Floods, Fossils, Science and Faith (Split from Global Warming)

[Buckeyes85]

In that case, what were you trying to say?

That science does not assume either the existence or non existence of god. Scientific theories or explanations are based upon verifiable evidence. I'm guessing that the majority of scientists do in fact believe in a higher power, but don't make that belief an assumpion upon which a scientific theory is based.

If your scientific theory requires one part science and one part belief in god, isn't science its faith.

 

[lvbuckeye]

if your scientific theory depends on somehow getting around the Law of Biogenesis, it isn't science, it's faith...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Science and faith are very often the exact same thing. I believe there are gamma rays shooting through me at this very moment. I can't feel them, I can't taste them, see them, smell them... I can't percieve them at all.. and yet, I believe they are "out there" because I "trust" the science that "proved" they exist and behave in a certain way. In short, I have faith in gamma rays. I have faith that the sun (or, more correctly, the earth) will behave the same way tomorrow as today, and therefore rise. Can I say I know these things to be true scientifically? I suppose so. But, then, can't I also say I know God to exist?

I mean, look at this thread.... you have a bulk of people who are certain that Noah's flood did not actually occur. You have at least one guy certain that it did. A fact does not become a fact simply because the majority -even an overwhelming majority - believe something. I personally do not think there was ever a world wide flood the nature of the Noah flood, and I think so believing is not only rational, but correct. I even have a theory on what that story is.... but, reality is, for as much as I know, the flood could have well occured. Science? Faith? What's the difference. They are both describing the exact same thing at the end of the day anyway, so making a distinction between the two, in my mind, is fruitless.

 

[lvbuckeye]

is that agnostic?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

is that agnostic?

Who? Me? Maybe. Not sure it matters if it is or isnt. You know I'm not much of a "labels" guy.

 

[lvbuckeye]

fair enough, i guess...

 

[Buckeyes85]

Science and faith are very often the exact same thing.

With all due respect, science and faith are NEVER the same thing. That's not to say that the two do not coexist. Obviously they do. But science seeks the natural explanation for things, and depends upon objective verification to assume some measure of validity. Faith is the polar opposite.

I believe most people rely upon both faith and science to explain the world. Perhaps you accept evolution to the extent it shows how various species got to their current state, but don't believe science adequately explains how life began initially. Faith may fill in the gaps. But simply relying upon faith and science simultaneously does mean the two are synonymous.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

With all due respect, science and faith are NEVER the same thing. That's not to say that the two do not coexist. Obviously they do. But science seeks the natural explanation for things, and depends upon objective verification to assume some measure of validity. Faith is the polar opposite.

Not so. The opposite of the "natural explanation of things" is not "faith" it is more like "magic" Faith does not require a magical explanation (though, I would concede probably leaves room for it).

I believe most people rely upon both faith and science to explain the world. Perhaps you accept evolution to the extent it shows how various species got to their current state, but don't believe science adequately explains how life began initially. Faith may fill in the gaps. But simply relying upon faith and science simultaneously does mean the two are synonymous.

I think I made myself clear but if I didn't, let me try this: I have faith in science. As for the evolution debate, I'm firmly in the evolution is real camp and on the "how life began" question, I accept the "primordial soup" idea. Incidentally, I don't find either of these notions as hostile to God (despite what one might want to literally construe from the Bible (which aint my bag))

 

[lvbuckeye]

Not so. The opposite of the "natural explanation of things" is not "faith" it is more like "magic" Faith does not require a magical explanation (though, I would concede probably leaves room for it).



I think I made myself clear but if I didn't, let me try this: I have faith in science. As for the evolution debate, I'm firmly in the evolution is real camp and on the "how life began" question, I accept the "primordial soup" idea. Incidentally, I don't find either of these notions as hostile to God (despite what one might want to literally construe from the Bible (which aint my bag))

how do you crack the Law of Biogenesis nut? that is, life can ONLY come from life, and can NEVER come from non life. how do you get around this scientific law?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

how do you crack the Law of Biogenesis nut? that is, life can ONLY come from life, and can NEVER come from non life. how do you get around this scientific law?

I don't believe it is true, that's how. You and I disagree on the evolution thing, and I don't want to take this thread down that path. Suffice to say, I believe there is enough time for random amino acids to get together, and over time produce DNA, which over time produced more complex forms of life, from single cell amoebas to what you see today.

