Good news for Christians from the world of science

[likearock 2]

Quote

Everything we TRUST to be true is based on our FAITH that the current understandings pf physics and science are true and correct. They MAY at some point in the future be proven incorrect.

There is nothing rhetorical about that, it's what underpins all GOOD scientific thought.

That's not really the whole story. Those who believe in science also believe in the scientific method:

Quote

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

It is the skeptical testing of all beliefs against observable phenomena that gives science its authority over other means of explaining reality.

There is no corresponding discipline for testing hypotheses when it comes to religious belief. That's a fundamental difference.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

Everything we TRUST to be true is based on our FAITH that the current understandings pf physics and science are true and correct. They MAY at some point in the future be proven incorrect.

There is nothing rhetorical about that, it's what underpins all GOOD scientific thought.

That's not really the whole story. Those who believe in science also believe in the scientific method:

Quote

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

It is the skeptical testing of all beliefs against observable phenomena that gives science its authority over other means of explaining reality.

There is no corresponding discipline for testing hypotheses when it comes to religious belief. That's a fundamental difference.

I'm very well aware of the scientific method, and you might like to note i have not made reference to anyones religion. Other than to say that We as scientist work from a basis of FAITH. Faith that what we believe to be true based on evidence that we gather and tested with principles that we developed. All of these things are said by us to be true or factual because we have FAITH that our methods and reasoning is correct and true.
Based on our limited understanding of how the world around us works.
The problem is that we dont know what we dont know, so we have FAITH that what we do know is correct.

It may well not be

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[riddler 0]

Quote

But why is it that some on here have such a hard on or hate for people who have are religious in some way?

Hate the haters.

Hate homosexuality.
Hate choice.
Hate secularity.
Hate freedom.
Hate non-believers.

Do so with "religious" fervor, get our elected representatives to pass laws condoning hate. And they wonder why they're hated? It's fairly obvious to me.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[futuredivot 0]

It always makes me chuckle that the people who say that I must be tolerant of their views are so intolerant of mine.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[philh 0]

Faith is just intellectual laziness. Believing somehting without evidence, why should it be treated with any respect?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Faith is just intellectual laziness. Believing somehting without evidence, why should it be treated with any respect?

Nice........

Lack of faith is a disregard of self control and being responsible for ones own actions. So, why should non-beleievers be treated with any respect?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Belgian_Draft 0]

I'm not a religious person myself, but I don't hold it against those who are. Religion does have it's place in society, but that niche is slowly being eroded away.
The danger in this lies in the future when and if religion is ever totally eliminated. Science and technology will govern all choices with no regard to compassion or charity. After all, a TRUE scientist would never allow anything intangible like compassion intrude upon their decision making process.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Ion01 2]

Quote

That depends on what you call faith. If you define faith as the acceptance of a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it, then yes, I'd say that's pretty stupid.

I agree, this is ultimately why I do not believe in the big bang or evolution. When someone follows actual science such ideas cannot stand. The big bang must rely on such things as dark matter, dark energy, and even dark inertia because the models don't work so they must conjure up matter and energies that can't be observed or experimented with whereas science is supposed to be observable and testable.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/solar08/021608_dark_inertia_1.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/080907_gst_cro_bhf.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/080930_sjc_bhc.htm

Evolution to is not only full of holes but it has yet to be observed and tested as well and no-one has even conjured up an idea to even begin to explain how life arose from non-life.
"To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there exist well-defined methods that, on the basis of observational features of the world, are capable of reliably distinguishing intelligent causes from undirected natural causes. Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinction-notably forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (as in the movie Contact).... Whenever these methods detect intelligent causation, the underlying entity they uncover is information. Intelligent Design properly formulated is a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of intelligent causation as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Intelligent Design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow. Intelligent Design is therefore not the study of intelligent causes per se, but of informational pathways induced by intelligent causes."
I use the same methods as an forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence does. I have found the simplest question that works in all areas - Can natural forces create what I have found? If I have found a piece of fire hardened clay with a carving in it I can easily concluded that it was created; Same with a painting in a cave; Same with an electric motor, which many hold as one of the biggest signs of our scientifically advanced society. When we look in some cells we find an electric motor called a flagella. Why can we not conclude that it was created? Are you familiar with irreducible complexity by Meyer? Here is his site to help http://www.discovery.org/a/3408
Also, as stated in the quote, information is also a key. If we received a series of radio wave pulses from outer space which could be interpreted into a single sentence such as “We are here” everyone would conclude that aliens sent the message, and rightfully so. We now know of something called DNA which contains so much information that it results in beings, such as us, which are more complex that anything we have every created or even imagined. Just as an archeologist would do, we conclude from such evidence that we were created. This is sound science.

