Brian 2.0 Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 My whole rant with it is that science should just stick with making exacting observations and then report on those precise observations and then test in the same manner.Where does a hypothesis fit into this? If scientists simply report data, who analyzes that data? Who tries to figure out how all the observations fit together, then proposes how they all fit together?
Rob Osborn Posted April 23, 2014 Author Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Where does a hypothesis fit into this? If scientists simply report data, who analyzes that data? Who tries to figure out how all the observations fit together, then proposes how they all fit together? they still carry on the scientific method but only accurately report findins without bias and stop chasing pipe dreams. Edited April 23, 2014 by Rob Osborn
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 If only we had the perfect ideal system of learning void of political and personal agendas we could progress into greater depths of knowledge. I get so tired of the creation/evolution debates in the name of science versus religion that I am often left to ponder why this is so? If science were to only report on actual observations I think we could meet in the middle in perfect harmony. But it seems that for personal and political motives, mainstream science has treaded out of there area and encorached upon religious grounds to dictate the philosophy of the why, how and what of our existence. And that all void of having any scientific evidence. Mainstream science has an agenda obviously to "have to" explain everything froma purely naturalistic POV that must not include "God" in any part of it. BUt why must they try to tread on religious grounds to do so? Is that the job of science? NO! The job of science is to be completely unbiased in their reporting of evidence observed, documented, and tested upon. Is it the job of science to say where man came from? All science can do is find evidences of man's existence. But from whence it came, or why it came may be outside of their ability. When I read the stories in the Book of Mormon and Bible I am left in complete awe by their abilities, technologies and their will to do things. I believe the BoM to be true, same as the Bible for the most part. But then I read about the stories put forth by mainstream science and the two aren't even close, especially about their idea of ancient American cultures. So why does mainstream science try to recapture the ancient cultures abilities and cultures when it just doesn't have enough information to say such scientifically? Because they have personal agendas! How great it would be if mainstream science left out all of the wild speculation and guessing of their stories and just reported on finding the evidence. Its interesting that we have a near complete written history of the entire human existence in ancient times in the America's and yet not one single museum (not owned by the Church) relates this true story but instead paints a picture far different and distinctly separate and then concludes it as fact. This has been a great hardship on the Church and its members and prospective members. And this all because mainstream science has decided to tread into territory it doesn't belong and make guesses in the name of the holier than though "science says so" to establish it as some kind of substancial supposed fact. I do embrace observable, testable and documentable science. But much of it has its roots in the philosophy and guessing of man according to his own personal agendas that it has tainted the validity of much of it. I look at the scriptures as historical texts and as such should be embraced by science and history as a means to expalin our historical roots and the how, what and why of our existence. Science is good at finding evidence and testing it. Beyond that its not much use. Religion on the other hand is based on texts, faith and spiritual truths and as such clears up most if not all the mysteries of this planets life. The two can and should meet in the middle. So why not then?To answer the thread title of where science and religion should meet...sometimes on the field of battle and other time on the field of surrender. The only question is which one???
Bikeemikey Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 To answer the thread title of where science and religion should meet...sometimes on the field of battle and other time on the field of surrender. The only question is which one???I still think they should meet at Starbucks.
Sine Saw Square Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Rob (and others with the same view on science): You state that science has it wrong on evolution, the age of the earth (actually I'm not sure what you think on this one), origins of mortality, and similar theories that encroach on what you believe is religions realm. That science should stick to reporting on only what is observable. I'm curious, then, how you explain findings in the fossil record, genetic patterns, stratification, dating techniques, and other such observations? I would really like to know how you explain such things. I'm earnest in my inquire- I respect your faith-based perspectives even if I don't share them entirely. I believe in Heavenly Father, Christ, the scriptures, and prophets, but open to the idea that we don't understand or always interpret them with complete light and knowledge. By my limited understanding of the scientific world, the system of peer review, and continual improvement in technology- scientific perspectives are continually refining and shifting- so I'm comfortable with ambiguity between the two traditions and open to new perspectives in both directions- maybe that's where they meet? In Flexibility-ville.
mfbukowski Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 they still carry on the scientific method but only accurately report findins without bias and stop chasing pipe dreams.That doesn't help ID because that is an interpretation. You can't observe God.
