WILL SCIENCE DISPROVE GOD? [Spirituality & Religion]
[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXey0X0CxjU]
You know where I stand on this question.
You know where I stand on this question.
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
1-25 of 27
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SW-User
@Emosaur isn't it "that which is probable and observable?" Thats how I always understood scientific theory/true science
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SW-User
As Emosaur has suggested, you might like to review your understanding of what a scientific Theory actually is
Perhaps this will help:
Science starts with observation. We look at the world, and we notice things. Many of these things seem to be related, and so we try to come up with an explanation as to how they’re related. This explanation is called a Theory… we can think of these as ‘Big T’ Theories, because they are based on demonstrable evidence and they have wide explanatory power. Scientists then test the Theory in order to prove that it is wrong. This is an important point, and it seems to constantly confuse non-scientists. Science doesn’t try to prove that a Theory is correct. Science tries to prove that the Theory is wrong, and the Theory is accepted only so long as we are unable to show that it is wrong.
Contrast this with our everyday ‘theories’ (my neighbour is probably cheating on her taxes… my friend is having an affair), which are simply vague hunches or convenient fictions - we can think of those as small-t theories. Usually we go looking for evidence to support these ‘theories’, and it is common for us to ignore evidence that contradicts them. It seems to me that it's these vague hunches or convenient fictions that people have in mind when they say that evolution is ‘just a theory’.
Some people claim that the Theory of Evolution is not a real theory because ‘it cannot be falsified’. This is a nonsense. So, what would falsify the Theory of Evolution? Well, if we opened up a stratum of the Earth’s crust that was laid down, say, 100 million years ago and found there the fossilised remains of a modern-day giraffe, then the Theory of Evolution would have a fatal problem. The same would apply if we found fossils out of place in the Earth’s strata. Every single fossil puts the Theory of Evolution at risk, and yet, despite the hundreds of millions of fossils on the record, the Theory still stands. We never see a ‘modern’ rabbit (as an example) suddenly appearing in fossils formed, say, 60 million years ago. The Theory of Evolution is drawn from the evidence… and the evidence we continue to gather consistently fails to falsify it... but we continue to look.
Evolution as you talk of it is just a theory
As Emosaur has suggested, you might like to review your understanding of what a scientific Theory actually is
Perhaps this will help:
Science starts with observation. We look at the world, and we notice things. Many of these things seem to be related, and so we try to come up with an explanation as to how they’re related. This explanation is called a Theory… we can think of these as ‘Big T’ Theories, because they are based on demonstrable evidence and they have wide explanatory power. Scientists then test the Theory in order to prove that it is wrong. This is an important point, and it seems to constantly confuse non-scientists. Science doesn’t try to prove that a Theory is correct. Science tries to prove that the Theory is wrong, and the Theory is accepted only so long as we are unable to show that it is wrong.
Contrast this with our everyday ‘theories’ (my neighbour is probably cheating on her taxes… my friend is having an affair), which are simply vague hunches or convenient fictions - we can think of those as small-t theories. Usually we go looking for evidence to support these ‘theories’, and it is common for us to ignore evidence that contradicts them. It seems to me that it's these vague hunches or convenient fictions that people have in mind when they say that evolution is ‘just a theory’.
Some people claim that the Theory of Evolution is not a real theory because ‘it cannot be falsified’. This is a nonsense. So, what would falsify the Theory of Evolution? Well, if we opened up a stratum of the Earth’s crust that was laid down, say, 100 million years ago and found there the fossilised remains of a modern-day giraffe, then the Theory of Evolution would have a fatal problem. The same would apply if we found fossils out of place in the Earth’s strata. Every single fossil puts the Theory of Evolution at risk, and yet, despite the hundreds of millions of fossils on the record, the Theory still stands. We never see a ‘modern’ rabbit (as an example) suddenly appearing in fossils formed, say, 60 million years ago. The Theory of Evolution is drawn from the evidence… and the evidence we continue to gather consistently fails to falsify it... but we continue to look.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
SW-User
@newjaninev2 but you cant even prove the earth is that old. Really we can't. Processes believed to take millions of years happened rapidly at My Saint Helens. Also usually we "prove" earth layers to be ancient with circular reasoning.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SW-User
Science never tries to prove anything. The evidence indicates that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (roughly contemporaneous with the formation of the Sun), but if you have evidence to the contrary, science will definitely welcome it (as a side-benefit, you’ll become famous)
cant even prove the earth is that old
Science never tries to prove anything. The evidence indicates that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (roughly contemporaneous with the formation of the Sun), but if you have evidence to the contrary, science will definitely welcome it (as a side-benefit, you’ll become famous)
@SW-User
But that's not true.
We have wonderful fossil representations of "transitional" forms. That is to say organisms which possess features specific to an ancestral group and other features specific to a derived group.
Additionally, these fossil examples have been corroborated by other lines of evidence including genetics and ontogeny.
We can get into many examples if you're interested but perhaps to briefly summarize one example of the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny: Reptilian (diapsid/sauropsid) lower jaw bones are made up of several bones while mammalian jawbones are made up of only one. Given the evolutionary model, mammals evolved from diapsid ancestors which possessed the multiple jaw bones but turned these bones into the bones of the inner ear.
When we look at fetal development of mammals, we literally see the several bones forming diapsid-like as the jaw before being changed into the inner ear bones of mammals.
Two independent lines of evidence converging on the same conclusion: common descent.
That specifically has never been observed not even in the fossil record
But that's not true.
We have wonderful fossil representations of "transitional" forms. That is to say organisms which possess features specific to an ancestral group and other features specific to a derived group.
Additionally, these fossil examples have been corroborated by other lines of evidence including genetics and ontogeny.
We can get into many examples if you're interested but perhaps to briefly summarize one example of the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny: Reptilian (diapsid/sauropsid) lower jaw bones are made up of several bones while mammalian jawbones are made up of only one. Given the evolutionary model, mammals evolved from diapsid ancestors which possessed the multiple jaw bones but turned these bones into the bones of the inner ear.
When we look at fetal development of mammals, we literally see the several bones forming diapsid-like as the jaw before being changed into the inner ear bones of mammals.
Two independent lines of evidence converging on the same conclusion: common descent.
SW-User
Case For a Creator, Answers in Genesis, Is Genesis History?, Genesis: Paradise Lost...these are just a few titles/resources that explain things far better and more thoroughly than i could. Please at least check them out with an open mind. Good day everyone
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SW-User
@Emosaur prove its propaganda before being closed minded. Again you are stacking the deck before even starting as anything proving these things will logically be Christian. Now I am done, let's please stop. Have a nice day
@SW-User
Um...no. If you're holding up AiG as a source then we've already got a problem because they are self-admittedly dishonest.
From their website:
Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith: By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
They're not interested in the evidence unless it says what they want it to say.
I hope that makes you reconsider how you value them as a source on these subjects.
So I think what i'll do is wait till you feel you have the time to engage with the subject matter and we'll tackled it together then👍
Um...no. If you're holding up AiG as a source then we've already got a problem because they are self-admittedly dishonest.
From their website:
Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith: By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
They're not interested in the evidence unless it says what they want it to say.
I hope that makes you reconsider how you value them as a source on these subjects.
So I think what i'll do is wait till you feel you have the time to engage with the subject matter and we'll tackled it together then👍
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
1-25 of 27