Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[The Barbarian]

13 minutes ago, Josheb said:

No, Science is a mode by which "facts" are gathered. It cannot speak to truth beyond that... fact

Yep.   It's inductive.   So it's like learning a card game by watching people playing it.  You never know if you have the rules completely right, but that doesn't mean that you won't eventually know much more about the game than you did before, and it doesn't mean you won't eventually be really good at playing the game.  

That's how science works.   Might seem haphazard to you, but nothing else humans can do, works better for understanding the physical universe.

15 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Furthermore, many "facts" asserted by science turn out not to be facts after time passes and newer investigations prove what was believed true  to be false.

Facts are just facts.   The inferences of science are always approximations to the truth.   So we continuously refine our understanding to get closer and closer to the truth.

16 minutes ago, Josheb said:

"Science" used to say four humours were the cause of disease

Actually, even the ancient Hebrews knew about contagion, although they thought it was due to bad air.    And that misunderstanding took a long time to erase, even though one ancient Roman scientist correctly inferred it was the result of tiny organisms we couldn't see.

20 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Time and space were once thought to be linear 

Newton's theory of gravitation still works.   It's a great example of how knowledge gets refined.   Einstein merely showed that extreme mass or velocity could alter time and space in predictable ways.   But NASA still uses Newton's theory and his laws of motion to navigate the solar system.

22 minutes ago, Josheb said:

and the atom the smallest part of the universe. 

A very long time ago, yes.   Democritus of Abdera hypothesized atoms as the smallest unit of matter.   In fact the word means something like "indivisible" in Greek.   By 1897, the atom was known to be made of smaller particles.  (J.J. Thompson)   So almost as long as we've known about Darwinian evolution.

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

So we find Science is an act of faith

As you now see, inferences from facts.    As one noted scientist wrote:
"In God we trust.  But science needs evidence."

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

No, Science is a mode by which "facts" are gathered. It cannot speak to truth beyond that... fact . Furthermore, many "facts" asserted by science turn out not to be facts after time passes and newer investigations prove what was believed true  to be false. "Science" used to say four humours were the cause of disease and the used to be spontaneous generation explained why flies come from steak left outside too long. Time and space were once thought to be linear and the atom the smallest part of the universe. 

Then some fool split open one of those atoms and a whole pile of stuff fell out .

So much for the truths of science. 

So we find Science is an act of faith .

My bad!

 

Dictionary

 

fact

/fakt/

 

noun

 

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.

    

    

    

    

   I merely cut out the process and went to the conclusion.   I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Edited November 29, 2020 by kingdombrat

[Alive]

Science looks at stuff and then tries to explain what is being looked at.

Sometimes its a real good look and sometimes notso good.

Sometimes its looking at echoes of stuff looked at and not the stuff.

Sometimes its not looking at any stuff and explains what is not being looked at.

;-)

[Guest kingdombrat]

I merely try to discuss this imaginary bridge gaping what we do not read in the Bible to what Science has claimed.   When we break our own bodies down to chemical composition, this is where the waters get muddy with Darwin's idealism concerning Evolution.   Basically, he believed that if every chemical, component, stagnation, were basically in a swampy soup formation, life would eventually have emerged.   And to think some who truly believe in God, can look at the first Chapter of Genesis and fill in the blanks with this "Soup Theory" is quite astonishing.

 

Microbiologists study microorganism and particles thousand times smaller within their profession.   Bacteria is a great example.   Oddly enough, common [dirt] contains millions of these same compositions we find within our own bodies.  This proves God made Adam from the dust of the Earth.   But nowhere can we find a logical passage of Scripture in Genesis Chapter one where Darwin's Soup Theory exists.

 

Yes, Darwin's Soup Theory and Earth's dirt basically contain the same microorganisms.   Sediments from erosion can be found in Earth's dirt.  Nitrogen, Sulfuric Acids, a multiple list of the tables can be found in Earth's dirt.   So if there ever was proof of Darwin's Soup Theory, it would not be found in stagnate water.   It would be found within the Earth's dirt.   And we clearly read God spat into dirt making clay.   Now, if Darwin is claiming God's spit was the stagnated water...

