evolution is NOT science. Goo to you via the zoo evolution has absolutely NO observational support. E.g. a finch “evolving” into a finch (the most famous “observation of evolution in action”) is NOT observational support for microbe to man evolution.

hellohellohi -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 11:26:59 AM)
quote: E.g. a finch “evolving” into a finch (the most famous “observation of evolution in action”) is NOT observational support for microbe to man evolution. Indeed -- but it does suggest a line of inquiry! (Could this mechanism seen with the finches be at work at any and all moments of speciation?)-- one can ask such questions as a scientist!! One must wait for or seek out the details as a scientist -- otherwise one ought to move on to other occupations! Does ID want to do this?

gluadys -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 11:31:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:gluadys quote: That is why, in science, conclusions are tested against observations. And THAT is why evolution is NOT science. Goo to you via the zoo evolution has absolutely NO observational support. E.g. a finch “evolving” into a finch (the most famous “observation of evolution in action”) is NOT observational support for microbe to man evolution. Do you understand inductive logic, uncle?

hellohellohi -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 11:44:26 AM)
quote: Do you understand inductive logic, uncle? That's a pretty good question gluadys: (I know I'm not "uncle".) How about this: Induction is the asking of a question that could be resolved by the observation of ONE specific instance (rather than deduced "from the general"). Examples: 1) Does it rain WHENEVER the sky is gray? The answer would possibly come one day (but it may never.) 2) Does it SOMETIMES rain when the sky is gray? The answer could possibly come, though it might also be that no gray day will be observed. Any problem with this?

unclemonkey -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 12:54:01 PM)
ORIGINAL:gluadys quote: Do you understand inductive logic, uncle? I certainly do, and I do NOT equate it with observation. You don’t seem capable of differentiating the two. Finch speciation has been well observed, yet NOTHING other than a variant of finch has ever been observed. Ergo, reasoning that it can produce anything other than a variant of finch is unjustifiable. It appears to me that you are the one who lacks understanding of inductive logic because you have it confused with unjustifiable extrapolation.

hellohellohi -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 1:01:35 PM)
well, why don't we discuss what inductive logic is? ;)

gluadys -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 1:26:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:gluadys quote: Do you understand inductive logic, uncle? I certainly do, and I do NOT equate it with observation. You don’t seem capable of differentiating the two. Finch speciation has been well observed, yet NOTHING other than a variant of finch has ever been observed. Ergo, reasoning that it can produce anything other than a variant of finch is unjustifiable. It appears to me that you are the one who lacks understanding of inductive logic because you have it confused with unjustifiable extrapolation. Induction is reasoning from repeated observation. By the way, the observation relative to finch variation is precisely what is expected based on the theory of evolution. So perhaps your difficulty with evolution is that you hold to a strawman model of evolution.

gluadys -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 1:31:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi quote: Do you understand inductive logic, uncle? That's a pretty good question gluadys: (I know I'm not "uncle".) How about this: Induction is the asking of a question that could be resolved by the observation of ONE specific instance (rather than deduced "from the general"). Examples: 1) Does it rain WHENEVER the sky is gray? The answer would possibly come one day (but it may never.) 2) Does it SOMETIMES rain when the sky is gray? The answer could possibly come, though it might also be that no gray day will be observed. Any problem with this? I would say that induction requires more than one observation. Rather than beginning with the question "Does it rain whenever the sky is gray?" one begins with the repeated observation that whenever it rains the sky is gray. One could then test out the propostion that "a gray sky indicates that it will rain" or "there will only be rain when the sky is gray." (Note that these are different propositions and can lead to different conclusions).

gmc4Jesus -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 1:34:55 PM)
Science was originally used to prove the existence of a creator God - intelligent design. Through much man-made denial of God, the scientific community, for the most part, has grown into an organization trying to suppress God, Christianity and anything related thereto. As Christians, we need to work harder and engaging and exposing the false premisis of the "scientists" and establish the power and truth of God's Word.