On the other hand evolution requires that you not only ignore such evidence but that you simply have faith (a greater faith than I could ever have) that one day we will find a way to explain how DNA and the Flagella Motor can come about. Yes there are a lot of theories. (one evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, admitted to the existance of evidence in the cell that pointed to a creator but said those signs were placed there by aliens that put us here and the aliens obviously evolved....that doesn't sound very scientific to me.) Do they have a good foundation in observation and experimentation? I can theorize that invisible knomes do my work while I am at home. I may even give all kinds of “evidence” such as the simple fact that when I leave work and set the alarm there is no one left at work and when I get there the next day my spread sheet is on my pc and is done. I, of course, have over look many details in the formulation of my theory such as my computer is connected to a network and can be accessed by other employees who have the same job as I do. Anyways, I think you see my point. People can develop all kinds of ideas but unless they are based in the real world in which we live and takes all evidence into consideration they are nothing more than ideas. Here is something else regarding evolution as science: http://www.icr.org/article/773/

[/url]http://www.uncommondescent.com/
http://www.designinference.com/[url]

The couple of points I am trying to make here:
1. I don't have the blind faith necessary to believe in evolution or the big band but simply follow the evidence which leads to a God. (Sadly not all poeple who are "religious" follow the evidence but maintain a blind faith because the simply don't look at the evidence just like so many "scientists" do.)
2. Believe what you want but don't attack others because they don't beleive the same; particularly when you are ignorant (this simply means you don't know the information) of such subjects.
The few references I have given are only the beginning of the information out there. Find the information, don't be spoon fed everything, decide for yourself, and don't try to force others to follow you particularly by calling them stupid and such.

[nerdgirl 0]

The posted video was a satirical parody that _attempts_ to show the hypocrisy of some assertions. It’s a parody of actual attempts by scientists to isolate a “gay” gene, to which ironically most anti-homosexual groups have objected because if homosexuality is genetic than objecting to sexuality is like objecting to one’s race. The video is also a parody of certain fundamentalist Christian groups who make efforts to convert homosexuals to being straight or suppress their sexuality.

Did I find it particularly funny? No. For content-based reasons/inaccuracies in the inversion and general dislike of things that try to make people look stupid.

Given that the video is a satirical parody, how many of you would be objecting if the target was instead – & I’m intentionally citing subjects that have been discussions on dz.com – mentally handicapped people, physically handicapped people, overweight people, spousal abuse, etc.? Why are those legitimate targets but this one group not? Why do some things elicit "can't you take a joke" responses? (Many that are vitriol filled and blame the objecter.) And others elicit different responses?

To be explicit, I don’t find outright denigrating mockery of any of those groups ‘funny,’ and I find some of it, e.g., “jokes” about spousal abuse, repulsive. Funny, imo, needs creativity and thought. Picking on someone weaker or less powerful than you doesn’t show creativity, thought, or any normatively good/attractive things, imo. Again, to be explicit, not finding them funny does not equal wanting them banned or prohibited (made illegal).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

After all, a TRUE scientist would never allow anything intangible like compassion intrude upon their decision making process.

How do you define “true” scientist? What are the metrics?

Do you exclude Linus Pauling, Joseph Rotblat, Hans Bethe, Helen Caldicott, Herb Abrams, etc?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Lack of faith is a disregard of self control and being responsible for ones own actions. So, why should non-beleievers be treated with any respect?

Quote

I personally think that hating and looking down on those of faith deals primarily on how one wants to look at self responsibilities.

But that is just me......

In one sense, I think I can see that argument: most religious faiths have traditional norms and rules that its observers are meant to follow. Many of these are directed toward controlling behaviors that have negative consequence for functioning of society, e.g., Commandment #6 (or #5 if Roman Catholic or Lutheran) about murdering/killing … it’s bad for the functioning of society if homicide is rampant. (Judeo-Christian) God’s Commandments put down rules of behavior that demand self-responsibility. Depending on the sect, failure to follow those Commandments and other traditional rules is believed to result in ultimate condemnation. It’s a very effective driver for behavior.

