Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8972 total)
118 online now:
(118 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,494 Year: 7,242/23,288 Month: 1,148/1,214 Week: 160/303 Day: 36/44 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Relevance of origins to modern science
jar
Member
Posts: 32510
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 3 of 124 (707146)
09-24-2013 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 5:34 AM


The answer is...
1) What significance does Cosmic/Chemical/Biological origins (And there connection) have, in our endeavors for modern Science?
-A case study for example: Can modern pharmacogenetics progress using genetic similarity alone?
-Also, Vaccine products can be identified using relatively short cladograms in e.g. viral genomes, why is it then necessary to have a whole tree of life?

Why should we promote *********?

2) Could the current origin theories, in this argument, biological, be biased inferences fundamentally based on Darwinist ideas? I.e. Because Darwin observed the similar beaks, inferences regarding similar genomes on a global scale, follow in his evolutionary idea...

Based on but not biased.

Darwin (and other) made the initial observations however since then those ideas have withstood testing using lines of inquiry that simply did not even exist in Darwin's time.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 5:34 AM Ra3MaN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 10:32 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32510
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 10 of 124 (707160)
09-24-2013 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 10:32 AM


Re: The answer is...
The reason being, in the discussion of most Scientific literature you would try to either relate (or appose) the empirical data to a current model, which you (the Scientist) may or may not be in favor of. S

Again you are simply showing how little you know about what science is. Any scientist that suppressed data that refuted the initial position would lose their job; all of there past, current and future work immediately questioned.

Science is NOT religion and has built in checks for bias.

And your example of Einstein's Theory of Relativity or ANY other scientific theory is NEVER thought by scientists to be complete. All theories are held as tentative and subject to change, revision or replacement.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 10:32 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32510
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 13 of 124 (707165)
09-24-2013 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 11:26 AM


Challenge belief, always challenge belief
If Science tries to answer the origin questions, does that not challenge the beliefs held by people?

Beliefs should always be challenged.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 11:26 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32510
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 34 of 124 (707214)
09-24-2013 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 11:46 AM


the religious person would say ...
The non religous person, could say since the 18s segment is present in ribosomes of all eukaryotes, therefore all eukaryotes diverged from a single organism.

The honest religious person would say the same thing.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 11:46 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32510
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 60 of 124 (707425)
09-27-2013 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Ra3MaN
09-27-2013 5:04 AM


The false dichotomy is thinking you must give up your faith.
I am a Christian, raised in a Christian family, educated in a Christian school and I am active in my faith, have helped found new parishes, helped physically build new churches, taught adult and youth Sunday school and currently webmaster for about a half dozen Christian churches yet have no problems between my faith and what we have learned in science.

Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was the person that initially proposed the Big Bang theory. He found no conflict between his faith and that theory.

I was introduced to Darwin in class at an Episcopal church introduction to biology and evolution class and in Sacred Studies class. Neither the biology teacher or the priest teaching Sacred Studies had any problem with the Theory of Evolution.

Is there any reason that God, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen could not use the very tools He created?

Remember, if God really is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then it is the Universe that God actually wrote, not the Bible.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-27-2013 5:04 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32510
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 98 of 124 (707789)
10-01-2013 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Ra3MaN
10-01-2013 2:13 AM


wrong again
As you may know, both of these people are prominent figures in the public eye and could likely be the source of most of the Atheist, Abiogeneisis views.

Major wrong again.

While Dawkins is an atheist, atheism has nothing to do with abiogenesis. In fact, Dawkins and I are about the same age; he's a couple years older and I'm about ten years older than Kraus. But while I was in school, in fact at a Christian school and studying evolution and the then current ideas for abiogenesis, Dawkins was also still in what we called the Upper School, say 9th grade and Kraus would have been in kindergarten. Neither subject was new at that time since both concepts had been touched on briefly in earlier general science classes.

Since both concepts were part of normal classwork even in the Christian (founded in 1849 IIRC) school I attended you can hardly claim that either the Theory of Evolution or Abiogenesis were atheistic or created by Dawkins.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone attacking the concept of deity. In fact, even theists should challenge the concept of deity.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Ra3MaN, posted 10-01-2013 2:13 AM Ra3MaN has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32510
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 99 of 124 (707790)
10-01-2013 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Ra3MaN
10-01-2013 8:55 AM


Wrong yet again.
It may happen that the Harvard university Atheists can't get along with the Oxford University Atheists because of their University affiliation

Do you know who John Harvard was?

You should also look up the Permanent Private Halls of Oxford University as well as the origin of the Colleges of Oxford.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Ra3MaN, posted 10-01-2013 8:55 AM Ra3MaN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Ra3MaN, posted 10-01-2013 9:33 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32510
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 102 of 124 (707796)
10-01-2013 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Ra3MaN
10-01-2013 9:33 AM


Re: Wrong yet again.
Your point is moot though. If you substitute the word theist for atheist the sentence makes the same sense. And let's face it, no one has done genocide as well and effectively as Christians. South Africa itself was almost as great an example as the US.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Ra3MaN, posted 10-01-2013 9:33 AM Ra3MaN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Ra3MaN, posted 10-01-2013 10:01 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32510
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 108 of 124 (707804)
10-01-2013 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Ra3MaN
10-01-2013 10:01 AM


Re: Wrong yet again.
And no one has claimed that but you gotta admit, no cause has done more than religion.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Ra3MaN, posted 10-01-2013 10:01 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020