Why do you seem to assume that God cannot work within the laws of science which he set up?

Edit (I wrote that shortly after waking, and have more to add): When I say above "I don't believe it's true" I don't mean that I disagree with the phrase "all life is from life." What I mean is, I think we're taking too much from Pasteurs research. At the time of his research, people believed maggots sponeously generated. He basically proved that was not so, life does not currently spontaneously arise in its present forms from non-life in nature.

In fact, let me ask you LV... since it appears that Pasteur actually set out to prove, and then did prove, that life dosn't just magically appear, how you can use such a theory to support your idea that God makes things appear and not some other natural mechanism? It seems to me, if Pasteur found, "Holy crap, Maggots really do just come right out of the air from nothing at all" there might be an argument to be made that God was responsible for present day generation of Maggots... but sadly... not so.

I'm also splitting this stuff off, as it has nothing to do with Global Warming and deserves it's own thread.

 

[HabaneroBuck]

With all due respect, science and faith are NEVER the same thing. That's not to say that the two do not coexist. Obviously they do. But science seeks the natural explanation for things, and depends upon objective verification to assume some measure of validity. Faith is the polar opposite.

I guess modern-day Christianity does a horrible job of awakening the consciousness of the masses to the "objective verification" of its claims, but suffice it to say, faith is not the polar opposite of science. If all of the prophesies of the Bible had been proven to be demented ramblings, then it would have been discarded long ago. The Bible is true because its prophecy is true.

It requires great faith to believe that the projections of events such as those in "Day After Tomorrow" will come to pass, does it not? Or, as LV succinctly states, that life could arise from non-life...does that not require great faith? Perhaps, even "blind faith"?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Exactly, Habanero. The chance of life emerging from nonliving protiens is so astronomical that for me it is that much harder to believe than that God created life in His account directly in Genesis. Combine that with the fact that instead of genetically evolving humans are actually devolving - losing genetic information. That's why we have more cancer, alzheimer's, hemophilia, sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, and other genetic diseases than ever before because our cell's no longer have all the correct information.

But even further than the astronomical odds of random DNA formation would be the random formation of DNA and other vital cell structures such as mitochondria and the RNA needed for that in an organised manner to form a cell. DNA on its own is not life.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Exactly, Habanero. The chance of life emerging from nonliving protiens is so astronomical that for me it is that much harder to believe than that God created life in His account directly in Genesis. Combine that with the fact that instead of genetically evolving humans are actually devolving - losing genetic information. That's why we have more cancer, alzheimer's, hemophilia, sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, and other genetic diseases than ever before because our cell's no longer have all the correct information.

But even further than the astronomical odds of random DNA formation would be the random formation of DNA and other vital cell structures such as mitochondria and the RNA needed for that in an organised manner to form a cell. DNA on its own is not life.

Considering the billions upon billions of worlds that exist in our universe, the fact that life occuring in a manner such as being described by those who'd say it came from "non-life" should make plenty of sense to you. That is to say, you're saying the probability of life occuring from non-life is astonishingly low. Well, I will assume you don't believe in life on other planets, and I would therefore have to say to you, It seems to me that life occuring in the universe meets your criteria of happening so rarely that it would appear to be competely against all odds to have occured in said manner.

On the other hand, maybe you believe in life elsewhere in the universe.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Considering the billions upon billions of worlds that exist in our universe, the fact that life occuring in a manner such as being described by those who'd say it came from "non-life" should make plenty of sense to you. That is to say, you're saying the probability of life occuring from non-life is astonishingly low. Well, I will assume you don't believe in life on other planets, and I would therefore have to say to you, It seems to me that life occuring in the universe meets your criteria of happening so rarely that it would appear to be competely against all odds to have occured in said manner.

On the other hand, maybe you believe in life elsewhere in the universe.

Do we have the numbers to verify this?

I have heard some people, even evolutionists who believe Earth is unique in the generation of human life, say that the odds of life generating from non-life is actually larger than the billions and billions of worlds that exist in the universe. I would like to see what the guestimated numbers for these two would be in order to make a comparison.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

There is one count them one planet in our solar system, even galaxy that has the random possibility of even being hospitable to life. Any life requires water, right climate, right atmosphere, right gravity, right alot of other things. So we've narrowed our possible planets to well very non-astronomical numbers well below the billions you are talking about. Plus what b-Grad said.