# Science



## ted_BSR (Sep 2, 2012)

Since science is such a relevant topic on this forum, I thought a thread dedicated to it would be appropriate. I have four questions that I will ask, and I will accept all answers without judgment, because this is a blog after all.

In fact, I will not even offer my own opinion on the matter (in this thread). I really just want to know what you guys think about it.

1.	What is science?
2.	What is the process/method of science?
3.	Does science prove things?
4.	To what level have you studied science?
No answer is better than the other. Study is good.
High School? Independent? College? Post Graduate? Beyond!!!??


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 2, 2012)

You first.  You don't hesitate to tell us we're wrong but NEVER explain why. So educate us oh wise scientist.


----------



## bigreddwon (Sep 2, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Since science is such a relevant topic on this forum, I thought a thread dedicated to it would be appropriate. I have four questions that I will ask, and I will accept all answers without judgment, because this is a blog after all.
> 
> In fact, I will not even offer my own opinion on the matter (in this thread). I really just want to know what you guys think about it.
> 
> ...



To me, science is what we Atheists use to anger and confuse Christians.. just jokin,...kinda.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 2, 2012)

You really are a card carrying atheist aren't you?
Your avatar, your forum signature, and all the nasty, sarcastic little bits of cuties that call conservatives and Christians stupid.

I'll bet someone in the past has made you a very angry person towards Christians.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> You first.  You don't hesitate to tell us we're wrong but NEVER explain why. So educate us oh wise scientist.



OK, I'll go first. I have explained the scientific method many times before.

1. Science is a language humans use to describe things.

2. The Scientific method is:
      A. Formulate a hypothesis
      B. Conduct an experiment to test the hypothesis
      C. The results of the experiment will support, or not support the hypothesis
      D. Report your results/conclusions
      E. Repeat

3. No, the scientific method says nothing about proof.

4. I have a Bachelor's of Science, I am definitely not bragging, I work with and know many many people with far higher levels of education than me.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 3, 2012)

bigreddwon said:


> To me, science is what we Atheists use to anger and confuse Christians.. just jokin,...kinda.



What about a Christian who is also a scientist? I am not confused or angered by what you think science is.


----------



## The Greatest Sum (Sep 3, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> OK, I'll go first. I have explained the scientific method many times before.
> 
> 1. Science is a language humans use to describe things.
> 
> ...



1. I'd contend that mathematics is more a language we use to describe things (nature). If I had to define science, briefly, I'd say it's knowledge--including the process of obtaining said knowledge. However, my favorite definition is Richard Feynman's: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

2. Once again, Feynman says it better than I: 


3. No. There's always the chance, no matter how small, that we'll come across an alternative explanation for the result of any experiment. I don't think any respectable scientist would make any claim with absolute, 100% certainty.

4. I'm a student.

Religion has nothing to do with scientific inquiry. The existence of a God or gods is not falsifiable, and therefore cannot be tested using the scientific method. Neither can the existence of flying saucers (as Feynman mentions in the video), or leprechauns, or any other thing people have no evidence for.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 3, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> OK, I'll go first. I have explained the scientific method many times before.
> 
> 1. Science is a language humans use to describe things.
> 
> ...



So the scientific method says nothing about proving anything. So how does stuff get proven? How did we know a nuclear reactor would work? How did Pasteur  know his process would work? Was it not proven to work? Do we not use vaccines that scientist have proven to work? Did scientist not prove that splitting a hydrogen atom would cause a massive explosion? 

If sciences does not prove things WHAT DOES?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 3, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> You really are a card carrying atheist aren't you?
> Your avatar, your forum signature, and all the nasty, sarcastic little bits of cuties that call conservatives and Christians stupid.
> 
> I'll bet someone in the past has made you a very angry person towards Christians.



Actually, his avatar's statement is irrelevant.   It doesn't matter if there are more or less stupid people who are conservative or liberal....irrelevant.    The fact that there are many advanced-thinking, PHD-holding creationists and Christians is all we need to know.   

I love science.   I read scientific articles almost everyday.   The more science learns about life the bigger the problem gets for evolutionists/atheists.   

Consider the source, Brother.


----------



## hunter rich (Sep 3, 2012)

You never really prove a theory. What scientists do is instead come up with implications of the theory, make hypotheses based on those implications, and then try to prove that specific hypothesis true or false through either experiment or careful observation. If the experiment or observation matches the prediction of the hypothesis, the scientist has gained support for the hypothesis (and therefore the underlying theory), but has not proven it. It's always possible that there's another explanation for the result.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 3, 2012)

Bishop - I am not sure that anything can be proven. We can be convinced, but proof is another matter.

Thanks for your responses. You don't have to follow the format, but try if you can.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 3, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Bishop - I am not sure that anything can be proven. We can be convinced, but proof is another matter.
> 
> Thanks for your responses. You don't have to follow the format, but try if you can.



So pasteurization and nuclear fission haven't been proven to work?