The Nehor Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 I know I said I was going to bow out but just wanted to stop in and say Rob is wrong about science again. Bye again. 2
mfbukowski Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Rob (and others with the same view on science): You state that science has it wrong on evolution, the age of the earth (actually I'm not sure what you think on this one), origins of mortality, and similar theories that encroach on what you believe is religions realm. That science should stick to reporting on only what is observable. I'm curious, then, how you explain findings in the fossil record, genetic patterns, stratification, dating techniques, and other such observations? I would really like to know how you explain such things. I'm earnest in my inquire- I respect your faith-based perspectives even if I don't share them entirely. I believe in Heavenly Father, Christ, the scriptures, and prophets, but open to the idea that we don't understand or always interpret them with complete light and knowledge. By my limited understanding of the scientific world, the system of peer review, and continual improvement in technology- scientific perspectives are continually refining and shifting- so I'm comfortable with ambiguity between the two traditions and open to new perspectives in both directions- maybe that's where they meet? In Flexibility-ville.You definitely get the best avatar award. I might pick a Rothko for mine because they are fuzzier than hard-edge stuff. 1
Rob Osborn Posted April 23, 2014 Author Posted April 23, 2014 Rob (and others with the same view on science): You state that science has it wrong on evolution, the age of the earth (actually I'm not sure what you think on this one), origins of mortality, and similar theories that encroach on what you believe is religions realm. That science should stick to reporting on only what is observable. I'm curious, then, how you explain findings in the fossil record, genetic patterns, stratification, dating techniques, and other such observations? I would really like to know how you explain such things. I'm earnest in my inquire- I respect your faith-based perspectives even if I don't share them entirely. I believe in Heavenly Father, Christ, the scriptures, and prophets, but open to the idea that we don't understand or always interpret them with complete light and knowledge. By my limited understanding of the scientific world, the system of peer review, and continual improvement in technology- scientific perspectives are continually refining and shifting- so I'm comfortable with ambiguity between the two traditions and open to new perspectives in both directions- maybe that's where they meet? In Flexibility-ville. The fossil record is explained by a global flood. Stratification happens pretty much entirely underwater. The geologic column we see is vast and global in scale. No uniformatarian models explain this. Dating techniques lack the absolute ability to test the accuracy. Too many assumptions go into play with dating techniques. Dating techniques regularly have anomalies or have been shown to be incorrect. The problem again is scientists make assumptions and then at some point just assume those assumptions should be fact. Taking guesses is not science.
The Nehor Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 The fossil record is explained by a global flood. Stratification happens pretty much entirely underwater. The geologic column we see is vast and global in scale. No uniformatarian models explain this. Dating techniques lack the absolute ability to test the accuracy. Too many assumptions go into play with dating techniques. Dating techniques regularly have anomalies or have been shown to be incorrect. The problem again is scientists make assumptions and then at some point just assume those assumptions should be fact. Taking guesses is not science. Nope, objectively wrong. 1
Sine Saw Square Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 The fossil record is explained by a global flood. Stratification happens pretty much entirely underwater. The geologic column we see is vast and global in scale. No uniformatarian models explain this. Dating techniques lack the absolute ability to test the accuracy. Too many assumptions go into play with dating techniques. Dating techniques regularly have anomalies or have been shown to be incorrect. The problem again is scientists make assumptions and then at some point just assume those assumptions should be fact. Taking guesses is not science.Thank you for the answers Rob.I see how the global flood is central in your views. How did you reach these conclusions? Are they based on revelation? I'm not aware of revelation on fossils but I definitely haven't read everything said on the matter. If they exist I would love to review them. Thank you. mfbukowski: Thanks! I made it me-self I mostly lurk and read what others write on here but I always love your Picasso avatar. I'd miss it if you changed it.
mfbukowski Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Thank you for the answers Rob. I see how the global flood is central in your views. How did you reach these conclusions? Are they based on revelation? I'm not aware of revelation on fossils but I definitely haven't read everything said on the matter. If they exist I would love to review them. Thank you. mfbukowski: Thanks! I made it me-self I mostly lurk and read what others write on here but I always love your Picasso avatar. I'd miss it if you changed it. I used to have Popeye, which I still think is very appropriate and I am tempted to change back. I was also considering a Pevsner constructivist head sculpture but thought it might be too subtle
mfbukowski Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 I know I said I was going to bow out but just wanted to stop in and say Rob is wrong about science again.Bye again.Nope, objectively wrong.Liar liar pants on fire! 1
Brian 2.0 Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 The fossil record is explained by a global flood. Stratification happens pretty much entirely underwater. The geologic column we see is vast and global in scale. No uniformatarian models explain this. Dating techniques lack the absolute ability to test the accuracy. Too many assumptions go into play with dating techniques. Dating techniques regularly have anomalies or have been shown to be incorrect. The problem again is scientists make assumptions and then at some point just assume those assumptions should be fact. Taking guesses is not science.I really wish you would stick with observable facts and report those facts without bias and political agendas and cease these guesses and stopChasing pipe dreams.
