Equating science with faith

ICANT writes

quote:

---

I found this when I googled angels pushing the planets around.
http://www.12x30.net/angel.html
Speculation about Archangels
But it does not mention angels pushing the planets around only that the Arch in Archangel talked of the planets moving in an arch.

---

I don't think you are looking hard enough. Here is something to look at while you're at it.Chick.com: Big Daddy? I'm particularly interested in one segment of it. So, supposedly, Jesus has been holding atoms together so that we may exist.

quote:

---

What I question is the blind faith in the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

---

ICANT, I think everyone has been answering this statement of yours several dozen times already. The answer to both origin of univers and origin of life is "we simply don't know". There are educated guesses as well as wild guesses. But when it comes down to it, we simply don't know.By saying that anyone claims to know and then point out that that person believes in it by blind faith, you are just using a strawman argument.

quote:

---

Scientific models have nothing to do with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

---

You're right, of course, which is why noone has claimed that we know anything about the origin of life or the origin of the universe. We have a few educated guesses here and there. Yes, we have a few proposed models for the origin of life and the origin of the universe. But those are simply proposed models and chances are they will not survive for long.ICANT, are you really trying to be difficult? Despite the fact that many people have said science doesn't know the answers to these questions, you continue to claim that science does claim to know the answers to these questions. Aren't you forgetting the bear false witness thing?

quote:

---

They can also see how many scientific papers were cited as evidence by you are anyone else.

---

I don't know if this is intentional or not on your part, but you seem to be trying very hard to equate biblical accounts with scientific papers as if scientific papers refuse to present the data require you to believe in them on faith. The opposite is true, of course. Anything and everything presented in scientific papers have to be repeatable by anyone and everyone that tries to repeat the experiments. The same cannot be said about miracles presented in biblical texts. And if a published result cannot be repeated, the person(s) who presented the paper can kiss their careers goodbye.An example off the top of my head is cold fusion. Those researchers who claimed they discovered cold fusion couldn't even sell burgers after the fiasco.Edited by teen4christ, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix images.

OurCynic writes

quote:

---

Historically people have had ideas which were no closer to the truth than your armchair hypothesis. Because these ideas tend to change, but the truth does not, how would pragmatism be a valid means of finding truth?

---

I think you are missing the main point that many people are trying to make, that science does not care much for "truth" or that "truth" can actually be attained at all.You seem to be criticizing science for one of its strongest characteristics, which is the ability to change itself accordingly in the face of new evidence. The same cannot be said of dogmatic "truths".

OurCynic writes

quote:

---

Except I would have questioned instead whether truth exists.

---

Does it matter?

quote:

---

Suggesting that science given the opportunity to explain the weather patterns does not attain something closer to the truth, or try to, is really kindof a silly assessment looking at things historically.

---

I didn't say that science doesn't bring us closer to truth. I said that science's purpose isn't to find out truths. Whether a scientific finding is closer to the truth or not is purely a side affect.

OurCynic writes

quote:

---

Of course it does. Truth in many ways describes a belief and its coherence with fact.

---

Um, no. The word "truth" has two meanings. One is for the behavior of reality and the other is the description of such behavior.Neither of these we can ever know for sure.And then there are religious truths, which are mostly based on bollocks.

quote:

---

Trouble is, that facts are never interpreted to an absolute, making truth an extreme ideal. In order to know that facts are real, and not misinterpretations of reality, one would need to be omniscient. Such would have rendered your argument completely.

---

Well, yeah, which is why I asked "does it matter?"Unless you claim to be omniscient, I don't believe for a minute that you know truth. I know there are many people out there who claim to know truth, and I call their claims bollocks.

quote:

---

Then let me say that science brings us closer realistic facts than faith does. would you still take argument?

---

Depends. I like to argue. So, even if you agree with me 100%, I'd still find something to argue with you. For example, I might disagree with the way you dress or the way you put on your pants each morning.Edited by teen4christ, : grammar

OurCynic writes

quote:

---

Whether science invokes faith?

---

I can tell you right now that science does not invoke faith. Just earlier today, my friend and I were doing a homework problem for our thermodynamics class. We were asked to prove an element of the second law of thermodynamics. We worked on it for 5 hours but we finally got it.If science invokes faith, instead of having to spend that much time working on a single relatively short problem, we could have written down "then a miracle happens..."

I think I know why other people are frustrated. Let me try to explain.Technically speaking, dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds. They evolved into something else which evolved into something else which evolved into something else... which evolved into birds.It's best to think of it in terms of walking. I could start walking from Chicago in a random direction along with a million other people. Each step I take can be considered microevolution. Each step another person takes can be considered microevolution. I might end up in Salt Lake City while someone else might end up in Quebec. Someone could also end up in Miami.The question is technically speaking did I get from Chicago to Salt Lake City? The answer is technically speaking no I did not get from Chicago to Salt Lake City. I got from somewhere around Salt Lake City to Salt Lake City. Before that, I was somewhere close by. If we rewind time enough, we could probably trace me back to Chicago.So, the very statement that "dinosaurs turning into a bird" is deceiving in that it implies that dinos literally turned into birds when this was clearly not the case. Some dino populations very slowly gained some new mutations that over lots and lots of time accumulated to give a noticable difference. Eventually, some of these accumulations gave rise to feathers and beaks while most other traits got lost in the passages of time.

I think the discussion on micro/macroevolution is relevant to the thread's topic because some people simply don't believe that the evidence points to macroevolution, or the accumulation of enough microevolution to allow a new species to emerge. The question we should be asking these people is can they propose a mechanism that acts as a brick wall to not allow one species to evolve into something else?