hellohellohi -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 1:45:40 PM)
Well, in a sense, then, induction is not properly called LOGIC at all then. If one need only observe things often and then conclude that one knows what will ALWAYS be the case is not a mathematical way of talking -- except in statistics, where langauge is very carefully structured so as to be true to the fact that stats does not logically prove anything, only comment on the likelihood of its being true. Basically, I am a little skeptical about POSSIBLE ATTITUDES surrounding induction. That is why I am interested in discussing it. I think if we want to grant induction the vaunted status of LOGIC, we have to define it the special class of conclusions that can be arrived at based on special cases -- you see, some questions can be answered by special cases. I know it is said that induction proceeds from the specific to the general -- but only through the help of statistics, and only in a colloquial way. Why don't we say "statistica'" instead of "inductive" logic? That is why I brought up the idea that "falsifiability" had something dubious to it as a great criterion -- because one can always ask the same question in a negative or a positive way, and hence either affirm or negate. I believe that falsifiability was seized upon as the banner for science because of the notion that it takes only one SPECIAL CASE to negate a general statement -- but why not just ask about special cases in the first place and wait for their affirmation through observation? In short, I am saying that "falsifiability" is meaningless -- thus, must have another purpose, which is rhetoric. However, I admit what I am saying is rather suspicious itself. EDIT: BAsically, I have no problem with inductive extrapolation, if you want to call it that, but it just doesn't seem to deserve the title of logic -- unless by that you merely mean "common sense."

drj11 -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 2:18:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey And THAT is why evolution is NOT science. Goo to you via the zoo evolution has absolutely NO observational support. So what kind of evidence would you demand before you could honestly say that evolution might be possible?

essentialsaltes -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 2:35:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gmc4Jesus As Christians, we need to work harder and engaging and exposing the false premisis of the "scientists" and establish the power and truth of God's Word. What are these false premises?

hellohellohi -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 2:57:07 PM)
to play devil's advocate, or somebody's advocate -- i dunno two premises of evolution of natural selection would be that 1) some traits are genetically heritable and 2) some of these traits confer relative reproductive advantage. It seems to me that natural selection follows from these premises. A false premise of science may be that referendum can decide what is true rather than likey to be true.

gluadys -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 3:57:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi Well, in a sense, then, induction is not properly called LOGIC at all then. Well, that may be because you associate logic with deduction. In any valid deductive argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true. But an inductive argument is based on empirical experience, not on the necessary relations between premises and conclusions. quote: If one need only observe things often and then conclude that one knows what will ALWAYS be the case is not a mathematical way of talking -- except in statistics, where langauge is very carefully structured so as to be true to the fact that stats does not logically prove anything, only comment on the likelihood of its being true. Yes, this is the well-know problem of induction. It is why science speaks in terms of evidence rather than proof and in terms of highly-probable, but still provisional, conclusions, rather than proven certainties. quote: EDIT: BAsically, I have no problem with inductive extrapolation, if you want to call it that, but it just doesn't seem to deserve the title of logic -- unless by that you merely mean "common sense." I expect most common sense is built up from experience and the notion that what has been so often in the past will likely continue in the future.

gluadys -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 4:00:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gmc4Jesus Science was originally used to prove the existence of a creator God - intelligent design. Through much man-made denial of God, the scientific community, for the most part, has grown into an organization trying to suppress God, Christianity and anything related thereto. As Christians, we need to work harder and engaging and exposing the false premisis of the "scientists" and establish the power and truth of God's Word. Science is not inherently atheistic. Science in our culture was once dominated by Christians. There are still many Christians and theists who are scientists. The best way to disassociate atheism from science is to encourage Christians to study science and become professional scientists.

