That's a clumsy metaphor. It should be more like: A biologist believes in biology (though "belief" isn't the right term), a creationist believes in creation, a Christian believes in Christ, and so on.
A Christian doesn't necessarily believe in creation and a creationist doesn't necessarily believe in Christ.
trossthree writes:
You're right.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8
I am excited because you're aware that a hypothesis is a hypothesis. LOL. Can you provide information that will help the community? Or are you going to try and play Doctor? LOL.
Dr Adequate writes:
Besides an evident desire to be impolite, I can attach no meaning to this post.
I felt the same way about your previous post to me.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8
Cool. The proper form is ps\pps\ppps\etc it's an abbreviation for "postscript"
1. A message appended at the end of a letter after the writer's signature. 2. Additional information appended to the manuscript, as of a book or article. [Origin: 1515-25; < L postscrptum, neut. ptp. of postscrbere to write after] The next addition would also be post (as in posterior) to the previous, hence pps.
Ok. I honestly didn't realize that. Thanks.
RAZD writes:
You seem very sure this is a fact.
What we are looking for is the reality of "life, universe and everything" (to use DNAdams phrase), and improving our understanding of it.
That reality is a fact, but our understanding of it may be imperfect. The example of the earth being flat, round, and oblate spheroid are examples of coming closer to the reality of what the earth's shape actually is.
In each case the validity of the representation can be gaged by independent observers applying the knowledge and the model of reality that applies and see how well it represents reality accordingly.
It is a fact that the earth has a surface that we stand on.
When we test the idea of the surface being flat versus the being a sphere by sailing around it, it is not the earth that changes, but our understanding of it.
It is a fact that the sphere is a better representation of reality than a flat plane.
When we test the idea of the earth being an oblate spheroid by gps measurements and observations from space, it is not the earth that changes, but our understanding of it.
It is a fact that the oblate spheroid is a better representation of reality than a sphere.
These facts are not going to change, the reality is not going to change, each change in our understanding comes closer to reality, becomes more factual.
However, every time we use a map we acknowledge that the surface of the earth can be represented by a flat plane with a very high degree of reliability. The fact of the sphere being a better representation does not diminish the factual representation of the surface by the map.
Likewise when we plot our position on a globe as we travel around the earth we acknowledge that the shape of the earth can be represented by a sphere with a high degree of reliability. The fact of the oblate spheroid being a better representation does not diminish the factual representation of the shape by a globe.
We can also do this with the age of the earth, and find that our understanding of it has improved tremendously by the application of science. We now know that it is a fact that the earth is at least 4.55 billion years old. This will not change to a younger date, but it may change to an older date. Why? because we have as evidence - facts - bits of the earth (and moon) that are 4.55 billion years old.
Likewise life: we know it is a fact that life has existed on earth for at least 3.5 billion years. This will not change to a younger date, but it may change to an older date. Why? because we have evidence - facts - fossils of life in sedimentary rock that is 3.5 billion years old. We know life already existed then, but we have not found any sedimentary rock older than 3.5 billion years that has not been metamorphosed (subject to heat and pressure, and destroying any fossils in the process).
The facts - evidence - that the earth and life have the age that they do will not change if we discover new evidence for older dates, but they will be superseded by new facts that show a closer understanding of reality. The 4.55 billion year old rock will still exist as fact and the 3.5 billion year old fossils of life will still exist as fact.
These are facts of science.
Ok. So, Scientific facts can be modified due to new understandings and the new understandings do not undermine the old understandings. An example would be your shape of planet Earth description. However, what if Scientist discovered that life has always existed, or that life was actually created by God spontaneously?
P.S. Are there any theories that state life came from a comet or similar?
Edited by trossthree, : deletion and question
"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8
A Christian Believes in creation, a Biologist believes in biology, and so on.
jar writes:
I'm sorry but that is simple what is called a False Dilemma. Those positions are not mutually exclusive. It is certainly possible to be a Christian Biologist and to believe the way God did it was by using biology.
True. I provided a bad example/metaphore.
trossthree writes:
Just to comment on your comment on the two creation accounts. The first(G1) is spiritual creation and the second(G2) is physical creation. The creation accounts(G1-G2) order is not a literal communication either. Also, if you read them(G1-G2) it describes vicariously, creation by natural means, not magical or mystical means
jar writes:
I'm sorry again, but there is simply NOTHING in the Bible to justify any such assertion. If you want, find one of the Genesis threads and try to support your position.
It is an assumption. You're right.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8
It maybe a Scientific fact that the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and TOE occured however it is not a FACT.
Unless you believe that life has always existed, you must accept abiogenesis as a FACT.
At some point in the distant past, there was no life in the universe. Can you agree to that?
At some point after that, there was life in the universe. Can you agree to that?
If yes to both then that's a yes to abiogenesis. It doesn't matter how that life came about. Even God breathing life into dirt is a form of abiogenesis.
Again, the only thing that can't be a part of abiogenesis is if life always existed, infinetly into the past. Which is impossible.
Unless you believe that life has always existed, you must accept abiogenesis as a FACT.
At some point in the distant past, there was no life in the universe. Can you agree to that?
At some point after that, there was life in the universe. Can you agree to that?
If yes to both then that's a yes to abiogenesis. It doesn't matter how that life came about. Even God breathing life into dirt is a form of abiogenesis.
Again, the only thing that can't be a part of abiogenesis is if life always existed, infinetly into the past. Which is impossible.
I am unsure of those answers(can't agree). I don't think those questions can factually be answered(can't agree). Also, if God breathed life into dirt that would not be Abiogenesis. God would be a life(breathing life into dirt), so life came from life.
