Where Science And Religion Should Meet

[Brian 2.0]

Taught as a theory and a reasonable explanation based on what we can observe.

You said the above regarding gravity. And this is exactly what people say about evolution as well.

The rub happens because you, Rob, and others don't find it reasonable, because you don't see the evidences and observations as in support of the theory.

And there are "observations" for evolution. It's not watching one species transform to another in a lifetime, but there are countless evidences from genetics, fossil record, etc that support the theory. So one can't say that evolution is a theory without evidence/observations and toss it aside as purely imagination or opinion.

And you understand that ALMOST ALL scientists, educational institutions, and academic publications view evolution as "a reasonable explanation based on what we observe."

So how would things change? There are people that believe in all sorts of weird things in the face of scientific consensus (global flood, young earth, flat earth, alien interaction with humans, etc). Should they all get a seat in the science classroom? Or should science teach differently about the age of the earth because there are young earthers out there?

[MormonFreeThinker]

Yes, I watched the video. He pretty much uses the whole video misrepresenting global flood theory and then offers no counter evidence to the scientists who performed a test showing animals of different destiny settling in different layers of sediment. The rock in the picture has one unique characteristic. Notice it is all made of the same sediment upwards. What natural process on the earth today is forming like layers?

 

A  Global Flood would have destroyed many geological formations

 

 

[katherine the great]

Let's use evolution instead of gravity as an example if you want to use an example, or you could just answer the general question.

Do you realize a theory isn't necessarily true?

A theory can be falsified.  The theory of evolution has not been falsified.

[katherine the great]

Rob is determined to believe that you can't be a scientist and believe in God. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Yes.  I have observed that--most especially those of us who accept evolution.  

[Brian 2.0]

Yes. I have observed that--most especially those of us who accept evolution.

You forget that religion is supposed to do the math. Let me show you how that conclusion is correct.

A = You

B = Belief in Evolution

C = Atheists

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C

You believe in evolution. Atheists believe in evolution. Therefore you are an atheists.

It's air tight mathematics.

[katherine the great]

You forget that religion is supposed to do the math. Let me show you how that conclusion is correct.

A = You

B = Belief in Evolution

C = Atheists

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C

You believe in evolution. Atheists believe in evolution. Therefore you are an atheists.

It's air tight mathematics.

Ah!  Kind of like a bad attempt at deductive reasoning...  

[Rob Osborn]

Deflection. Avoiding a question by trying to point attention in a different direction.

Sidestepping an issue.

Dodging the question.

Fobbing off the question.

Nice try..

If you're capable of looking at progressions of a process,, yes, I can show you a multitude of sites where the process of forming sandstone is at various stages of development. If you've got the patience to watch grass grow I can demonstrate the principle. But I assume that after you've mown your lawn you're willing to leave it alone and accept that the natural processes will facilitate needing to cut it again next month. You don't have to,....or possibly expressed better...you don't NEED to keep your eye on your lawn to ensure that it will grow. Experience has shown you that the lawn can grow without your supervision.

However, you have reasoned several times here that unless you can observe the process of sand turning into sandstone, (actually, I think your comment was that unless you can observe the process of evolution, you do not believe it is happening) it isn't actually happening.

But back to my question. You pointed out , regarding the picture of sandstone, that the singular layer of sandstone, similar in characteristics, was a process that is not observable in our modern world. I then asked if you thought the forming of sandstone was a result of the global flood, a process that would have taken max one year? You have not answered that question.

You gave no response that demonstrates any understanding of the process of sandstone formation. Now you have your chance. Explain how the sandstone in the picture was formed. Do you believe that that sandstone came about as a process or resulted from Noah's flood?

Most of that redrock in the picture formed as a result of the events surrounding the flood. Great geologic forces were at work to deposit, harden and erode all due to the events surrounding the flood. I am inclined to believe that the actual hardening took many many years afterwards as there is evidences of footprints, etc, in the sandstone.

The problem of the sandstone deposits is that you find extremely vast thick and widespread sediments that do not carry the typical characteristics of slow gradual deposit over thousands or millions of years.

[Rob Osborn]

I can fix this, I think.