----------



## The Greatest Sum (Sep 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> So pasteurization and nuclear fission haven't been proven to work?



If a person splits the nucleus of a uranium atom and energy is released, it doesn't PROVE that the same thing happens every time with every uranium atom. It only shows that it worked in that particular instance. Obviously, we expect to get the same result if we repeat the experiment over and over, but it can't be 100% proven that we will unless we perform the experiment on every last uranium atom--clearly impossible. Even if we're 99.9999999% sure of something, it's good to admit there's a slither of a chance we could be wrong on how, why, or if something works. I came across this passage in an article and it sums up my sentiments on the matter quite well:  





> Some people find this unsettling. If nothing can be proved then how can we know anything? What good is science? The problem is that people are wanting more from science than we actually need. We don't need to know that gravity always works. We just need to be confident that it works under given circumstances. After enough successful tests a theory may be considered a fact in practicality, even when it is not technically proved correct.
> Science is not about proving things. It never has been, and it never will be. Instead, science is about observing the Universe around us and using those observations to try to understand how the Universe works. This understanding is always subject to change no matter how confident we are. --Kemp "Nature of Science"


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 3, 2012)

The Greatest Sum said:


> If a person splits the nucleus of a uranium atom and energy is released, it doesn't PROVE that the same thing happens every time with every uranium atom. It only shows that it worked in that particular instance. Obviously, we expect to get the same result if we repeat the experiment over and over, but it can't be 100% proven that we will unless we perform the experiment on every last uranium atom--clearly impossible. Even if we're 99.9999999% sure of something, it's good to admit there's a slither of a chance we could be wrong on how, why, or if something works. I came across this passage in an article and it sums up my sentiments on the matter quite well:



I like that quote, and your insight into science. If you are a student of science, then I feel you will be an excellent scientist. Well done.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> So pasteurization and nuclear fission haven't been proven to work?



Most of the time? I guess?

An example of proof not existing (in any matter) would be the fact that gravity is not constant. It varies due to geologic density, proximity to the poles and altitude (and other things). A statement that offers proof of the state of gravity would have to be variable. A general statement like Sir Isaac Newton's observations is generally correct (what goes up, must come down), but not quite definitive proof. It does not apply to all conditions.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 3, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Actually, his avatar's statement is irrelevant.   It doesn't matter if there are more or less stupid people who are conservative or liberal....irrelevant.    The fact that there are many advanced-thinking, PHD-holding creationists and Christians is all we need to know.
> 
> I love science.   I read scientific articles almost everyday.   The more science learns about life the bigger the problem gets for evolutionists/atheists.
> 
> Consider the source, Brother.



Thank you.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 3, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> You never really prove a theory. What scientists do is instead come up with implications of the theory, make hypotheses based on those implications, and then try to prove that specific hypothesis true or false through either experiment or careful observation. If the experiment or observation matches the prediction of the hypothesis, the scientist has gained support for the hypothesis (and therefore the underlying theory), but has not proven it. It's always possible that there's another explanation for the result.



Thank you.

In regards to your signature line, it works on bears, but if a mountain lion is attacking you, don't play dead, fight back, because it means to eat you!


----------



## bigreddwon (Sep 3, 2012)

I change my avatar a few times a week, dont let it get to ya cupcake..


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 4, 2012)

Just reveals a lot of bitterness!


----------



## bigreddwon (Sep 4, 2012)

Seriously, I'm not bitter at all. TO a degree I find the 'religious' amusing, I find the 'ultra' religious _terrifying_.. Bitterness isn't in there.


----------



## Four (Sep 4, 2012)

1.	What is science?
Science is the body of reliable testable knowledge & predictions

2.	What is the process/method of science?
Scientific method, generally make an observation, take a guess at what might cause / explain it, see if it works via experiment / experiences / observations. If it disagrees, throw it out, if it doesn't keep testing.

3.	Does science prove things?
on occasion 

4.	To what level have you studied science?
I have a **** In software engineering.. my college science courses were physics 1 & 2 with labs, biology 1, and space science.  I also spend way to much time on the internet, and listen to some biology /science / skeptic podcasts


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 4, 2012)

The Greatest Sum said:


> If a person splits the nucleus of a uranium atom and energy is released, it doesn't PROVE that the same thing happens every time with every uranium atom. It only shows that it worked in that particular instance. Obviously, we expect to get the same result if we repeat the experiment over and over, but it can't be 100% proven that we will unless we perform the experiment on every last uranium atom--clearly impossible. Even if we're 99.9999999% sure of something, it's good to admit there's a slither of a chance we could be wrong on how, why, or if something works. I came across this passage in an article and it sums up my sentiments on the matter quite well:




I DEFINITELY agree with that statement. There is a slither of a chance we're wrong. Something Christians refuse to do with something that they have only faith in but have never seen. So much faith with out allowing the sliver of questioning that they'll try to base their entire life around it. Science considering that possibility seems so much more rational.


