Equating science with faith

Hi, Tesla! But, we don't all believe that God=reality, or that the universe and all reality is the body of Christ, as you've been saying. I'm Christian, and I believe that Christ's body looks like a human body, not a universe. No, science isn't divided: scientists are. There are many interpretations of the data, but interpretations are not science. Intepretations are the first step to finding evidence. When you've found the evidence to support your interpretation, then you have a theory, and you have science. Until then, you've just got an idea, an opinion, an interpretation, a hypothesis, whatever. And, without the evidence, you do not hold out on faith and continue studying in your unsupported direction: you let the evidence guide your next set of hypotheses.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

He has produced this evidence many times. So have many others. For an example, try this post, particularly this quote: Here's what Rahvin is trying to say: WE DON'T KNOW, DAMN IT! Do you need faith in your own lack of knowledge to not know something? No, we're pretty confident that we don't know this. So, we don't take Origins on faith.However, while science as a field reserves judgment until evidence saturates the scene, each scientist is an individual, and often holds personal beliefs (which may be based on faith). This does not make his/her/its personal beliefs science, and it doesn't mean science is based on such beliefs."Science" does not equal "beliefs of scientists," but equals "the sum total of all knowledge gleaned from empirical studies of available data." Where no data exists, no scientific "beliefs" exist: individuals' guesses, extrapolations, hypotheses and/or predictions may abound, but these do not automatically become "science" because they issued from the lips of a scientist. This is why quotes from individual scientists using the word "design" or believing that we have faith in our results do not constitute a solid argument. This is also why EvC's pro-evolution debaters demand "scientific consensus" whenever such quotes from scientists are provided.If you want more evidence, try perusing places like TalkOrigins. They provide a very nice overview of some of the good evidence, and even explain why much of it constitutes solid evidence. When you've read some, come back to the science forums to question the evidence, and we'll debate with you and explain why this evidence is solid. However, many of us are busy people and don't have time to devote to special literature searches for your personal inquiries, so don't expect us to do you any personal favors.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

You've said this several times in this thread, and I can't just let it slide anymore. Materialism is not the belief that the material world is all there is--it is the belief that the material world is all that we can study objectively.We do not automatically reject God in order to study the material world, we just attempt to find the mechanisms by which the universe was originally formed and is being shaped, not who did it. This is, like Mr Jack said, because we have to answer to "the facts," of which we can objectively study none about God. Such pronouncements would indeed by based on faith (unless they are logical extrapolations of consistent patterns). However, I am not aware of any. I'm sure producing some of these pronouncements for the purposes of exploring their basis (on faith or on evidence) would be acceptable on this thread. Why don't you do that?I warn you, though: just because a scientist said it, doesn't mean it's science: I know a lot of Christian scientists (I am one, in fact). Hypotheses also do not count as "pronouncements of science," but as ideas that science may later pronounce after further testing and verification. Strawman. Complete and ludicrous strawman. We wouldn't mention God because we can't say anything definitive and objective about Him (neither can you, actually). I believe in God, and I am a scientist (an evolutionist, too). The Big Bang theory does not spring from the assumption of God's non-existence: it springs from mathematical formulae, astronomical observations and even physicochemical analyses (no one of which disproves God, but every one of which fits better into BBT than into a literal translation of Genesis 1). Evolution likewise does not spring from the assumption that God doesn't exist: it springs from fossil morphology, genetic data, radiometric and other dating methods, ecological observations, mutation rates, reproductive and developmental observations, and a whole lot more.Every one of these little pieces of data is fairly fragile on its own (as AiG will likely tell you a million times over). However, when taken in combination, they are completely insurmountable. Gaps and holes in the fossil record, nor missing geological layers, nor any other flaws in any one of these bits of data is a problem for evolution: we know the data is skimpy and imperfect, but we never professed to know everything, and we don't believe it all because we want to or because of some religious hope in it--we believe it because the vast network of data is best explained by it, however fragile the current explanation may be.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

To add to this, catastrophism does not have to be false for uniformitarianism to be true. In fact, there is good evidence that both are accurate in specific cases. For instance, at the end of many geological periods (e.g. Late Devonian, End Permian, K-T, etc.), we see radical, rapid changes in biodiversity across the globe. Yet, between these "catastrophes," we see gradual, local changes that conform quite well to uniformitarian principles.Either way, catastrophes and gradual changes leave discernible traces. We pattern our "beliefs" after these discernible traces, and do not alter or reject the evidence in favor of the idea. I stand with oC. I know of many different dating techniques (electron-spin resonance, magnetic reversals, over a dozen flavors of radiometric dating, dendrochronology, biostratigraphy, etc.), but I don't know of any that "give young dates."