Rob and The Nehor,

Do you understand that a theory is a rational explanation of how facts are supposedly connected and that the explanation isn't necessarily true?

I agree and readily accept this conclusion. Problem is though that many evolutionists equate this rationale as being a fact when it comes to their theory. Once you do that the word or term "theory" loses all meaning.

[Rob Osborn]

How do you explain;

The Laetoli footprints?

The skeletal remains of Lucy?

Fossils, that are older than 6000 years?

The Lascaux cave paintings?

 

Please explain in detail why you do not accept these as evidence. Just saying they are theories is not adequate. Tell me why you think God would place evidence in his creation that stretches the Genesis creation timeline? Why would He do this? 

 

Could there not be a reasonable explanation for a 3-5 billion year old earth and still believe in God (as I do).

The Laetoli footprints cannot be truthfully verified for a true age. Ideas, opinins and conjecture combine with interpreting radiometric dates. There is no way we can falsify dates that precede observation and circumstances present in the past. It is perfectly okay to say though that they are "believed" to be 3.5 million years old but wholly improper to just say they are that old.

As for Lucy, not sure what to say other than are we looking at an ape, a human or something else- who knows? The problem here is that some 40 bones found together do not show proof of evolution of any kind of species. One cannot positively show the remains of the lineage preceding it nor the lineage following it. As for the dates- once again- conjecture.

Fossils older than 6,000 years old? Again- what absolute dating method is being used that is falsifiable? The problem here is that we cannot positively prove anything dead or once living is older than 6,000 years old. In order to do so one would have to know the precise and exact rate of measurement for each individual circumstance surrounding the fossil. All dating methods have variables that cannot be positively proven to be accurate because there is currently no means to observe and check the conditions as they proceeded after the fossilization event. Once again it is only proper to say that some "believe" that fossils can be older than 6,000 years old.

The Lascaux cave paintings, thought to be 17,000 years old are just that- "thought". There is no absolute proof.

[Rob Osborn]

A theory is a rationale explanation of an observation. That through test and retest over time has been shown to meet the observation. As such it is always true until observation shows it isn't. IE; Newton is still right for everyday observations. Einstein is still right for observations of the very large scale, and Quantum Mechanics is proving true for the very small scale. They are still talking about the same thing, gravity.

You are wrong. A "theory" is never "always true" until observation shows it isn't. A theory is an explanation of evidence that may or may not be trute. It can be accepted by some to be true but that does not make it true. A theory is "always" not proven but may be accepted as such.

[Rob Osborn]

Ahab and Rob,

Why not use gravity?

Do you agree that the theory or gravity cannot be "proven true" but that it should STILL be taught in schools?

Do you believe that gravity should be given preambles noting that is simply "opinion" or "one of the beliefs" as to why things fall down off a table?

Not saying that evolution shouldnt be taught in school. Just saying that it should be made clear that the theory of evolution from common descent is not a proven truth and could in fact be wrong. No reasonable person doesn't already acknowledge that species vary and can change. Thats not an issue. the issue is if those small variances were the cause for all life coming into existence from one ancesotor in the past. Analogous to the threory of gravity, its would be similar to stating that gravity is the same everywhere in the universe- something we didn't nor cannot observe just as was early life on this planet- non-observable.

[Rob Osborn]

Well, he then insists it is just a guess and I go over the definition again and nothing changes. I chuckled when Rob insisted people needed to be more teachable.

The semantics of a word have a big play on knowledge and correct understanding. First and foremost, a "theory" in any context states immediately that it is not a proven truth, its not a law nor anything else that is unquestionable. I have never seen any context where "theory" equated to truth.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

You said the above regarding gravity. And this is exactly what people say about evolution as well.

The rub happens because you, Rob, and others don't find it reasonable, because you don't see the evidences and observations as in support of the theory.

And there are "observations" for evolution. It's not watching one species transform to another in a lifetime, but there are countless evidences from genetics, fossil record, etc that support the theory. So one can't say that evolution is a theory without evidence/observations and toss it aside as purely imagination or opinion.

And you understand that ALMOST ALL scientists, educational institutions, and academic publications view evolution as "a reasonable explanation based on what we observe."