----------



## Four (Sep 4, 2012)

*Nit Picking definitions*

There is an implied understanding when saying things like "this proves X" or "its proven that Y" or "I/we know Z" that there is no such thing as 100% certainty. If we never used these words unless we were 100% certain then the words wouldn't exist because they'd be useless.

"Last Thursdayism" is a pretty weak argument


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 4, 2012)

The Greatest Sum said:


> If a person splits the nucleus of a uranium atom and energy is released, it doesn't PROVE that the same thing happens every time with every uranium atom. It only shows that it worked in that particular instance. Obviously, we expect to get the same result if we repeat the experiment over and over, but it can't be 100% proven that we will unless we perform the experiment on every last uranium atom--clearly impossible. Even if we're 99.9999999% sure of something, it's good to admit there's a slither of a chance we could be wrong on how, why, or if something works. I came across this passage in an article and it sums up my sentiments on the matter quite well:



This seems a tad (facetiously speaking, tad meaning extremely) weak to me, I'm sorry.  We don't get into airplanes becuase we are confident that the aerodynamic principals are sound. No we get into them becuase they are proven to work. I don't put my 2k pound boat on the water becuase I'm confident it will float.  I put it on the water becuase we have proven displacement to work. 

I understand what your saying. If you want to claim nothing proven just becuase we cannot possible test everything, all the time, under every circumstance, it would seem you are just looking at a way to validate the "nothing proven statement", weakly I might add.


----------



## The Greatest Sum (Sep 4, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> This seems a tad (facetiously speaking, tad meaning extremely) weak to me, I'm sorry.  We don't get into airplanes becuase we are confident that the aerodynamic principals are sound. No we get into them becuase they are proven to work. I don't put my 2k pound boat on the water becuase I'm confident it will float.  I put it on the water becuase we have proven displacement to work.
> 
> I understand what your saying. If you want to claim nothing proven just becuase we cannot possible test everything, all the time, under every circumstance, it would seem you are just looking at a way to validate the "nothing proven statement", weakly I might add.



I, too, put my boat in the water expecting it to float. But not because it's proven that it will, but because that's what all the evidence strongly suggests will happen (obviously assuming no structural defects, etc.). This guy explains my point better than I:


> Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.
> Proofs have two features that do not exist in science:  They are final, and they are binary.  Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof).  Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.
> In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.  There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.  The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.  Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.  No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.  That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.
> Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven).  There is nothing in between.  A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven.  These are the same as unproven.
> ...


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 5, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> This seems a tad (facetiously speaking, tad meaning extremely) weak to me, I'm sorry.  We don't get into airplanes becuase we are confident that the aerodynamic principals are sound. No we get into them becuase they are proven to work. I don't put my 2k pound boat on the water becuase I'm confident it will float.  I put it on the water becuase we have proven displacement to work.
> I understand what your saying. If you want to claim nothing proven just becuase we cannot possible test everything, all the time, under every circumstance, it would seem you are just looking at a way to validate the "nothing proven statement", weakly I might add.



Do you wear a life jacket?


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 5, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Do you wear a life jacket?



Not most of the time but their proven to work too.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 6, 2012)

Proven, or you just have faith that they will work because you have seen it work for yourself? Appropriate use of faith IMO.


----------



## Four (Sep 6, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> Proven, or you just have faith that they will work because you have seen it work for yourself? Appropriate use of faith IMO.



Faith is belief in absence or contrary to evidence. 

For instance, you might have faith that if you fall from a building you will be unharmed.

You don't have faith a life jacket works, you assume it will work based off of a historical precedence and knowledge of water/flotation/physics.

If faith was used in any situation in which the probability is   < 100% than the word becomes useless.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 6, 2012)

Four said:


> If faith was used in any situation in which the probability is   < 100% than the word becomes useless.



I agree.  The Bible defines faith (for believers, anyway) as "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."  That would kind of go along with what you are saying.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 6, 2012)

Four said:


> Faith is belief in absence or contrary to evidence.
> 
> For instance, you might have faith that if you fall from a building you will be unharmed.
> 
> ...



Nothing is 100% probable. That doesn't make sense. You are talking about CERTAINTY.

This is one of the definitions of faith from Merriam Webster (online). "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

On Tuesday, when my boat sinks, will my life jacket work? There is no proof that it will on Tuesday (until Tuesday), but there is a pretty reasonable chance that it will. So, Bishop has faith in his life jacket.

No, actually, he has faith that he won't need it, since he doesn't usually wear it. Either way, his magnificent brain is a slave to faith.

Science, with all its evidence would say that you should always wear your life jacket while on the water. It doesn't make any logical sense not too. I’m not comfortable, it impedes my fishing, and I am a strong swimmer don’t matter to science, or the lake, or the irresponsible boater who runs you over and sends you into the water unconscious.

