26 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGood grief.
As further testament to the unerring rightness of science, what a great week for those who hold unswervingly to limited understanding.
Introducing Nix and Hydra, two of (at least) three moons in Pluto's orbit--- previously held to be but one. Who says science can't be trusted?
I knew I should have given this forum a miss when I'm hungover.
26 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou picked a really bad example to try to show that science is flawed.
You picked a really bad example to try to show that science is flawed. As far as I am aware science has never claimed to know exaclty how many moons every planet has. Infact if we were so confident that we knew so much about Pluto then why was someone looking at it when they found more moons?
The fact remains, science is limited to what can be measu similarly claim that the Bible totally fails to reveal even the basic characteristics of Budha.
Again, wrong premises lead to wrong conclusions. Despite the controversial title, the thread is not a slam on science, but rather, as ATY points out, a jab at those who claim that science can answer all the questions.
What are these basic characteristics of God that have been revealed by science?
Besides the obvious genius factor, faithfulness, order, effectiveness, beauty, power, to name a few.
And when did science ever claim to be a method of revealing advanced characteristics of God?
Science, per se, can't claim anything. Science can be wielded in a manner inconsistent with its own discipline parameters, both by those who claim to submit themselves to her disciplines as well as those who simply observe from the sidelines.
Nonetheless, a very brief and cursory glance at the history of modern science will reveal a disporportionate amount of its founders as holding unswervingly to the idea that science is meant to reveal God's thoughts (albeit about the physical world).
I can similarly claim that the Bible totally fails to reveal even the basic characteristics of Budha.
You could claim the same, but you would be wrong. The Bible very specifically lays bare the most basic characteristics of all systems antithetical to God's system. Namely, they are dry wells.
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLet's assume there are people who claim science can answer "all the questions".
Again, wrong premises lead to wrong conclusions. Despite the controversial title, the thread is not a slam on science, but rather, as ATY points out, a jab at those who claim that science can answer all the questions.
Why not?
The example of Pluto's moons seems to show the power of science versus the limitations of religious faith. Science is able to revise itself in the face of new discovery and/or contradictory evidence. It seems to me that the highly dogmatic would be unable to revise their own beliefs should equally contradictory evidence be presented.
-JC
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by ChurlantFinally, someone who has the honesty to take the argument.
Let's assume there are people who claim science can answer "all the questions".
Why not?
The example of Pluto's moons seems to show the power of science versus the limitations of religious faith. Science is able to revise itself in the face of new discovery and/or contradictory evidence. It seems to me that the highly dogmatic would be unable to revise their own beliefs should equally contradictory evidence be presented.
-JC
Why not?
Because of its limitations. Science is a growing field, with literally no end in sight. As such, it can only offer what we have discovered, nothing more. A dog will lap up the sweet liquid of antifreeze, with nary a thought to the fact that it will shortly be taking his life.
The example of Pluto's moons seems to show the power of science versus the limitations of religious faith.
As far as we can tell, the number of moons orbiting Pluto has little impact on us here on earth. It does reveal that the discipline of science cannot possibly know everything there is to know, including those things which actually have impact on those who reside here.
By faith we know that God created the heavens and the earth, and by faith, we know that our separation from God has been resolved. While that faith has virtually nothing to say about the moons of Pluto (and precious little else to say about the remaining physical world), faith nonetheless has much to say about the most impactful things possible, i.e., the eternal status of our souls.
It seems to me that the highly dogmatic would be unable to revise their own beliefs should equally contradictory evidence be presented.
That all depends upon which items we decide to be dogmatic about. To date, science has revealed (that word is carefully chosen) nothing which contradicts what the Bible had already revealed many years before. While conjecture abounds, science continually re-tools, re-shapes and revises, the Bible stays constant. To be certain, there are those who mis-construe the meaning and even the words of the Bible to their own harm, but the Bible remains constant.
26 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Finally, someone who has the honesty to take the argument.
Because of its limitations. Science is a growing field, with literally no end in sight. As such, it can only offer what we have discovered, nothing more. A dog will lap up the sweet liquid of antifreeze, with nary a thought to the fact that it will shortly be taking his life.
Science is limited in what way, exactly? Do you have any way of claiming that science can't truly answer all questions (eventually) without basically using "because it can't" as an answer?
As far as we can tell, the number of moons orbiting Pluto has little impact on us here on earth. It does reveal that the discipline of science cannot possibly know everything there is to know, including those things which actually have impact on those who reside here.
You are contradicting yourself. Science has revealed something we did not already know - namely the existence of more satellites around Pluto. Given this evidence alone, I would suggest science can answer all questions, simply not all at once. Again - that is the nature of science.
That all depends upon which items we decide to be dogmatic about. To date, science has revealed (that word is carefully chosen) nothing which contradicts what the Bible had already revealed many years before. While conjecture abounds, science continually re-tools, re-shapes and revises, the Bible stays constant. To be certain, there are those who mis-construe the meaning and even the words of the Bible to their own harm, but the Bible remains constant.
Technically speaking the Bible does not remain constant. It has changed over the years, whether by interpretation or translation. Even so I will admit the Bible does remain far less flexible than scientific discovery, as it should be.
We could get into a debate over whether science has disputed scripture... but such wouldn't be helpful. Suffice to say I do not agree with your assertion on this front.
-JC
27 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ChurlantScience is limited in what way, exactly?[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Finally, someone who has the honesty to take the argument.
[b]
Because of its limitations. Science is a growing field, with literally no end in sight. As such, it can only offer what we have discovered, nothing more. A dog will lap up the sweet liquid of antifreeze, with nary a thought to the fact that it will s ouldn't be helpful. Suffice to say I do not agree with your assertion on this front.
-JC
Understanding has only progressed so far, thus limited.
Do you have any way of claiming that science can't truly answer all questions (eventually) without basically using "because it can't" as an answer?
Science can only respond to the general revelation. And, as stated, that response is limited by our sight.
You are contradicting yourself.
There was no contradiction in the statement. We have found out something that science hitherto did not know. As such, those who said prior to this discovery that science 'is all/knows all' were wrong. If our lives depended upon knowing the correct and exact number of moons in orbit around Pluto, our lives would have been in jeopardy (perhaps they are in such a state, given the limitations of emprical science).
It has changed over the years, whether by interpretation or translation.
Interpretation, of course. Translation? You'll need to be clearer on this one prior to me shouting, "horse excrement."
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd which branch of science is that?
What are these basic characteristics of God that have been revealed by science?
Besides the obvious genius factor, faithfulness, order, effectiveness, beauty, power, to name a few.
And how many of plutos moons were revealed to you by religion?
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd how many of plutos moons were revealed to you by religion?
And which branch of science is that?
And how many of plutos moons were revealed to you by religion?
Shameless red herring. The question is not whether religion is equal/better/worse than science in attaining knowledge/Truth, but that scientific knowledge/Truth is fallible and often superseded with more contemporary theories and observations.
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseEverybody agrees on this. So what?
Shameless red herring. The question is not whether religion is equal/better/worse than science in attaining knowledge/Truth, but that scientific knowledge/Truth is fallible and often superseded with more contemporary theories and observations.
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseShameless red herring! Or whatever. Science is constantly updated and modified. That is how it works. Beyond that--what's to discuss? Discovering that everything hasn't been discovered is supposed to undermine the validity of science? Alexander wept. Ignorance is not a virtue!
That's up to you science boffs to answers.
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by dottewellOh really? You might want to take a look at this site about ridiculed discoveries and vindicated mavericks
Science takes pride in the way it evolves, adapts and improves. It doesn't shy away from inconsistencies or new findings.[/b]
http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#j1
Here is one of my favorite quotes on the site. "Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled 'conceptual necessities' ect. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods of time by such errors." - Einstien.