So how would things change? There are people that believe in all sorts of weird things in the face of scientific consensus (global flood, young earth, flat earth, alien interaction with humans, etc). Should they all get a seat in the science classroom? Or should science teach differently about the age of the earth because there are young earthers out there?

Why not teach all angles, all opinins and ideas and let the students find their beliefs from their own abilities? If I was a science teacher I would teach both catastrophism and uniformatarianism and then let them decide which to believe. I certainly wouldn't teach the one as fact and the other as not.

[Rob Osborn]

A  Global Flood would have destroyed many geological formations

 

 

Or, as we global flood people believe, be the very cause of their formation.

[Brian 2.0]

Why not teach all angles, all opinins and ideas and let the students find their beliefs from their own abilities? If I was a science teacher I would teach both catastrophism and uniformatarianism and then let them decide which to believe. I certainly wouldn't teach the one as fact and the other as not.

We don't teach all angles and theories because not all angles and theories have equal support from evidence, hence some with little to no evidence have a higher likelihood of not reflecting relality.

Just because a theory can't be proven to be true, doesn't mean that ALL theories should be treated the same. Those with more supporting evidence will and should be taught more than those without any supporting evidence.

I have a theory... That a duo or advanced robots landed on this planet thousands of years ago and had a long battle, their weapons causing much of the natural sights we see now, like half dome of Yosemite which was originally a full rock mountain but the lazer sword of one of the robots cut it in half.

Should my theory be taught in class to let the students decide? Should I have equal footing with evolution and creationism? Why or why not?

[The Nehor]

The semantics of a word have a big play on knowledge and correct understanding. First and foremost, a "theory" in any context states immediately that it is not a proven truth, its not a law nor anything else that is unquestionable. I have never seen any context where "theory" equated to truth.

 

Theory of gravity it is generally accepted as truth. Theory of relativity. These are accepted by virtually everyone. While a scientific theory cannot be "proven true" many of them are the next best thing. That is because science itself cannot prove anything. It can disprove. We have some situation (quantum mechanics for example) where what we understand is accepted so completely that many risk their lives betting it is true.

 

So, you are wrong. Many scientific theories are believed to be true. They cannot be proven true absolutely scientifically but for all intents and purposes they are true.

 

And we go back to the semantic argument where you dogmatically state half-truths and I refute you.

 

Your next line is some dogmatic assertion that theories never mean truth with a satisfied nod as if you have said something intelligent.

[The Nehor]

Why not teach all angles, all opinins and ideas and let the students find their beliefs from their own abilities? If I was a science teacher I would teach both catastrophism and uniformatarianism and then let them decide which to believe. I certainly wouldn't teach the one as fact and the other as not.

 

Then you would be a bad teacher and a bad scientist and should rightly be fired.

 

You love picking holes with vague assertions about evolution and then prattle on about non-existent geological evidence for a flood. Straining at a gnat while dining on a herd of camels.

[Rob Osborn]

We don't teach all angles and theories because not all angles and theories have equal support from evidence, hence some with little to no evidence have a higher likelihood of not reflecting relality.

Just because a theory can't be proven to be true, doesn't mean that ALL theories should be treated the same. Those with more supporting evidence will and should be taught more than those without any supporting evidence.

I have a theory... That a duo or advanced robots landed on this planet thousands of years ago and had a long battle, their weapons causing much of the natural sights we see now, like half dome of Yosemite which was originally a full rock mountain but the lazer sword of one of the robots cut it in half.

Should my theory be taught in class to let the students decide? Should I have equal footing with evolution and creationism? Why or why not?

Perhaps you may not believe it but there is evidence for a flood and evidence that life did not evolve. There are two sides to a coin.

[Rob Osborn]

Theory of gravity it is generally accepted as truth. Theory of relativity. These are accepted by virtually everyone. While a scientific theory cannot be "proven true" many of them are the next best thing. That is because science itself cannot prove anything. It can disprove. We have some situation (quantum mechanics for example) where what we understand is accepted so completely that many risk their lives betting it is true.

 

So, you are wrong. Many scientific theories are believed to be true. They cannot be proven true absolutely scientifically but for all intents and purposes they are true.