As I understand, the argument is that lack of adherence to religious practice is a causal factor for lack of responsibility because there is nothing to prevent one from being irresponsible, e.g., without rules, one has social/moral/ethical anarchy.

Otoh, one can argue that the individual who acts ethically without religious imperative is taking literally a more self-responsible view on self-responsibility. That is, one behaves ethically because one makes a conscious choice that is the ‘right’ or ‘just’ way to act not because of tradition, not because of external rules, or not because of threat of ultimate condemnation.

Both approaches (religious-based or individual choice) based can get to the same end – self-responsible behavior. The process (ways) is different.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Butters 0]

Quote

Lack of faith is a disregard of self control and being responsible for ones own actions.

What does self-control and being responsible for ones own actions have to do with faith (in religion)? All I have to say is, Catholic priests ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

The danger in this lies in the future when and if religion is ever totally eliminated. Science and technology will govern all choices with no regard to compassion or charity. After all, a TRUE scientist would never allow anything intangible like compassion intrude upon their decision making process.

See that's just a lie. The idea that a person who dedicates their professional life to finding out how the universe works therefore can't understand ethics or be compassionate is an absolute crock of shit. (The idea that religion is the only repository of ethical thinking, similarly shit)

It's one of the arguments that creationist retards use against evolution - "If you teach natural selection and survival of the fittest, it'll lead to euthanasia and social darwinism!". t's wrong then, and it's wrong here.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Evolution to is not only full of holes but it has yet to be observed and tested as well

Lie.

Quote

no-one has even conjured up an idea to even begin to explain how life arose from non-life.

Lie.

Quote

On the other hand evolution requires that you not only ignore such evidence

Lie.

Quote

(one evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, admitted to the existance of evidence in the cell that pointed to a creator but said those signs were placed there by aliens that put us here and the aliens obviously evolved

Hilarious lie.

Quote

http://www.icr.org/article/773/

Nonsense article attacking a barely recognisable, distorted strawman of evolutionary theory.

Quote

2. Believe what you want but don't attack others because they don't beleive the same; particularly when you are ignorant (this simply means you don't know the information) of such subjects.

Believe me, the ignorance here goes in only one direction.

Quote

The few references I have given are only the beginning of the information lies out there.

Fixed it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

Faith is just intellectual laziness. Believing somehting without evidence, why should it be treated with any respect?

Nice........

Lack of faith is a disregard of self control and being responsible for ones own actions. So, why should non-beleievers be treated with any respect?

Lack of faith in a deity is not disregard of self control or responsibility. You've just made that up and are believing it without evidence, which brings us back to Phil's point...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

That depends on what you call faith. If you define faith as the acceptance of a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it, then yes, I'd say that's pretty stupid.

I think there is a difference between accepting something as true and believing it to probably be true. Faith is not mutually exclusive from doubt.

"If one cannot prove that a thing is, he may try to prove that it is not. And if he succeeds in doing neither (as often occurs), he may still ask whether it is in his interest to accept one or the other of the alternatives hypothetically, from the theoretical or the practical point of view. Hence the question no longer is as to whether perpetual peace is a real thing or not a real thing, or as to whether we may not be deceiving ourselves when we adopt the former alternative, but we must act on the supposition of its being real." ~ Immanuel Kant

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[riddler 0]

Quote

The danger in this lies in the future when and if religion is ever totally eliminated. Science and technology will govern all choices with no regard to compassion or charity. After all, a TRUE scientist would never allow anything intangible like compassion intrude upon their decision making process.

I doubt that very much. Compassion and Charity were around long before religion, and they are rooted more in human nature than in any organized belief system. If you believe that atheists are emotionless, then you have no understanding of atheism or humanity.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

The danger in this lies in the future when and if religion is ever totally eliminated. Science and technology will govern all choices with no regard to compassion or charity. After all, a TRUE scientist would never allow anything intangible like compassion intrude upon their decision making process.

See that's just a lie. The idea that a person who dedicates their professional life to finding out how the universe works therefore can't understand ethics or be compassionate is an absolute crock of shit. (The idea that religion is the only repository of ethical thinking, similarly shit)

It's one of the arguments that creationist retards use against evolution - "If you teach natural selection and survival of the fittest, it'll lead to euthanasia and social darwinism!". t's wrong then, and it's wrong here.

