Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, I do demand from science that it shows me why.
I hear it all the time science isn't about beliefs or faith, but when it comes to things
like this, that is all I see beliefs and faith. I'm perfectly fine having someone tell
me their religion says X and they believe it. I'm not okay with a methodolgy that
is suppose to shun faith and belief wallow in it.
Kelly

You say, "I'm not okay with a methodolgy that is suppose to shun faith and belief wallow in it."

There will always be "true believers" in almost anything. Please don't judge science by its "true believers." All that science says is, this is how it looks, from a naturalistic POV. That's the deal Western science and religion made -- Science: natural explanations, religion: supernatural explanations.

You do know, I assume, that the leading figures in Western science and religion made compromises several hundred years ago, to stay out of each others' way. Both sides should remember that, but they don't. You have every right to point out encroachments onto your turf, especially if you are not encroaching yourself.

Originally posted by JS357
Quote:

"atheist/evolutionist"

I wonder if we are all using the word "evolutionist" in the same way.

I think it is useful to distinguish between (1) those who accept current biological evolution theory as the best naturalistic, provisional, explanation for biodiversity, meaning they do not think the theory disproves the existence of a supernatural, div ...[text shortened]... ssibility that there are those of type (1) on this forum, who may or may not be atheists?

I am a (1).

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is as impossible for me to tell you the details in how God did it as it is for you
to tell me where everything came from. If you want the details beyond, "God said,
Let there be..." You will have to ask God. My views if that is what you care about
than by all means fire away, I'll give you my opinion on what I think God did. It
will be limited to my opinion and faith.
Kelly

Okay. How does the fossil record fit into you beliefs? For me, as someone who accepts evolutionary theory, the fossil record contains our evolutionary brother and sisters who never made it and have been filtered out by natural selection.

Last book i read on evolution stated that there were 250,000, and counting, distinct species catalogued in the fossil record. Where does that fit in with you?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Okay. How does the fossil record fit into you beliefs? For me, as someone who accepts evolutionary theory, the fossil record contains our evolutionary brother and sisters who never made it and have been filtered out by natural selection.

Last book i read on evolution stated that there were 250,000, and counting, distinct species catalogued in the fossil record. Where does that fit in with you?

For me they were just species that have died off, nothing new. I have issues with
the dates, but admit I can be wrong about that.
Kelly

Originally posted by JS357
You say, "I'm not okay with a methodolgy that is suppose to shun faith and belief wallow in it."

There will always be "true believers" in almost anything. Please don't judge science by its "true believers." All that science says is, this is how it looks, from a naturalistic POV. That's the deal Western science and religion made -- Science: natural explanati ...[text shortened]... int out encroachments onto your turf, especially if you are not encroaching yourself.

People are people they will act like we always do, I do not have issue one with
science. I think it is a great thing; however, there are built in blinders when it
comes to some topics that science cannot touch, and God is one of them.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
For me they were just species that have died off, nothing new. I have issues with
the dates, but admit I can be wrong about that.
Kelly

Once these species died off God created new ones? I'm a little unsure of your timeline.

Originally posted by KellyJay
People are people they will act like we always do, I do not have issue one with
science. I think it is a great thing; however, there are built in blinders when it
comes to some topics that science cannot touch, and God is one of them.
Kelly

That is correct. The blinders were worked out by the Roman Catholic church (RCC), the most powerful European church at the time, around the 17th century. It generally worked well for both religion and science. But there were already some passages in the Bible that would eventually come into apparent conflict with science as new discoveries were made. Galileo was ordered by the Church to retract his claims that the Earth rotated around the sun, and some other claims. Geology was the next area of major dispute, as a very old Earth seemed to be the best scientific explanation of the observations.

As such scientific claims became difficult to deny, some Christian churches have adapted to the conflicts by viewing the conflicting Biblical passages as metaphorical or allegorical. Most notably, the RCC finally adopted a view that accepts biological evolution, but holds to a view that humans have a special relationship to God and there is a moment of special divine intervention for humans, more or less saying that in this moment, humans are invested with a soul, which does not evolve and is not physically observable. Because this is a supernatural claim, science is silent on it, and the blinders work for science and most Christians.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, I do demand from science that it shows me why.
I hear it all the time science isn't about beliefs or faith, but when it comes to things
like this, that is all I see beliefs and faith. I'm perfectly fine having someone tell
me their religion says X and they believe it. I'm not okay with a methodolgy that
is suppose to shun faith and belief wallow in it.
Kelly

“...Yes, I do demand from science that it shows me why....”

when you say “why” in the above, do you mean simply “how” or do you mean “for what purpose”?
If what you mean is “how” then science has basically said “how” in answering most questions -just not in every detail for all cases.