[Guest kingdombrat]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Turns out that it is.   There are many ways to test that idea, all of which have been confirmed.   Would you like to talk about that?

We could probably use Galileo's pattern comparison to achieve these like results.   But I have no doubt through quantum mechanics we could not simulate a finding that also formulates this.   But that goes back to my original point.   Galileo said, "Mathematics is the Alphabet to which God created the Universe."   And even if our Mathematics seem to be [Absolute Truths], do we know for certain that our Mathematics is the highest Standard in the entire Universe?

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, kingdombrat said:

We could probably use Galileo's pattern comparison to achieve these like results.   But I have no doubt through quantum mechanics we could not simulate a finding that also formulates this.   But that goes back to my original point.   Galileo said, "Mathematics is the Alphabet to which God created the Universe."   And even if our Mathematics seem to be [Absolute Truths], do we know for certain that our Mathematics is the highest Standard in the entire Universe?

There's a lot of arguments about whether mathematics are just human inventions or if math is an intrinsic property of the universe which is observed by sufficiently-intelligent organisms.    Since a number of animals have been shown to have a rudimentary understanding of mathematical concepts, I suspect it's the latter.

We know other galaxies work by the the same physical constants that our galaxy does, since we can observe the way stars work, gravity functions, and so on in each of them.

Which is not to say that the physical universe we observe is the only one out there.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

 When we break our own bodies down to chemical composition, this is where the waters get muddy with Darwin's idealism concerning Evolution.   Basically, he believed that if every chemical, component, stagnation, were basically in a swampy soup formation, life would eventually have emerged. 

Hmm... he did agree that a "warm little pond" might be the best place for the creation of life, but he wrote this:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1876

He assumed that God just created the first living things.

[The Barbarian]

As you now see, inferences from facts.    As one noted scientist wrote:
"In God we trust.  But science needs evidence."

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

And that noted scientist, whoever s/he may be was arguing an implicit straw man. Not very truthful or scientific of him.

No, it's an important distinction.   You must accept God on faith.  Science requires evidence.

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

And since - as I have just shown and you've agreed - this so called "evidence" of science often proves to be wrong.

No, I'm pointing out that the evidence is facts.   Things known to be true.   Science is about making inferences from those facts.   It's really important to make that distinction, or science will be incomprehensible for one.

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

For the record: trusting God does not occur absent evidence.

Indeed, as St. Paul remarked...

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

We can learn much about God from observing His creation.    Sometimes, when I'm alone out there in the Trinity River backwaters, what I see of nature from a scientist's view comes together with an apprehension of the majesty and power of the Creator who made it all come together, and it's kind of an epiphany.  

 

Still one is saved by faith, as Jesus says.   One is not saved by evidence.   

Satan knows that God is real and is the Creator.   That evidence will not save him.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Each group simple draws different conclusions from that evidence. The secularist, the scientist who views the evidence without a religious or spiritual basis reaches different conclusions simply because the  premise what s/he's observing and testing is without a basis in a Creator is not in his repertoire.

I have noticed that scientists who are theists and those who are not theists, tend to come to the same scientific conclusions from data.   They do come to different religious conclusions, but science is unable to deal with that.  
 

It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Yes, but that is not what I am posting about when I mention "inherent information." In information theory there is assigned information, that which is taken from raw meaningless data and interpreted to be useful, and that which exists already as data with meaning.

The founder of information theory, Claude Shannon, put no such assumptions into the theory.   Indeed, meaning isn't part of the theory at all.   It merely notes the way information is transmitted, and tells us how to preserve information by redundancy.  

It's measure of the uncertainty in the message before we receive it.    So, for example, if we know for sure what the message will be, it has an information of zero.  Because it won't tell us anything.   Likewise, in biology, if there is only one allele for a gene in a population, the information of the gene is zero.   But it there's two alleles, each with a frequency of 0.5,then the information is about 0.3.    The more uncertainty, the more the information when you get the message.

I'm aware that some creationists have tried to produce a useful theory of information that avoids this problem, but I have yet to see them produce a usable theory.   As you might know, Shannon's theory makes the internet possible, and shows how to reliably communicate over billions of kilometers of space with very low-powered transmitters.

Can you show us some numbers for your theory?