Originally posted by dj2beckerIt is more scientific because, although we don't have unequivocal proof, we do have evidence. We have the fossil record which, although incomplete due to the difficulty of fossil formation, does show us the roots of many modern creatures. It also shows us the ancient remains of creatures that didn't stand up to the rigourous test of natural selection, ie extinct species.
Why is it more scientific? You are claiming that intelligence can be produced by non-inteligence. In other words that life can be produced by non-life. I am claiming that intelligence is needed to produce anything intelligent. In other words, God is the ultimate source of intelligence and through his intelligence something intelligent was created. Why is this more unscientific than to say that intelligence can be created by non-inteligence?
We have the fact that evolution is a logical idea, it makes sense. It's not a complete idea, there are things we don't know, but it is a thought out idea. People have sat down and thought it through. There's no magical being who conveniently whipped everything up.
I'm sure there's more evidence than I know about, I'm not an evolutionary scientist so I don't claim to be an expert by any means.
Neither am I an expert in theism, but I'l have a stab at the evidence for god. Here we go:
There, did you enjoy it? That's right, there is no evidence for god. I suppose you could argue that the bible is evidence, in the same way that you could argue that The Lord of the Rings is evidence for Elves.
To sum up, I'm not claiming that evolution is definitely 100% the answer, but when faced with some, admittedly slightly patchy, evidence, versus absolutely none at all, I know on which side I will fall.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by Maustrauser"Modern science is a fruit of the Protestant Reformation. As Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, once put it “there are two books laid before us to study; to prevent us falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creatures, which express His power.”
An ig?
Your earlier post said:
"The Bible essentially created science and the scientific method."
How? Just because some scientists are Christians doesn't say that the Bible had anything to do with it developing the scientific method. Next you will tell me that the Bible has quite a good recipe for pavlova and cream.
"Historian Robert G. Frank pointed out: “The predominant forms of scientific activity can be shown to be a direct outgrowth of a Puritan ideology.”
The great astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571 – 1630), the founder of celestial mechanics, declared: “My wish is that I may perceive the God whom I find everywhere in the external world in like manner within me.”
Kepler was a “brilliant mathematician and astronomer, he contributed to the scientific revolution with his work on the planetary orbits, laws of motion and the scientific method. Kepler's accomplishments formed the foundation of modern theoretical astronomy.” Kepler argued: “Truth in religion is based on the Word of God in Scripture, while truth in natural science is based on evidence and reason.” Kepler viewed all of science as man attempting to “think God's thoughts after Him.” Kepler was the father of the modern satellite and of modern space travel.
Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727), the father of calculus and dynamics, was a scientific genius and a dedicated Christian. Newton formulated the theory of gravitation and the laws of motion. He made vital contributions to mathematics, astronomy and physics. Newton maintained that there were two key sources of knowledge one revealed in the Bible and the other revealed in nature. Newton dedicated his life to know the Word of God (the Bible) and to know the works of God (Creation).
Blaise Pascal (1623 – 1662) made vital contributions to mathematics and technology that helped with the development of the computer. Pascal invented the first adding machine. In his honour, a computer language is named after Pascal.
Charles Babbage (1792 – 1871), the father of modern day computer science, described the world as a great computer, and God as the programmer. Babbage was essentially a mathematician and regarded mathematics as the best preliminary preparation for all other branches of human knowledge. He believed that the study of the works of nature, with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation for understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of the Divine Author.
Joseph Lister, the English surgeon who developed antiseptic surgery and the use of chemical disinfectants, stated: “I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.”
James Simpson (1811 – 1870), the founder of gynaecology and anaesthetics, was inspired by the Scriptural passage that God made Adam fall into a deep sleep before taking the rib from him, to develop chloroform, and pioneer the beginnings of modern surgical anaesthetics. Before this, operations were conducted at hazardous speeds on conscious patients!
The irrefutable fact is that Christianity gave birth to modern science. The scientific revolution began in the Protestant Reformation and the Bible played a vital part in the development of scientific discovery. Every major branch of science was developed by a Bible - believing Christian. The Bible essentially created science."
http://www.intouchmission.org/reports/main.htm?http://www.intouchmission.org/reports/archives/000389.html
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
It has been pointed out that science could not have developed among those who worship Allah, because of Islam's fatalism. Nor could science have been birthed from Hindus or Buddhism, because of their belief that the world is an illusion. Neither could modern science have arisen in our modern humanistic culture, because of the humanist's belief that life is irrational and illogical. By rejecting the notion of absolutes, humanists reject the very foundation of science. If there are no absolutes in nature, then results in experimentation can only be relative. If everything is relative, then engineering, and other branches of science, become impossible.