“....I hear it all the time science isn't about beliefs or faith,...”

when you say “belief” in the above, do you mean “faith” ? -if so, do you always equate “belief” with “faith”? -if so, is it “faith” that I believe that the Earth is round?
-if not, what criteria are you using here to distinguish a “belief” that is “faith” from a “belief” that is not “faith”?

“.... but when it comes to things
like this, that is all I see beliefs and faith.....”

then you see wrong. Science leads to beliefs (such as the belief that the Earth is round) but not faith.

“.... I'm perfectly fine having someone tell
me their religion says X and they believe it. I'm not okay with a methodology that
is suppose to shun faith and belief wallow in it. ….”

does “faith and belief wallow in it” above supposed to mean “faith and belief but wallow in faith” ? If so, the “methodology” of science (any science) is scientific method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

how does scientific method “wallow” in “faith”? And Exactly what is the “faith” part in scientific method?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Yes, I do demand from science that it shows me why....”

when you say “why” in the above, do you mean simply “how” or do you mean “for what purpose”?
If what you mean is “how” then science has basically said “how” in answering most questions -just not in every detail for all cases.

“....I hear it all the time science isn't about beliefs or ...[text shortened]... ntific method “wallow” in “faith”? And Exactly what is the “faith” part in scientific method?

When you start building your science on things you do not know for sure really
happened you are not building it on solid ground.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
When you start building your science on things you do not know for sure really
happened you are not building it on solid ground.
Kelly

But we DO know for sure that certain things did happen -just not in every detail (at least not yet) .
For example, we DO know for sure that the conditions were right for abiogenesis in the early Earth (I have already explained what those conditions were) .
But, for example, we don't know for sure exactly what molecules were in the first protocell. When it comes to the less certain details, science can only work out what those details probably were/are. Even then, that would NOT make that science “unsound” as you have just suggested.
If science shows evidence that X probably happened then why would concluding that X probably happened be “unsound” based on that evidence? Answer, it wouldn't.
Much of science has to live with such uncertainties and resort to saying “either X or Y is true but we currently don't know which” or “X probably happened but we cannot yet totally rule out that Y may have happened instead” -that doesn't make that science “unsound” for the fact remains either X or Y must be correct and there is nothing erroneous with working out the probabilities of each based on all the currently available evidence.

Do you know that a god did it for sure? If not, then by your own standard you have just set, any belief based on “god did it” must be unsound.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
But we DO know for sure that certain things did happen -just not in every detail (at least not yet) .
For example, we DO know for sure that the conditions were right for abiogenesis in the early Earth (I have already explained what those conditions were) .
But, for example, we don't know for sure exactly what molecules were in the first protocell. ...[text shortened]... en by your own standard you have just set, any belief based on “god did it” must be unsound.

But we DO know for sure that certain things did happen -just not in every detail (at least not yet) .

No you don't, seeing life does not mean that how you think it happened was the
way it did.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]But we DO know for sure that certain things did happen -just not in every detail (at least not yet) .

No you don't, seeing life does not mean that how you think it happened was the
way it did.
Kelly[/b]

“...seeing life does not mean that how you think it happened was the
way it did. ...”

that's not what I said. I did not say/imply “seeing life”. Read my post again.
If the EVIDENCE shows for sure that X happened then I think X happened -reasonable?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...seeing life does not mean that how you think it happened was the
way it did. ...”

that's not what I said. I did not say/imply “seeing life”. Read my post again.
If the EVIDENCE shows for sure that X happened then I think X happened -reasonable?

Evidence can be argued several different ways, simply because you think it means
one thing does not mean your right, another may view the same exact piece of
evidence and come up with something completely different than you and one or
both of you could be wrong.
Kelly

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Once these species died off God created new ones? I'm a little unsure of your timeline.

***BUMPED***

Once these species died off God created new ones? I'm a little unsure of your timeline.

Originally posted by JS357
That is correct. The blinders were worked out by the Roman Catholic church (RCC), the most powerful European church at the time, around the 17th century. It generally worked well for both religion and science. But there were already some passages in the Bible that would eventually come into apparent conflict with science as new discoveries were made. Galileo w ...[text shortened]... ernatural claim, science is silent on it, and the blinders work for science and most Christians.

and which biblical verse was the church citing for the claim that the earth was the
centre of the cosmos, for if there was none, then the statement that the Bible would
come into conflict as new scientific discoveries were made is a nonsense, for it is in
fact, church dogma which is opposed to scientific discoveries, not the Bible itself as has
been erroneously asserted.