Thread: Evolution, Genetics, and Resistant Viruses

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

How vocal are they about their views? Hey as long as the science is solid I don't mind what their views are. But I think science is currently more biased against God many times because the standard assumption from scientists "must be" that there is no creator, as we have discussed in this thread. Any scientist who does otherwise is taking a risk. It's an interesting paradox compared to when the pendulum swung the other way so many years ago.

I also think many more scientists not believing in God is a result of the educational system as well as this pressure to avoid God that seems so prevalent in modern science.

Science is, by definition, only concerned with the natural world, so yes, God is right out. That focus on the natural world is one of the reasons that it's been so successful at the exponential growth in our understanding of the universe in the last few hundred years, and every single modern advancement, from mechanics to medicine to tech. What major discoveries (hell, what minor discoveries) have supernatural disciplines made in the last 300 years?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Science is, by definition, only concerned with the natural world, so yes, God is right out. That focus on the natural world is one of the reasons that it's been so successful at the exponential growth in our understanding of the universe in the last few hundred years, and every single modern advancement, from mechanics to medicine to tech. What major discoveries (hell, what minor discoveries) have supernatural disciplines made in the last 300 years?

Well here's one. As I said, 3000 years ago Jewish scholars knew that the universe was created from nothing and they taught that to their students, because the actual creator told them about it. 3000 years later science caught up and said the same thing. There are other things, but why bother.

You say science is "only concerned with the natural world". This statement is a perfect example of your own bias affecting your viewpoint. A creator cannot be an explanation in your worldview no matter what, so you will never consider that as a possibility. So whatever implausible explanation you can come up with in any circumstance suffices in place of any possibility of a creator. Your statement demonstrates bias because it starts by assuming that the "natural world" has nothing to do with a creator.

The focus on the scientific method is the reason for the advancements in science in the last few hundred years. That has little to do with whether God exists or not.

I don't want to simply say "God did it" where there are gaps in scientific knowledge. I want research to continue! I want advancements in our understanding to happen! But God doesn't have to be eliminated for that to happen. To suggest that is just silly. After all if you believe in God then you know that God created the rules science operates within in the first place. The "natural world" was created by God in the first place. I have great reverence for that fact, but that would never sate my thirst for knowing how it all works! Nor would it for most people, let alone scientists.

Sheesh.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Astrophysics isn't my thing, but as far as I know, current theories about the beginning of the universe don't say that it started with nothing. Second of all, saying that "before everything, there was nothing" is hardly a benchmark of discovery practices.

It is when every other religion has some story of creation that involves characters, animals and all the rest in the story of the creation of the universe that actually does counter what we have learned thus far from science. No this one religion was unique in that viewpoint, which was basically that there was nothing, then the universe flashed into being, then the earth formed, then life appeared on earth, then eventually man came along. This is all in the bible, in the correct order of these events occurring as we know it today.

You want to go off in the weeds and talk about earth age and all that crap, well that is beside the point in my opinion. I am making no claims as to the age of the earth or anything else.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

"God did it" isn't falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable, then it's not testable, and if it's not testable, then science, by definition, can't test it. That's not so much a bias as it is a limitation of the method. Given all of that, science has been more successful at unravelling the secrets of our universe than any other method ever created by man.

I already explained Abductive reasoning and its common use in science. Using abductive reasoning to postulate that based on the other possible answers there may be a creator is no different than using it as it has been used in many other fields of science. Scientific research is not based ONLY on what has been observed. It is also based on things that have not yet been observed and the search for those things. This is why I keep saying that (so far anyway) the more we have learned about the universe, the more plausible the existence of a creator is. Maybe someday when we know all the answers it'll be completely obvious that there is a creator.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

You say that you're not arguing "god of the gaps," but several of your arguments, including your incorrect "odds" argument, are exactly that. "Evolution can't explain it, so it must be god." The problem with God of the Gaps is that those gaps keep getting smaller.

Yes and so far, as the gaps have gotten smaller, and as we understand more fully the complex and beautiful order of our universe, the laws that govern it and of life on earth, the more plausible the idea of a creator becomes.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

We have no evidence that God created the rules of that science operates within. You can believe that if you like, since there's no evidence to counter it, but there's no evidence to support it. You could just as correctly say that omnipotent aliens did it.

This question is about a creator. So if you want to say that it was Omnipotent aliens, have at it! You will have still lost any argument that there was not a creator.

Once we reach that point in the discussion then we are on common ground regarding acceptance of the notion of a creator. I can then discuss with you the compelling reasons why the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a far more plausible explanation for a creator than your Omnipotent aliens, which would be the subject of an entirely different discussion that starts with the acceptance that there may have been a creator. I can do this by referencing historical and biblical accounts throughout history that reference God, and not Omnipotent aliens.

Every child has imaginary friends. Ergo, imaginary friends are real.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Ok, so you'd rather talk about your arguments for any creator again? Fine. Do you agree that the odds of the deck of cards that I just shuffled appearing in the order that they did is far, far lower than the odds of humanity appearing, based on the math that you posted earlier?

Nope. Because you aren't looking at the entire picture with the odds you are saying I have cited. I already explained this which is why I moved on from it. You keep repeating it because you cannot stick to the scientific data with your part of the discussion and remain seen as being intellectually honest about it. Maybe go review what I posted and take another look.

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Every child has imaginary friends. Ergo, imaginary friends are real.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Interesting philosophical position. But off topic?

Quite on topic

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2