Edited by trossthree, : format and comments added
Edited by trossthree, : comma
"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8
Ok. So, Scientific facts can be modified due to new understandings and the new understandings do not undermine the old understandings. An example would be your shape of planet Earth description. However, what if Scientist discovered that life has always existed, or that life was actually created by God spontaneously?
If evidence was found that life always existed, it would refute Abiogenesis.
Life created by God would not.
P.S. Are there any theories that state life came from a comet or similar?
Sure, those are referred to overall as "Panspermia". But that also would not refute the fact of Abiogenesis. All it does is move the location back in time and off earth in location.
But...
All of the evidence seems to support a time when not even the elements existed, and a longer period when only hydrogen and helium existed. During those period life as we understand life could not have existed.
I am unsure of those answers(can't agree). I don't think those questions can factually be answered(can't agree).
Well, the second one is most certainly answerable. I'll give you a hint: There IS life in the universe, on earth, right now. That is a FACT.
I can understand you not being able to answer the first question if you don't know. But, if you go back far enough into the early universe, life couldn't possible have existed. It was much too violent of a place and the necessary components couldn't survive.
Also, if God breathed life into dirt that would not be Abiogenesis. God would be a life(breathing life into dirt), so life came from life.
So you think that god is biological life?
If so, then aren't you putting unnecessary limitations on god, itself? How could a biological life be a god?
If not, then it would be making biological life from non-biological component. Or as it is commonly refered to as: abiogenesis.
Well, the second one is most certainly answerable. I'll give you a hint: There IS life in the universe, on earth, right now. That is a FACT.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I can understand you not being able to answer the first question if you don't know. But, if you go back far enough into the early universe, life couldn't possible have existed. It was much too violent of a place and the necessary components couldn't survive.
Any ideas I have on this are a WAG(according to jar =)) unless you believe in GOD.
Catholic Scientist writes:
So you think that god is biological life?
If so, then aren't you putting unnecessary limitations on god, itself? How could a biological life be a god?
If not, then it would be making biological life from non-biological component. Or as it is commonly refered to as: abiogenesis.
No, Yes/It can't be, and True. Ok, now I AGREE with Abiogenesis as a Scientific Fact. However, I am unsure of the theory I support in the realm of Abiogenesis.
Edited by trossthree, : comments
"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8
However, what if Scientist discovered that life has always existed,...
That would refine our knowledge of abiogenesis. This in essence would mean that panspermia was true, which then just moves the question on to where that life came from. Does abiogenesis then occur in space?
It could be very difficult to show "always" rather than in time before earth, as this would mean getting information from the depths of space and back in time.
There begins to be a problem -- if the big bang is true -- where you run out of the elements to form life as we know it because the elements haven't been created by stellar fusion at some point in the past. This might need a new definition of life. Or it may need a different physics theory (maybe with 'branes') that allows for a universe that has always existed as well.
... or that life was actually created by God spontaneously?
This may be extremely difficult to show in terms of specific life appearing on this earth suddenly ... could have been panspermia (see above) or special creation. It would likely require proof of a miracle, and event that can not be reconciled with what we know of the universe.
Neither would necessarily require the big bang or evolution to change.
What about the Steady State theory? The Steady State theory was a Scientific fact at one point. It's my understanding that in Steady State theory there was never a begining, but however this understanding has changed. In my opinion the Big Bang theory undermines the steady state theory.
And there are still some proponents I believe. One of the problems with the steady state theory is the expansion of the universe, unless
we allow for spontaneous (quantum singularities?) creation of matter\energy in the depths of space (continual minor bangs), and that supplies the same density of space we see as would occur from the big bang after only 13.7 billion years, or
it can be shown that this expansion does not occur (and this means some theory that can explain all the same measurements and observations that expansion explains). It was the backwards extrapolation of the expansion of space that lead to the big bang theory.
There are problems with both of these, that I'm sure our resident physicists would be happy to explain.
My point should be obvious, the idea of a Scientific fact is really just a high level of confidence not an actual Fact. It maybe a Scientific fact that the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and TOE occured however it is not a FACT.
(I think you mean evolution not the theory of evolution).
There is no special category for scientific facts that differs from other facts. Facts are what we know with a high level of confidence.
The evidence science regards as fact are just as factual as the map and the globe in representing the earth. Increased knowledge may improve our ability to model the reality, but it cannot change reality.
That the earth exists is a fact that applies equally to science as general ignorance of reality.
Ok. So, Scientific facts can be modified due to new understandings and the new understandings do not undermine the old understandings.
They are not modified so much as superseded by greater accuracy in understanding reality that involves new facts. The map and the globe are still factual representations of the earth. Newton's law of gravity is still perfectly adequate to get us into space and travel to the nearby planets.
No, Yes/It can't be, and True. Ok, now I AGREE with Abiogenesis as a Scientific Fact. However, I am unsure of the theory I support in the realm of Abiogenesis.
In a perfect world, you'd have said "hypothesis" instead of "theory", but apart from that, yes, you're right, sometimes the best answer is "I don't know".
Also, if God breathed life into dirt that would not be Abiogenesis. God would be a life(breathing life into dirt), so life came from life.
Well, this is a bit ambiguous. The phrase "life coming from life" would cover the spontaneous generation of fleas on cats.
What we actually observe is that organsisms come from similar organisms reproducing.
I think I've mentioned this before on this thread, and I think I finsihed up with this challenge: give me a definition of "life" which encompasses God and a bacterium. Any takers?
---
Finally, it's just occurred to me that even if fiat creation of life by God could be held to obey this "law" that "life comes from life", divine intervention in such a matter is still, is it not, a miracle --- it breaks some of the laws of nature --- is that not the whole point? Otherwise it wouldn't be a miracle, it would be a natural occurence.
™ Version 4.2