This is just an example, I do not wish for any thing negative to befall Bishop.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 7, 2012)

Faith in my life jacket comes in the fact that I have seen it proven to work.  I have jumped in and floated with it on. 

Now I don't have one of those fancy mustang survival types.  Those you might have to put a little faith in, of course you also have to put a little faith that the won't go off in the rain.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 7, 2012)

1. What is science?

 It is the process and language we use to describe and understand the physical world within our ability to observe.

2. What is the process/method of science?

Actually, I concur with the description offered in post #5. My only caveat is to the quality of the experiment devised for testing purposes and, of course, the accuracy of the observations.

3. Does science prove things?

Science depends on the purity of the process and deals with probability,..... not indisputable proof. The scientific community passes judgment based on a preponderance of evidence, much like legal systems use to assign guilt or innocence.

4. To what level have you studied science? 

Let's just say I am a casual and  experienced observer. For the most part, I know more than I used to and still find that I understand less than I once did.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 7, 2012)

What causes one to trust a life jacket to increase the odds of survival/rescue?

Is it the advertising of the manufacturer?
The statistical data from independent research of boating mishaps?
Repeated personal testing?

At some point, rightly or wrongly, we have sufficient reason to trust. 

Funny how some regard matters of faith and God as untestable. Christians "test" every day. The only difference is that initially we have trusted without having fully tested first. Most have come to the point where they realize any semblance of control is beyond their ability. Sometimes it is the result of utter desperation. We rely, then, on the nature and character of God to work for us. Sometimes the outcome is not as we would choose, but He ultimately works everything for our good. 

He has done this repeatedly for me and for others who give testimony. We don't always understand the "how" or "why", but we do know the "who" and that is enough.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 7, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Faith in my life jacket comes in the fact that I have seen it proven to work.  I have jumped in and floated with it on.
> 
> Now I don't have one of those fancy mustang survival types.  Those you might have to put a little faith in, of course you also have to put a little faith that the won't go off in the rain.



But you don't usually wear it, so you have faith that you won't need it.

Scientifically, and logically, you should wear it everytime you put your boat on the water.

The scientific evidence that it works doesn't matter at all, because you don't usually wear it.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 7, 2012)

Four said:


> 1.	What is science?
> Science is the body of reliable testable knowledge & predictions
> 
> 2.	What is the process/method of science?
> ...



Thanks Four.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 7, 2012)

gtparts said:


> 1. What is science?
> 
> It is the process and language we use to describe and understand the physical world within our ability to observe.
> 
> ...



Thanks GT.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 7, 2012)

Four said:


> There is an implied understanding when saying things like "this proves X" or "its proven that Y" or "I/we know Z" that there is no such thing as 100% certainty. If we never used these words unless we were 100% certain then the words wouldn't exist because they'd be useless.
> 
> "Last Thursdayism" is a pretty weak argument



I think maybe words are useless Four.

Implied understanding takes for granted that I know what you are talking about, and that I agree with you. If it were true, then there wouldn't be any discussion.


----------



## vowell462 (Sep 8, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Faith in my life jacket comes in the fact that I have seen it proven to work.  I have jumped in and floated with it on.
> 
> Now I don't have one of those fancy mustang survival types.  Those you might have to put a little faith in, of course you also have to put a little faith that the won't go off in the rain.



its early in the am and I just got to thinking about this. Imagine just casting along with your Lews Speed Spool and a little sprinkle comes through. Then your flotaion device inflated. That would Suck! Sorry yall, carry on.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 8, 2012)

vowell462 said:


> its early in the am and I just got to thinking about this. Imagine just casting along with your Lews Speed Spool and a little sprinkle comes through. Then your flotaion device inflated. That would Suck! Sorry yall, carry on.



Sounds like wearing a hand grenade. I'll stick with my Astral!


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 10, 2012)

gtparts said:


> What causes one to trust a life jacket to increase the odds of survival/rescue?
> 
> Is it the advertising of the manufacturer?
> The statistical data from independent research of boating mishaps?
> ...




You sound like someone who believes in ghosts and witchcraft.  Do you?


----------



## gtparts (Sep 10, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You sound like someone who believes in ghosts and witchcraft.  Do you?



I do not, however I know that there are those that do. Not sure what you are asking... or why.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 10, 2012)

gtparts said:


> I do not, however I know that there are those that do. Not sure what you are asking... or why.



Mostly because of this:



gtparts said:


> At some point, rightly or wrongly, we have sufficient reason to trust.
> 
> Funny how some regard matters of faith and God as untestable. Christians "test" every day. The only difference is that initially we have trusted without having fully tested first. Most have come to the point where they realize any semblance of control is beyond their ability. Sometimes it is the result of utter desperation. We rely, then, on the nature and character of God to work for us. Sometimes the outcome is not as we would choose, but He ultimately works everything for our good.
> 
> He has done this repeatedly for me and for others who give testimony. We don't always understand the "how" or "why", but we do know the "who" and that is enough.



