Jesus thread...

[.blank cd]

Sure. BTW its not faith based science, its the part of science that mandates the use of faith.

this is a little length but hang in there

Faith is a belief. It can be blind or it can be evidential.

How many of your friends believe in the big bang or evolution? How many of them have actually gone out and done some sort of research to prove it vs relying on what was told to them in class?

Hypotheses and the use of controls are typically results of someones belief that certain things are given and will present a specific type of result.

An example. All theories and hypothesis that are based off of the Big Bang. The big bang cannot be proven. It can be strongly hypothesized through observation, but it has never been observed. Even though this is the case, we have TONs of scientific hypothesis' that are based off of "IF" the Big Bang is how our universe was formed.

Evolution, as a theory of origin, cannot be proven because we don't have complete development data. And we never will. It will remain a theory that people take on faith, based off of incomplete origin records.

The arguments around these types of things always make me laugh we people argue science vs religion

There is this side of science where some people believe everything will be made known in time. we are realizing how much we don't know through the scientific method not how much we do know. For every one thing we think we figure out, we ask one hundred questions. But for some reason, there are a group of people who seem to think it different. Simply not true.

And ironically, all of these exact things can be said for people who claim faith in God.

My personal belief is that the atheistic movement, at some point in history, began to cling onto science as if it were a way to forge your own path without having to give any credit to God. the scientific method is much older than the atheist. That said. science does not rival or argue against God. People argue against God.

Hmmm. I see

I've noticed you've referred to a scientific theory as a layman theory. These are two different things.

Lets imagine for a second, you've got 20 neighborhood friends who don't know how a newspaper is printed. You really want to find out and you happen to have a big magnifying glass. You see a bunch of blue, pink, and yellow dots. You tell all your friends that the picture on the front of the paper is just a bunch of dots arranged into a pattern that looks like that picture, and you tell them how you found that out. This is what you'd call your scientific theory. It's how you explain how your picture comes from a bunch of dots and you've tested it with your magnifying glass. You've just done science! Now that all of your friends know, they go and tell their friends what you did and so on and so fourth. Which of these kids took this information on faith? Faith, by its definition, is a belief, or trust, without supporting evidence. All of these kids can ask you, all of these kids can work to make some money to buy a newspaper and a magnifying glass. Same thing happens in a science classroom. Not only are you learning facts and theories, but also how the people who found them come across the answer.

The way we explain how a process works is a scientific theory. The current model of evolution, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, is indeed a fact and a theory. It's been tested, and observed. The thing is, a lot of people tend to believe its used to explain the origin of life. It is simply the way we explain how we get from point a to point b. It is not a theory of origin. There is a completely different framework for this. We call it Aboigenesis. It has also been tested, conclusively, many times.

One of the problems with the debate is that , people don't seem understand modern evolutionary synthesis, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang, and the differences between them. And they're all so complex, it would take a doctorate in astrophysics, particle physics, biochemistry, and evolutionary biology to really cover it all.

My question to you is, could it be possible that you don't believe it because you don't really understand it? Maybe there's more you should know about it?

[sport_122]

Hmmm. I see

I've noticed you've referred to a scientific theory as a layman theory. These are two different things.

Lets imagine for a second, you've got 20 neighborhood friends who don't know how a newspaper is printed. You really want to find out and you happen to have a big magnifying glass. You see a bunch of blue, pink, and yellow dots. You tell all your friends that the picture on the front of the paper is just a bunch of dots arranged into a pattern that looks like that picture, and you tell them how you found that out. This is what you'd call your scientific theory. It's how you explain how your picture comes from a bunch of dots and you've tested it with your magnifying glass. You've just done science! Now that all of your friends know, they go and tell their friends what you did and so on and so fourth. Which of these kids took this information on faith? Faith, by its definition, is a belief, or trust, without supporting evidence. All of these kids can ask you, all of these kids can work to make some money to buy a newspaper and a magnifying glass. Same thing happens in a science classroom. Not only are you learning facts and theories, but also how the people who found them come across the answer.

The way we explain how a process works is a scientific theory. The current model of evolution, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, is indeed a fact and a theory. It's been tested, and observed. The thing is, a lot of people tend to believe its used to explain the origin of life. It is simply the way we explain how we get from point a to point b. It is not a theory of origin. There is a completely different framework for this. We call it Aboigenesis. It has also been tested, conclusively, many times.

One of the problems with the debate is that , people don't seem understand modern evolutionary synthesis, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang, and the differences between them. And they're all so complex, it would take a doctorate in astrophysics, particle physics, biochemistry, and evolutionary biology to really cover it all.

My question to you is, could it be possible that you don't believe it because you don't really understand it? Maybe there's more you should know about it?

Its funny, I majored in Biology. Spent many days having this type of discussion.

first off: my case is again demonstrated in your reply: We dont need to take another persons word in order to have all of these things properly covered for us. Thats not observational science. The study that says something is true is only accepted in the scientific community when it can be demonstrated in a lab based off of the research as it was published. Observations must be repeatable. You and I should be able to reproduce the results of all of these claims. If we have to rely on the guy that "knows more" then we have ignored the scientific method at its core.

Secondly: Abiogenesis has not been proven. Not even wanting to go into it so you can look up any of the hundreds or thousands of PhD written journals that tear that idea apart. You can also look up Spontaneous Regeneration. Basically it requires "magic" as Richard Dawkins calls it when referring to miracles testified to in religious documents.

That leads to my next statement. The faith aspect of science. Scientific theories can be disproven. Maybe not today or tomorrow. Maybe 100 years from now. There are tons of things that were observed in our past that we have learned were not true, but were true to us at the time of their origin. Yet some of them were so foundational to the understanding of our universe that to have even started to go against them would have be met with mockery. The point is, after years of believing some things and learning to understand our world based off of those things, we have often times found out that we were wrong. So what do we call the confidence that people had in those ideas that were found to be invalid.

My final thought: (tribute to Springer) Science is not an enemy to my faith. I am a supporter of the scientific method. I believe that people are given observational tools by God. I just simply wanted to point out that I noticed a lot of people making claims like Science is definitive. Thats wrong. as i said before, the arguments aren't even about the science, they are about the presuppositions of the people who are arguing. PS. too tired to proof read.

[bu villain]

I just simply wanted to point out that I noticed a lot of people making claims like Science is definitive. Thats wrong.

I agree that science is always subject to revision but that is exactly why it is distinctly different from religious faith.