The Nehor Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Liar liar pants on fire! I wear flame retardant pants. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) they still carry on the scientific method but only accurately report findins without bias and stop chasing pipe dreams. Without accurate predictive capacity science become religion. Edited April 23, 2014 by thesometimesaint
The Nehor Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Without accurate predictive capacity science become religion. Nope, religion has predictive capacity. It becomes witchcraft or sorcery.
katherine the great Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Its interesting that we have a near complete written history of the entire human existence in ancient times in the America's and yet not one single museum (not owned by the Church) relates this true story but instead paints a picture far different and distinctly separate and then concludes it as fact. This has been a great hardship on the Church and its members and prospective members. And this all because mainstream science has decided to tread into territory it doesn't belong and make guesses in the name of the holier than though "science says so" to establish it as some kind of substancial supposed fact. Hold on there Skippy! There is no scientific conspiracy to disprove the Book of Mormon. The belief that Native Americans are of East Asian origin predates Joseph Smith- In fact, it was first proposed in the late 1500s! It could just as well be said that Joseph Smith should not have tread in to scientific territory (which, of course would be ridiculous.) Europeans observed the striking resemblance of some of the native people to East Asians and proposed an east Asian origin for them. They observed the Mongolian blue spot and shovel shaped incisors-East Asian traits. They observed the diversity of language and language families which point towards a very ancient origin for them. Later they observed the closeness of the Alaska to Siberia, Inuit people, weather patterns, ice cores, archaeological sites, blood type, DNA evidence and on and on. When there are piles of implications, inference is in order. Photographic evidence of people crossing Beringia does not need to exist to establish a very solid scientific theory. 2
thesometimesaint Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Nope, religion has predictive capacity. It becomes witchcraft or sorcery. We all know what the Bible says to do to witches. Star Trek's "Search for Spock" not withstanding, try as we might we have yet to bring anyone back from the dead. Edited April 23, 2014 by thesometimesaint
mfbukowski Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 I wear flame retardant pants.I am sure that also helps localize the fire down below and keeps it from spreading.
mfbukowski Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Without accurate predictive capacity science become religion.For me, it was always religion, just more people started to notice that it was not science. Still working on that one.
MormonFreeThinker Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 The fossil record is explained by a global flood. Stratification happens pretty much entirely underwater. The geologic column we see is vast and global in scale. No uniformatarian models explain this. Dating techniques lack the absolute ability to test the accuracy. Too many assumptions go into play with dating techniques. Dating techniques regularly have anomalies or have been shown to be incorrect. The problem again is scientists make assumptions and then at some point just assume those assumptions should be fact. Taking guesses is not science. See the video to see how the fossils in rock layers contradict a global flood, you don't even have to accept the dating techniques to see how the fossils in rock layers are strong evidence against a global flood. A local flood theory is much better.
thesometimesaint Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 For me, it was always religion, just more people started to notice that it was not science. Still working on that one. Intelligent falling.
Ahab Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 The problem again is that scientists make assumptions and then at some point just assume those assumptions should be fact. Taking guesses is not science.Yes, that does ecplain why they are often wrong but what else do you propose that they do? All if us learn in pretty much the same way unless we just take someone at their word as if whatever they say must be true. At one time I didn't even take God at his word, and it took a lot of experiments before I began to.Just don't make the mistake of thinking of scientists as boogie monsters. They're just trying to make sense out of what they observe with their senses and when they see they are wrong they will usually admit it and then go on from there.Think of our Lord's own doubting Thomas. Some people just need to see to believe.
Rob Osborn Posted April 23, 2014 Author Posted April 23, 2014 Thank you for the answers Rob.I see how the global flood is central in your views. How did you reach these conclusions? Are they based on revelation? I'm not aware of revelation on fossils but I definitely haven't read everything said on the matter. If they exist I would love to review them. Thank you. mfbukowski: Thanks! I made it me-self I mostly lurk and read what others write on here but I always love your Picasso avatar. I'd miss it if you changed it. After looking at all sides and then calculating through logic the best answer that supports the evidence. There is no doubt there was a global flood
Recommended Posts