People who already believe in ghosts will see evidence of them.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 10, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Mostly because of this:
> 
> 
> 
> People who already believe in ghosts will see evidence of them.



I suppose you are correct. Many people are subject to influences that may cause them to project a sense of reality to ghosties and things that go bump in the night. Such self-deception in fairly common among the young and/or poorly educated. 

However, the cumulative effects, of the radical changes seen in others and the changes personally experienced, are sufficient to rule out chance or randomness as being a plausible explanation for God revealing Himself to me through general revelation and specific revelation and my understanding of that truth.


----------



## Oldstick (Sep 10, 2012)

I have a physics degree and significant experience in the engineering field.  My observations are that no matter how deep man's understanding of the physical world becomes, we always hit a wall that defies our understanding.

For example, we've known everything about gravity since Issac Newton (1400s?) from a mathematical viewpoint.  Gravitational attraction between objects, planets, stars, etc.  Enough knowledge to make manned trips to the Moon, spacestations and ships to other planets.

But everything except: how do objects exert the gravitational force upon each other through a distance without contact? Distances like 10 feet between a ball and the earth, or say 93 million miles of vacuum between the sun and earth?

For another example, hypothetically assume everything about evolutionary theory one day becomes accepted as fact (not likely until more evidence, in my opinion) .  This would equate to a statistical proof of the existence of God, because it is impossible to come up with a plausible explanation (with evidence) of how such a complex process got started at random without an outside influence.  Go ahead and stretch as far as you want, maybe some aliens or an asteroid came to Earth and planted the first lifeforms as a huge science fair experiment.  So where did these aliens come from?  And so forth the unexplainable wall goes.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 10, 2012)

Oldstick said:


> I have a physics degree and significant experience in the engineering field.  My observations are that no matter how deep man's understanding of the physical world becomes, we always hit a wall that defies our understanding.
> 
> For example, we've known everything about gravity since Issac Newton (1400s?) from a mathematical viewpoint.  Gravitational attraction between objects, planets, stars, etc.  Enough knowledge to make manned trips to the Moon, spacestations and ships to other planets.
> 
> ...



It is that "unexplainable" that these religious handbooks try to explain.
If it would be an asteroid, life brought from another planet, aliens...the "god" as most of us claim to know through religious teachings must not be responsible for it as none of these handbooks account for any of it.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 10, 2012)

Oldstick said:


> I have a physics degree and significant experience in the engineering field.  My observations are that no matter how deep man's understanding of the physical world becomes, we always hit a wall that defies our understanding.
> 
> For example, we've known everything about gravity since Issac Newton (1400s?) from a mathematical viewpoint.  Gravitational attraction between objects, planets, stars, etc.  Enough knowledge to make manned trips to the Moon, spacestations and ships to other planets.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the post Oldstick. I agree with much of what you say here.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It is that "unexplainable" that these religious handbooks try to explain.
> If it would be an asteroid, life brought from another planet, aliens...the "god" as most of us claim to know through religious teachings must not be responsible for it as none of these handbooks account for any of it.



BH - Thanks for posting. I don't think the religious handbooks (any of them) try and explain it, they just suggest that you believe their version. You could stick with secular versions too, they all have the same lack of proof.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 11, 2012)

Oldstick said:


> I have a physics degree and significant experience in the engineering field.  My observations are that no matter how deep man's understanding of the physical world becomes, we always hit a wall that defies our understanding.
> 
> For example, we've known everything about gravity since Issac Newton (1400s?) from a mathematical viewpoint.  Gravitational attraction between objects, planets, stars, etc.  Enough knowledge to make manned trips to the Moon, spacestations and ships to other planets.
> 
> ...



The point (for me, anyway) is to keep searching.  Hindus, Navajos, Christians, Buddhists and bushmen all have creation myths.  None of the myths reflect what's patently observable.  What they reflect is primitive superstition and that's where the search ends.  Fine.  I call it lazy.

The start of the Universe may have been as mundane and wondrous as a leaf falling from a tree.  There's truly no need for a being of inconceivable powers to be involved.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 11, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> BH - Thanks for posting. I don't think the religious handbooks (any of them) try and explain it, they just suggest that you believe their version. You could stick with secular versions too, they all have the same lack of proof.



The secular versions and their resulting theories are built upon stuff that we all know.  Even the theoretical stuff is based on math and testing.  The math really never leads one to a 'somebody' answer or a 'nobody' answer for that matter.  I guess one picks a side based on other criteria then.  I posit that adopting the 'somebody' position is more of a result of culture, tradition and superstition and that adopting the 'nobody' position is a result of prudent skepticism.


----------



## kpfister (Sep 12, 2012)

1.  I believe that science, in it's purest form, is curiosity with direction. 

2.  In post #5 you quoted the scientific method perfectly. I cannot argue or offer anything better.

3.  No.  

However, in my job I live and die by the laws of physics on a daily basis and can testify that in 99.9% of cases they have not let me down. In .1% of the cases I started with incorrect assumptions, missing information, or used bad math.  