hellohellohi -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 4:25:16 PM)
quote: Well, that may be because you associate logic with deduction. Yes, and I would prefer a rigorous use of the word logic. I grant inductive reasoning, but of course, I am not alone in denying that there is any sense to the phrase "inductive logic." Don't just make claims, please back them up and explain them. I find the most trivial points the most annoying, if you would like to know, such as the use of that one word. "Extrapolation" not "logic" sounds like a better word to use. You could speak of inductive inference -- and if inference is logic, then, so be it. But still, it is quite clear that when you speak of induction in the sense that you would like to use -- which is of course the common sense -- then you are talking about statistics. There is certainly sense to doing induction, but, as far as mathematics goes, induction is statistics. It's not a bad thing! It just doesn't very well resemble deduction which is uncontroversially called logic. whatever. I have sufficiently beaten a somewhat pointless subject into the ground. However, it does seem that a consideration of the history of the philosophy of science and even of langauge is very appropriate to these forums. Perhaps the original use of the term "induction" was an appropriation from or analogy to mathematical induction? I don't know. They certainly resemble each other -- except, one, I say, relies on logic, while the other is a reckoning from probability. Is it reasonable to say that if a sample is found ato have a low standard deviation (taking into accoutn the sample size) that the true mean of the population has been approached? Of course! Does it mean that logic tells us it MUST be so? No, of course not -- it tells us just that: it is likely so. If you want to call that logic -- okay -- but it rings poorly in my ears, because logic -- in some minds -- is something that is airtight.

gluadys -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 7:25:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi quote: Well, that may be because you associate logic with deduction. Yes, and I would prefer a rigorous use of the word logic. I grant inductive reasoning, but of course, I am not alone in denying that there is any sense to the phrase "inductive logic." Don't just make claims, please back them up and explain them. I find the most trivial points the most annoying, if you would like to know, such as the use of that one word. "Extrapolation" not "logic" sounds like a better word to use. You could speak of inductive inference -- and if inference is logic, then, so be it. Well, induction is certainly a form of reasoning, and is usually studied in classes on logic. Yes, I would call inference "logic". quote: But still, it is quite clear that when you speak of induction in the sense that you would like to use -- which is of course the common sense -- then you are talking about statistics. There is certainly sense to doing induction, but, as far as mathematics goes, induction is statistics. It's not a bad thing! It just doesn't very well resemble deduction which is uncontroversially called logic. Agreed. quote: However, it does seem that a consideration of the history of the philosophy of science and even of langauge is very appropriate to these forums. Very much needed in many cases. Also the history of theology. quote: If you want to call that logic -- okay -- but it rings poorly in my ears, because logic -- in some minds -- is something that is airtight. A well-crafted deductive syllogism in the only airtight logic I know of. If that is your requirement of logic, then by your lights induction does not qualify. Note that science does use deductive as well as inductive logic. But insofar as it relies on evidence, it relies on induction.

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 11:36:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Godhead Scientist see the world through the wrong premise, they believe it is billions of years old Actually, that is not a premise. That is a conclusion derived from a great many observations in many independent sciences. The rest of your post is irrelevant since your premise is incorrect. Actually their "conclusion" is based on theory and guesses, so in itself is a premise.

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/2/2008 11:39:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: swan42 quote: Scientist see the world through the wrong premise, they believe it is billions of years old Oddly, this was never a premise at all. In fact, for the past 500 years, scientists kept discovering evidence of an older and older planet and only "recently" has the evidence pointed toward 4.5 billion years. The estimate keeps getting older, not younger. quote: which is going to lead them in the wrong direction because it is false. If so, then I'm not bothered... and will easily change my mind when when a contradiction is encountered. An estimate is a guess.

gluadys -> RE: Don't be afraid of scientific theory (7/3/2008 1:28:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD Actually their "conclusion" is based on theory and guesses, so in itself is a premise. A scientific theory is not a mere guess. It is a tested model built up from observation and evidence. The conclusion is not based on the theory. The theory incorporates the conclusion. quote: An estimate is a guess. An educated guess based on evidence. Not pulled from a hat.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI