@Serpent "THEORY: abstract thought: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action."
That might be the dictionary definition, but it is not how it is used by scientists.
Scientific Theory: A theory is a predictive description of the natural world based on some assumptions (axioms or facts, if you prefer) that are taken to be true.
You say: 'What is even more interesting is note what Darwin himself noted in his book origin of the species, 1902 edition, part one, page 250. he acknowledged this as a problem. He wrote: "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by evolution, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."'
You are quoting out of context. In fact, this is a favourite quote of creationists and proponents of ID. All you need to do is read the next few sentences that Darwin wrote: "Yet reason tells me, that if num
M
Miles Prower (Fearless Blue)
All worlds
I believe you are all failing to resolve the fundamental differences between the nature of religious belief versus scientific belief. Until that common understanding is reached, you will continue to move in circles. And insults will begin.
M
Maxwell 'Danger' Powers (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
Serpent: Saying you addressed something doesnt make it so. I brought up the marksman's fallacy with regard to you claim to 'scientific accuracy of the bible'. You have never (three times asked now) claimed you are not making the fallacy. Please do not sidestep the point, it is important.
As for the rest of the fallacies and deceptive comments I shall summarise:
1) Quote mining (Darwin quote)
2) Arguments from authority (Darwin, Bacon etc)
3) Strawman (colloquial definition of theory)
4) Argument from design (complexity => design)
5) Claim of equality ('some sci. say')
I agree with Miles, we appear to already be going in circles and without at least some form of fundamental agreement we are unlikely to get anywhere.
For me, as a scientist, scientific belief requires no faith. If I dont believe a result I read about, I ca
P
Pope Samtator IX (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
I will agree that any theory of creation is valid.
None of us were present at the time.
With no possible way to reproduce the results we fall back on experience, logic, and wild ass guesses..... Experience points me towards an engineer rather than blind random chance.
M
Maxwell 'Danger' Powers (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
Pope: How many experiences of creation have you had? What experiences point to engineer? And no one ever said there were only two possiblities: 'god' or 'blind random chance'.
Imo, a theory of creation which invokes something we have no evidence for and has never been observed is on the level of invisible pink unicorns (A 'wild ass guess', which invokes nothing of logic and experience). A theory of creation which invokes (solely) naturalistic processes is more likely to be true since everything else in the universe has been demonstrated (everything that currently can be demonstrated at least) to occur through such naturalistic processes. God is a guess like guessing a six sided die showed 7 when last rolled (it could have done, you weren't there). Naturalistic processes is like guessing the same die rolled between 1 and 6, its not definitive but it is more likely to be accurate given what
S
Serpent (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
So then even Darwin, although he says it seems absured to the highest degree, he still says that it must have happened. And do you think he had the tools or ability at that time to make those 'guesses? hmmm, very interesting.
Can mutations explain evolution. Any mutation that occurs does not increase the amount of information in the DNA. Has a mutation ever produced a different species? How did life evolve out of non-living matter? Can this be reproduced in an experiment?
Yes I agree that scientific thought can be different from religious thought. Especially depending on the religion. However keep in mind that all because something is labeled scientific, does not mean it is true. History is full of those 'scientific thoughts and facts.' Just as it is full of religious 'thoughts and facts.' That obviously cant be true.
And religious thought does require faith, it does not require blind faith. Blind faith requ
S
slocketer17 (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
Atheist here.
As for claiming that God exists, simply because science isn't perfect doesn't really prove anything.
Of course science cannot fully explain everything...if it did there would be no need for science courses in school. However, each day it comes closer and closer and closer, coming infinitesimally closer to the fine asymptote of perfection. (sorry for the math reference haha).
(as for axioms, they need not be demonstrated because it is simple logical reason. For instance, do you need to prove that a line goes through two points? No, you can just see it, and go hey, it does, axioms don't work in the way you describe it, as being a "guess")
But then again, there are thousands of things today that we take for granted as the truth, that would have been explained by religion hundreds of years ago.
As for mutations and adding on to DNA...yes mutations can cause evolution...the reaso
M
Maxwell 'Danger' Powers (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
Serpent: I will summarise your argument, correct me when I error.
1) The universe is designed (complexity => design). We observe/evidence this design through the anthropic principle. This is also known as the teleological arguement.
2) Scientific naturalism does not describe every aspect of the universe. Therefore something supernatural must have done everything that cannot currently be explained (principally, the origin of the universe and abiogenesis). This is known as the god of the gaps argument.
Given 2, and assuming the supernatural = god, god must exist. Given 1, god must care for us. Since existance and caring for us are characterisitics of the christian god, the christian god must exist.
Is that a fair and accurate summary of your argument? If so, why does the supernatural have to be the god of the bible, this is an unfounded assumption you appear to have made. Also.
I (a
P
Pope Samtator IX (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
If it was just random chance that created life then the results should be repeatable....
20 amino acids.
How difficult can it be?
Its naturalistic after all.
S
Serpent (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
I do agree that the universe is designed, and that the complexity is just one piece of evidence for that.
And although naturalism cannot describe everything does not mean it has to be wrong. But a lot of what it tries to explain is wrong. As for God being a christian God, many stereotypes arise when you put the word 'christian' on it. Although the true 'christian' is very different from what the bible says and what the great majority of people, even professed christian's say.
And true I am no molecular biologist, but does that mean I cannot have any possible education on the subject? All because I did not make my car (hmmm or did it just happen to be in my driveway.
) I can still change the oil, tires, and other things. And I may not be able to overhaul the engine like you may with molecular biology, I can make some sense out of it. I ca
S
Serpent (White Giant)
All worlds
Pope
LOL, I didn't even see your post until after mine!
Well, then my post was just to add to Popes! ;)
M
Miles Prower (Fearless Blue)
All worlds
<!-Quote-!>Quote:But when you try to refute my claims... you do it with the claim... which has proven to be not only impossible to test, but relies on those conclusions to make more theories and hypothesis!<!-/Quote-!>
I like how this applies to both sides of the argument.
<!-Quote-!>Quote:What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule?<!-/Quote-!>
Most likely billions to one. But you're overlooking the fact that it only had to happen successfully once. In a universe of this size and scope, it soon becomes quite a likely probability.
Regardless, the point that is being repeatedly overlooked in all this is that Science and Religious Faith ultimately share the same goal; the search for understanding.
The former achieves this through accumulating a knowledg
P
Pope Samtator IX (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
<!-Quote-!>Quote:Most likely billions to one. But you're overlooking the fact that it only had to happen successfully once. In a universe of this size and scope, it soon becomes quite a likely probability.<!-/Quote-!>
It had to happen in numerous distinct stages. Not just once. So the probability of naturalistic explanations is instead an improbability.