4.  5 years of higher education with 2 years studying aerodynamics and 2 years of acoustics. 1 year of intensive goofing off. 

I like science because it never says yes or no.  It says "given these conditions there is a very high degree of probability that this will  happen".   It keeps life interesting. If you apply the scientific method often enough, you will discover that a solution often begets another question.  
I hate to be spoon - fed answers. I like discovery. It's fun.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2012)

gtparts said:


> I suppose you are correct. Many people are subject to influences that may cause them to project a sense of reality to ghosties and things that go bump in the night. Such self-deception in fairly common among the young and/or poorly educated.
> 
> However, the cumulative effects, of the radical changes seen in others and the changes personally experienced, are sufficient to rule out chance or randomness as being a plausible explanation for God revealing Himself to me through general revelation and specific revelation and my understanding of that truth.



How do you explain these kinds of things happening to nonbelievers or Wiccans?


----------



## Oldstick (Sep 13, 2012)

It's all in how you perceive these ancient "mythical" explanations as some of you are calling them.  The writers from these ancient times were probably trying to come up with some kind of reasonable explanation for the existance of the extremely complex world they saw around them.  With nowhere near the amount of hard, unbiased data as we have today. 

I believe we should take these in the context of when and why they were written.  To me, the main point of the first chapter of Genesis to say that God is more vast and infinite that the entire universe, because at first there was nothing then he created the universe.  And the deeper our knowledge gets, the harder and harder it is to deny that the origins will never be explained scientifically by man.

The problems start when some folks try to treat an ancient poetic writing as a fact filled science texbook.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2012)

Oldstick said:


> It's all in how you perceive these ancient "mythical" explanations as some of you are calling them.  The writers from these ancient times were probably trying to come up with some kind of reasonable explanation for the existance of the extremely complex world they saw around them.  With nowhere near the amount of hard, unbiased data as we have today.
> 
> I believe we should take these in the context of when and why they were written.  To me, the main point of the first chapter of Genesis to say that God is more vast and infinite that the entire universe, because at first there was nothing then he created the universe.  And the deeper our knowledge gets, the harder and harder it is to deny that the origins will never be explained scientifically by man.
> 
> The problems start when some folks try to treat an ancient poetic writing as a fact filled science texbook.



I think that 'myth' is the right term for the various creation stories.  

What the ancients guessed and what we now know with more certainty is that the Universe is vast and mysterious.  Why they might have come up with the notion of a supreme being as the cause is a good topic for discussion.  They certainly didn't know about Occam's Razor.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 13, 2012)

...or what science has shown us about life....and its improbability.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 13, 2012)

Darwin of the gaps.   lol


----------



## Oldstick (Sep 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I think that 'myth' is the right term for the various creation stories.
> 
> What the ancients guessed and what we now know with more certainty is that the Universe is vast and mysterious.  Why they might have come up with the notion of a supreme being as the cause is a good topic for discussion.  They certainly didn't know about Occam's Razor.



You describe their efforts as "guessing" but it was no different than how we approach the scientific method today.  

Man slowly started building the knowledge base by repeated observations.  They would have started with the most obvious things they observed, for example I'm sure they concluded that the day/night time cycle was a very predictable repeating pattern after observing and counting the time for a few years.   (Easy to measure the elapsed time reasonably accurately by counting something man-made like regular drumbeats or a candle burning.) 

They were just as intelligent and inquisitive to understand as we are, just a whole lot more mysteries still unsolved for them.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2012)

If someone were believe that those ancient texts were written by man, inspired and guided by a God, then if the God were at all credible there would be no mistakes or misunderstandings and the things would be exactly as written. There would be no reason to be inquisitive or non-understanding as "God" would know if the world was flat, the Earth revolved around the Sun and every other "misunderstanding" included in the Bible. It would be written as fact and we would be able to back it up as we gained more knowledge. It is not the case though and one of many reasons that leads me to believe there was No superior intelligent being that had a hand in writing anything. The smartest we had did the writing....and it shows.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2012)

Oldstick said:


> You describe their efforts as "guessing" but it was no different than how we approach the scientific method today.
> 
> Man slowly started building the knowledge base by repeated observations.  They would have started with the most obvious things they observed, for example I'm sure they concluded that the day/night time cycle was a very predictable repeating pattern after observing and counting the time for a few years.   (Easy to measure the elapsed time reasonably accurately by counting something man-made like regular drumbeats or a candle burning.)
> 
> They were just as intelligent and inquisitive to understand as we are, just a whole lot more mysteries still unsolved for them.



And they, like some still, cower before the lightning.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> How do you explain these kinds of things happening to nonbelievers or Wiccans?



Do not allow a sorceress to live.  Exodus 22:18.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> How do you explain these kinds of things happening to nonbelievers or Wiccans?