 

And we go back to the semantic argument where you dogmatically state half-truths and I refute you.

 

Your next line is some dogmatic assertion that theories never mean truth with a satisfied nod as if you have said something intelligent.

They are not "for all intents and purposes" be true. This is the paramount problem Lets take the theory of evolution from common descent. For all intents and purposes it is not true. It doesn't mean crap if a person, a group, or an entire body of people believe a theory to be true- it doesn't make it true. Science isn't being very correct either in stating they cant prove anything to be true. Thats a very misguided statement. Take electricity for example- whatever the theory proposes it to be, whatever it is made up of or how it works, we "know" through observation that it most definately does exist and can verify it over and over again with scientific equipment. Lets take another example- light, we may not know its exact properties or how it works, etc, but we know for a fact that it does exist- we can use scientific equipment to see it and verify it really does exist. Science can and does prove truths or verifies truths all the time- it must or it wouldn't work. For example- science knows that using corrective lens we can help people to see. Science knows that lasers can burn things. Science knows that lightning has energy. etc, etc, etc. In science there are truths and then there are unknowns.

[Rob Osborn]

Then you would be a bad teacher and a bad scientist and should rightly be fired.

 

You love picking holes with vague assertions about evolution and then prattle on about non-existent geological evidence for a flood. Straining at a gnat while dining on a herd of camels.

It is only your belief that there is no evidence for a global flood. thats "your opinion".

[Brian 2.0]

Perhaps you may not believe it but there is evidence for a flood and evidence that life did not evolve. There are two sides to a coin.

Your coin analogy doesn't work because a coin has two equal sides.

On one "side" of this coin is practically all scientists, colleges and universities, and academic publications and all the evidences they provide available from multiple sources and organizations. There are both Christians and non-Christians in this group.

On the other "side" is VERY small number people, and all on them are biblical Christians, providing "evidences" that can only be found on their ministry pages.

It's fair to say the probability of flipping one side this coin or the other is worlds away from 50/50.

[Brian 2.0]

Perhaps you may not believe it but there is evidence for a flood and evidence that life did not evolve. There are two sides to a coin.

You still didn't answer my questions about my theory of a robot battle forming the earth's design as we now it today. Should I have equal footing in the science classes as evolution and creationism?

[The Nehor]

They are not "for all intents and purposes" be true. This is the paramount problem Lets take the theory of evolution from common descent. For all intents and purposes it is not true. It doesn't mean crap if a person, a group, or an entire body of people believe a theory to be true- it doesn't make it true. Science isn't being very correct either in stating they cant prove anything to be true. Thats a very misguided statement. Take electricity for example- whatever the theory proposes it to be, whatever it is made up of or how it works, we "know" through observation that it most definately does exist and can verify it over and over again with scientific equipment. Lets take another example- light, we may not know its exact properties or how it works, etc, but we know for a fact that it does exist- we can use scientific equipment to see it and verify it really does exist. Science can and does prove truths or verifies truths all the time- it must or it wouldn't work. For example- science knows that using corrective lens we can help people to see. Science knows that lasers can burn things. Science knows that lightning has energy. etc, etc, etc. In science there are truths and then there are unknowns.

 

See, this is why you are insufferable.

 

Electrical theory is a theory. It is NOT proven once and for all to be true because science does NOT work that way. It always works when we use it but it only takes one instance where it is shown to not work as expected to require overhauling or dismissing the theory. We do not expect it to be overturned.

 

We have a theory explaining light. Again, it seems to work like we expect it to but it is still not proven.

 

Evolution is not as well supported as our theories regarding light or electricity but it is not that far off.

 

That is how scientific theory works. You obviously have no idea how it works if you think science is busy proving our theories about electricity and light. It is more correct to say they have not been disproven.

 

Again, things you accept as proven are theories so kindly shut up about saying theories are not truth.

Edited April 25, 2014 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

It is only your belief that there is no evidence for a global flood. thats "your opinion".

 

There has been no evidence found for a global flood. That is not my opinion. That is a fact.

[Rob Osborn]

There has been no evidence found for a global flood. That is not my opinion. That is a fact.

Then go back to school and learn the proper use of words because you obviously do not use them correctly.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Rob Osborn