What's the matter there, Schoolboy....somebody hit a nerve?
Instead of trying to engage in a civil discussion, you automatically jump into insults against people who don't share your beliefs and then wonder why the religious groups have a dislike for science.
Gee, I wonder.

As far as what the future holds, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The danger in this lies in the future when and if religion is ever totally eliminated. Science and technology will govern all choices with no regard to compassion or charity. After all, a TRUE scientist would never allow anything intangible like compassion intrude upon their decision making process.

See that's just a lie. The idea that a person who dedicates their professional life to finding out how the universe works therefore can't understand ethics or be compassionate is an absolute crock of shit. (The idea that religion is the only repository of ethical thinking, similarly shit)

What's the matter there, Schoolboy....somebody hit a nerve?
Instead of trying to engage in a civil discussion, you automatically jump into insults against people who don't share your beliefs and then wonder why the religious groups have a dislike for science.
Gee, I wonder.

You do realize that you insulted people who don't share your beliefs by suggesting they don't have any regard for compassion or charity ... and you wonder why people have a dislike for religion.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

What's the matter there, Schoolboy....somebody hit a nerve?
Instead of trying to engage in a civil discussion, you automatically jump into insults against people who don't share your beliefs and then wonder why the religious groups have a dislike for science.
Gee, I wonder.

Quote

Cute. Grandad can't defend his position so he just throws a bunch of ad homs in. Impressive

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

The danger in this lies in the future when and if religion is ever totally eliminated. Science and technology will govern all choices with no regard to compassion or charity. After all, a TRUE scientist would never allow anything intangible like compassion intrude upon their decision making process.

I doubt that very much. Compassion and Charity were around long before religion, and they are rooted more in human nature than in any organized belief system. If you believe that atheists are emotionless, then you have no understanding of atheism or humanity.

Lots of thing were around a long time before organized religion. That doesn't mean they will still be around if religion is gone.
I never said atheists were emotionless. My prediction was, and is, that as science and technology displace religion society will evolve toward a much more logic based decision making process and emotion & compassion will be considered less and less. Eventually they will be left out entirely. After all, science bases it's decisions on hard cold facts, not emotion.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

and the last bad excuse for discrimination and oppression.

What church did you step into that discriminated against anyone?

Did you check out the Middle East lately? Religion hasn't done much for their tolerance and acceptance of individual freedom of choice, has it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

... no-one has even conjured up an idea to even begin to explain how life arose from non-life.

If you're looking for a large sign or single experiment - the closest is Stanley Miller-Harold Urey's now-classic experiment showing that amino acids, the building blocks of organic life, can be formed inorganically.

These days there's *a lot* beyond that.

The internet notwithstanding, the contentious debate is over direct abiotic synthesis of RNA or DNA versus biotic derivation of RNA/DNA from TNA or GNA (the latter are forms of RNA/DNA with other sugars).

Just one example with which I am familiar: pre-biotic synthesis of RNA from Jack Sutherland's lab (Univ Manchester). Other people working in the area, include the late Leslie Orgel from Scripps.

Some other thoughts on prebiotic synthesis of amino acids. (And this is *way* beyond Stanley Miller-Harold Urey’s classic experiment.)

It gets even more fascinating, im-ever-ho, when you start examining the intersection of organic synthesis and photocatalysis with early Earth geochemistry of reducing atmosphere.

And that’s all terrestrial synthesis, other folks (mostly astrophysicists, like Lew Snyder, UIUC) are pursuing the search for amino acids in the interstellar medium, of which the component molecules have already found.

Quote

Find the information, don't be spoon fed everything, decide for yourself, and don't try to force others to follow you particularly by calling them stupid and such.

Concur heartily.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

What's the matter there, Schoolboy....somebody hit a nerve?
Instead of trying to engage in a civil discussion, you automatically jump into insults against people who don't share your beliefs and then wonder why the religious groups have a dislike for science.
Gee, I wonder.

Quote

Cute. Grandad can't defend his position so he just throws a bunch of ad homs in. Impressive

LOL!! That is freakin' hypocritical it is hilarious!

I defended my position very well. You, on the other hand, resorted to insult. Not a good thing for a student of the sciences to do.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

My prediction was, and is, that as science and technology displace religion society will evolve toward a much more logic based decision making process and emotion & compassion will be considered less and less. Eventually they will be left out entirely. After all, science bases it's decisions on hard cold facts, not emotion.

Why do you assume that all of a sudden 'science' will be running society? Are all politicians going to be scientists?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?