It's relatively rare that, outside of Christianity, a radical change in any other belief system results in the individual subject becoming more loving, caring, and less self-centered. A non-believer (we all were once) that becomes a Muslim may be devout in the extreme toward Allah and hate infidels. The new Bhuddist may also be devout, yet become less responsive to the needs of others. Wiccans? Are they noted for any significant benevolent activities? I've not heard of any, even on the local level.

In summary, I have not observed any other religiously-based community that can give testimony to the positive, dramatic changes in the individuals that have adopted their belief system.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I think that 'myth' is the right term for the various creation stories.
> 
> What the ancients guessed and what we now know with more certainty is that the Universe is vast and mysterious.  Why they might have come up with the notion of a supreme being as the cause is a good topic for discussion.  They certainly didn't know about Occam's Razor.



Checking on the definition of 'myth' proves rather interesting.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/myth

The first two definitions indicate a sense of 'a story that has a purpose, for imparting cultural background or principles'. There is no indication as to the veracity of the story. It could be completely true, totally fictional, or some combination thereof. As might be noted, the nature of the story may be initially accurate, but embellished by later recipients. Even embellishment does not necessarily make the principles or cultural messages untrue. 

Based on that, I can accept the use of 'myth'. 

The Bible is principally about God, His character, and His creation. It reveals God's purpose and how He expects us to relate to Him and each other. It gives very little detail as to how He creates or how His power over His creation allows Him to override the physical laws He set into place. The miracles that are often mentioned as acts of God, by believers, can not be accounted for by the reliance of non-believers on science. Their typical response is that they do not know the mechanism, but science has an answer if one pursues it hard enough, long enough. In such cases, at least for me, it is far simpler (and elegant) and far more satisfying than 'I don't know.' If the explanation is too complex to articulate, I believe that 'God did it' is an altogether valid conclusion based on Occam's Razor.


----------



## panfried0419 (Sep 14, 2012)

Science is the study of how God made stuff


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> The point (for me, anyway) is to keep searching.  Hindus, Navajos, Christians, Buddhists and bushmen all have creation myths.  None of the myths reflect what's patently observable.  What they reflect is primitive superstition and that's where the search ends.  Fine.  I call it lazy.
> 
> The start of the Universe may have been as mundane and wondrous as a leaf falling from a tree.  There's truly no need for a being of inconceivable powers to be involved.



I call it creative.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> The secular versions and their resulting theories are built upon stuff that we all know.  Even the theoretical stuff is based on math and testing.  The math really never leads one to a 'somebody' answer or a 'nobody' answer for that matter.  I guess one picks a side based on other criteria then.  I posit that adopting the 'somebody' position is more of a result of culture, tradition and superstition and that adopting the 'nobody' position is a result of prudent skepticism.



This is a huge assumption. I do not know what you know, and you do not know what I know.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 14, 2012)

kpfister said:


> 1.  I believe that science, in it's purest form, is curiosity with direction.
> 
> 2.  In post #5 you quoted the scientific method perfectly. I cannot argue or offer anything better.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the post. It is excellent!


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I think that 'myth' is the right term for the various creation stories.
> 
> What the ancients guessed and what we now know with more certainty is that the Universe is vast and mysterious. Why they might have come up with the notion of a supreme being as the cause is a good topic for discussion.  They certainly didn't know about Occam's Razor.



Huh, they *guessed* and we *know* that the universe is vast and mysterious? That sounds vast and mysterious.

A hyothesis is an educated guess. One educated guess is as good as the next, and all good ones are simple. Hypothesis have no weight. They are the first step of the scientific method. Simple ones are easier to test, and therefore "better".

I could hypothesize that the moon is made of green cheese. It is a valid hypothesis, but forever ridiculous because as far as we know, there are no milk producing beings on the moon. Maybe God had the cheese imported??????


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 14, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If someone were believe that those ancient texts were written by man, inspired and guided by a God, then if the God were at all credible there would be no mistakes or misunderstandings and the things would be exactly as written. There would be no reason to be inquisitive or non-understanding as "God" would know if the world was flat, the Earth revolved around the Sun and every other "misunderstanding" included in the Bible. It would be written as fact and we would be able to back it up as we gained more knowledge. It is not the case though and one of many reasons that leads me to believe there was No superior intelligent being that had a hand in writing anything. The smartest we had did the writing....and it shows.



You are putting your assumption about God's intentions into a box that you understand. I don't understand His intentions. I don't think anyone can.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 14, 2012)

panfried0419 said:


> Science is the study of how God made stuff



Thanks for the post, I agree!


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 14, 2012)

I'll be absent for a bit.

Thanks for the posts and the good discussion.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 14, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> You are putting your assumption about God's intentions into a box that you understand. I don't understand His intentions. I don't think anyone can.



You are assuming there is a God.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You are assuming there is a God.



Yes, but that is less complicated than assuming God's intentions.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Yes, but that is less complicated than assuming God's intentions.