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

Actually, this is what you clearly stated: A broken clock does not qualify as "sufficient tools," and those who rely on them to tell the time cannot be considered "capable of investigating the truth." They will therefore only come to the same conclusion if they happen to make their conclusion on the exact minute of the day at which their clock stopped forty years ago. Therefore, their correctness is a matter of coincidence, not of the success of their investigation technique. The technique is completely flawed and unreliable.The thing that's really inexplicable is that, there is a proven method for finding the time: it's called a functional clock. Without it, you can't ever be sure the broken clock is right, even when it does just happen to be right. So, just stick to the reliable stuff and deal with the five percent margin of error. Otherwise, you're dealing with a five percent margin of correctness.By the same logic, if a religion's (or school's/philosophy's/etc., just to be fair) teachings just happen to include something that's correct, it isn't their faith, intelligence or great education that saved them, but coincidence only. Therefore, the religion (school/philosophy) is still invalid (and false), even though they managed to guess the correct answer one time.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

Nevermind. It wasn't helpful, anyway.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

"Belief" is a noun, antiLIE. And the scientific name for ostrich (Struthio camelus), literally translated, means "camel sparrow," even though an ostrich is neither a camel nor a sparrow. It's not even particularly closely related to either. In science, we use Latin and Greek roots to make up our own words for describing things. So, knowing the roots of scientific words (including the word "science") doesn't mean a bleeding thing: it's just an invented system of nomenclature based on languages of antiquity. What is the difference between me and you? When you get right down to it, it's the sequences in our genomes. What's the difference between you and an orangutan? When you get right down to it, it's the sequences in your genomes. And, what's the difference between you and a dragonfly? When you get right down to it, it's the sequences in your genomes.There is no good dividing line between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution, because the differences between very similar things are essentially the same as the differences between very different things, differing only in number of nucleotide bases that are not the same. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that there is a magical dividing line between the two. So, if we can observe one nucleotide base pair changing, why can't we observe two, three, four? Why, then, could we not observe 234? Or 514,789? Or 71,239,874,876? Why should we expect 6,718,563 base pair changes to happen differently from 1 or 2 or 3? Especially when all the changes (i.e. mutations) that we had ever observed directly happen the same way? So, what is the difference between "micro" and "macro"?When we say evolution happens, it's because we've got plenty of evidence that it does, and that it is pretty close to universal in occurrence. We see mutations happen, which result in changes in the genome. We see that the fundamental difference between organisms (no matter how distant they are taxonomically) is just differences in the genome. That's one sliver of evidence that we use to support our theory.Without something like that, we evolutionists wouldn't believe it. But, without anything even close to that, we theists believe in God. Can't you see the difference?

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Tesla's back! Where've you been, Tim? I couldn't pass this up: it's about the funniest fraudian.. I mean, Freudian...slip I've ever seen.Now, I'll apologize for my off-topic immaturity. I hope Tesla can forgive me for it. If it would make you feel better, from now on, I'll add "if they exist" to anything I mention in my scientific babblings. For instance, instead of saying "humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor," I'll say, "humans, if they exist, evolved from an ape-like ancestor." That's about the only distinction that you can make with the "you don't know that you really exist" argument. Wait a minute. Are you saying that belief in Christ is only based on physical evidence? That's not faith, no matter how you mince words. What you are saying here is not the typical creationist line of "science is a religion," but "religion is science." Why is it arrogance to believe based on evidence? Why is it arrogance to want evidence at all? Why is it arrogance to expect someone (e.g. God) to be fair in their expectations? Why is it not arrogance to refuse to provide evidence, especially when you have it all up there with you (I'm speaking about God, here)?I resent being called arrogant for having enough of an open mind to accept that my sensory perceptions are more reliable than the way I feel about them.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.