Well that can be true on your end. On mine I feel that man created God(s) and we can certainly assume his/their intentions. It is done constantly on here and everywhere else in everyday life/situations.
A hurricane hits the coast and people say "God is angry". And they believe it.


----------



## Four (Sep 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Well that can be true on your end. On mine I feel that man created God(s) and we can certainly assume his/their intentions. It is done constantly on here and everywhere else in everyday life/situations.
> A hurricane hits the coast and people say "God is angry". And they believe it.



The god of triangles has three sides.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Well that can be true on your end. On mine I feel that man created God(s) and we can certainly assume his/their intentions. It is done constantly on here and everywhere else in everyday life/situations.
> A hurricane hits the coast and people say "God is angry". And they believe it.



Yes, lots of people do that, and have been doing it for a loooong time.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 15, 2012)

gtparts said:


> It's relatively rare that, outside of Christianity, a radical change in any other belief system results in the individual subject becoming more loving, caring, and less self-centered. A non-believer (we all were once) that becomes a Muslim may be devout in the extreme toward Allah and hate infidels. The new Bhuddist may also be devout, yet become less responsive to the needs of others. Wiccans? Are they noted for any significant benevolent activities? I've not heard of any, even on the local level.
> 
> In summary, I have not observed any other religiously-based community that can give testimony to the positive, dramatic changes in the individuals that have adopted their belief system.



That's one of the most biased load of crap I've ever heard.

I'm better without Christ.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 15, 2012)

gtparts said:


> It's relatively rare that, outside of Christianity, a radical change in any other belief system results in the individual subject becoming more loving, caring, and less self-centered. A non-believer (we all were once) that becomes a Muslim may be devout in the extreme toward Allah and hate infidels. The new Bhuddist may also be devout, yet become less responsive to the needs of others. Wiccans? Are they noted for any significant benevolent activities? I've not heard of any, even on the local level.
> 
> In summary, I have not observed any other religiously-based community that can give testimony to the positive, dramatic changes in the individuals that have adopted their belief system.



Your observation might be based on the fact that you live in a Christian Nation and therefore can't see what charities people in other countries that aren't Christian donate. Charity also includes more than just giving money. Helping someone personally build a house or dig a well is just as important as donating money.
http://pagantheologies.pbworks.com/w/page/13622179/Pagan-friendly charities
http://islam.about.com/od/activism/tp/charities.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/30/tzu_chi_foundation/
http://www.islamic-relief.com/
http://www.redhotcurry.com/news/2009/sewa-sailing-challenge.htm
http://www.jewishcoa.org/


----------



## gtparts (Sep 16, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Your observation might be based on the fact that you live in a Christian Nation and therefore can't see what charities people in other countries that aren't Christian donate. Charity also includes more than just giving money. Helping someone personally build a house or dig a well is just as important as donating money.
> http://pagantheologies.pbworks.com/w/page/13622179/Pagan-friendly charities
> http://islam.about.com/od/activism/tp/charities.htm
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/30/tzu_chi_foundation/
> ...



You assume much in your first sentence. I and my family members have participated first-hand in international ministry on a number of occasions over the last 25 years. "On the ground", I have witnessed Christian efforts from nearly all major denominations and, particularly, the RCs.
Didn't say that none existed, only that they generally pale against the outreach of Christians in the areas of health, education, agricultural and industrial development, etc.

The link on Buddhists, above, shows a relatively small segment of a diverse religious philosophy. Basic tenets of Buddhism do not normally include benevolence toward the less fortunate. One foundational principle is that each must strive to achieve the personal goal of Nirvana, a wholly self-serving effort. An ascetic approach is a hallmark of this religion.

Likewise, Hindus, in general, seek to do no harm, but are not particularly active in relieving the plight of the poor and sick.

Islam is also all over the place when it comes to benevolence. It is most focused on Islamic adherents and, for a while, prospects for the faith. It is frequently denied those who will not accede, used as a weapon of coercion. 

Still, there is usually a segment in each of these groups who are compassionate outside their "own". It is largely in response to the efforts of Christians in their "backyards" and "frontyards".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 16, 2012)

gtparts said:


> You assume much in your first sentence. I and my family members have participated first-hand in international ministry on a number of occasions over the last 25 years.
> Still, there is usually a segment in each of these groups who are compassionate outside their "own". It is largely in response to the efforts of Christians in their "backyards" and "frontyards".


I commend you and your family on your international ministry. I have done some local mission work and admit i've been slack in this field. I guess since the Christian presence is so large they do more. Just like Catholics probably do more charity than Protestants. There are more Catholics than Protestants.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 4, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I commend you and your family on your international ministry. I have done some local mission work and admit i've been slack in this field. I guess since the Christian presence is so large they do more. Just like Catholics probably do more charity than Protestants. There are more Catholics than Protestants.



Now that was an artful dodge! Well done!


----------