A proper, philosophical base for investigating the universe was needed, and only the Christian doctrine of creation has provided that base. The Creator established laws for people and laws for the natural world. A created universe was expected to have design, order and purpose. Man, using his created, rational mind, would study this ordered universe in a rational way and seek to discover its laws. Modern science is based upon this assumption of scientific law. In addition, the moral laws given by the Creator establish the ethical basis for science.
http://www.intouchmission.org/reports/main.htm?http://www.intouchmission.org/reports/archives/000389.html
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by jimmyb270Scientists must be honest and truthful. If this universe were not created, if it is merely the “product of chance”, then no intelligence would be involved. There could be no reason to expect such a universe to operate in a rational or consistent way. Man's mind would also be a product of chance and would not be capable of reason or logic. Hence, a materialistic philosophy could not provide any foundation for science. Many ardent atheists dominate science today, but they are working off the foundations and presuppositions laid by Christianity.
It is more scientific because, although we don't have unequivocal proof, we do have evidence. We have the fossil record which, although incomplete due to the difficulty of fossil formation, does show us the roots of many modern creatures. It also shows us the ancient remains of creatures that didn't stand up to the rigourous test of natural selection, ie ...[text shortened]... edly slightly patchy, evidence, versus absolutely none at all, I know on which side I will fall.
In the realm of physics, Sir Michael Faraday is acknowledged as one of the greatest scientists of all times. He discovered electro-magnetic induction, without which we could have no motors or engines. He invented the generator. Faraday was a devoted Christian who declared: “The Bible and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times in all circumstances. Faith in the Divinity and work of Christ is the gift of God and the evidence of this faith is obedience to the commandments of Christ.”
http://www.intouchmission.org/reports/main.htm?http://www.intouchmission.org/reports/archives/000389.html
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe only rationality in the universe is that which we see in it. I refer you to the wise words of the late, great Douglas Adams who compared this line of thinking to a puddle thinking what a great coincidence it was that it found itself in a hole that fit it's shape so perfectly.
Scientists must be honest and truthful. If this universe were not created, if it is merely the “product of chance”, then no intelligence would be involved. There could be no reason to expect such a universe to operate in a rational or con ...[text shortened]... ain.htm?http://www.intouchmission.org/reports/archives/000389.html
The only reason that the universe makes so much sense to us is because we evolved in it. We have never known anything else. If the multiple universe theories are correct, an intelligent being from one of those would find this universe utterly incomprehensible.
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo now you admit that your previous post claiming that the Bible invented the scientific method is ripped off from someone else? Why did you not admit this the first time around? You are a plaigeriser, a thief and a breaker of God's commandments!
The irrefutable fact is that Christianity gave birth to modern science. The scientific revolution began in the Protestant Reformation and the Bible played a vital part in the development of scientific discovery. Every major branch of science was developed by a Bible - believing Christian. The Bible essentially created science."
http://www.intouchmission.org/reports/main.htm?http://www.intouchmission.org/reports/archives/000389.html[/b]
By God, do you not have an original thought in your God given brain?
And I completely disagree with all this rubbish anyway. Just because a scientist is a Christian DOES NOT prove that the Bible created science.
Henry
Originally posted by dj2beckerMore utter rubbish.
[b]It has been pointed out that science could not have developed among those who worship Allah, because of Islam's fatalism. Nor could science have been birthed from Hindus or Buddhism, because of their belief that the world is an illusion. Neither could modern science have arisen in our modern humanistic culture, because of the humanist's belief that life is irrational and illogical.
And as a humanist I can say very clearly that we do not believe that life is irrational or illogical - we only use that phrase for fundamentalist theists.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by jimmyb270Do you mean to say that it is more comprehensible to think that life can be generated from non-life (in other words, that intelligence is needed to create something intelligent) than it is to think that an intelligent being was the one responsible to create the intelligence we see today? Would you like to give me an example where non-intelligence has created something intelligent?
The only rationality in the universe is that which we see in it. I refer you to the wise words of the late, great Douglas Adams who compared this line of thinking to a puddle thinking what a great coincidence it was that it found itself in a hole that fit it's shape so perfectly.
The only reason that the universe makes so much sense to us is because we ...[text shortened]... rrect, an intelligent being from one of those would find this universe utterly incomprehensible.
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat you fail to realise is that your statement is not logical. There is no reason to assume that intelligence is needed to create intelligence. None. Since you cannot demonstrate the creation of intelligence, there is no way of proving whether intelligence is a prerequisite of the creation of intelligence or not. Consequently you arguement is question begging and irrational.
Do you mean to say that it is more comprehensible to think that life can be generated from non-life (in other words, that intelligence is needed to create something intelligent) than it is to think that an intelligent being was the one re ...[text shortened]... example where non-intelligence has created something intelligent?
Originally posted by dj2beckerThere is exactly one example of undisputed intelligence - humanity. As we're debating whether humanity came from another intelligence or not, there can be no example to give you. Nor could you give an example of an intelligence that was created by another intelligence. Your request is pointless.
Do you mean to say that it is more comprehensible to think that life can be generated from non-life (in other words, that intelligence is needed to create something intelligent) than it is to think that an intelligent being was the one responsible to create the intelligence we see today? Would you like to give me an example where non-intelligence has created something intelligent?
Originally posted by dj2beckerI think it is more comprehensible to think life can be generated from non life, and intelligence from the lack of intelligence, than it is to think an intelligence which is totally unwitnessable via scientific methodology was involved.
Do you mean to say that it is more comprehensible to think that life can be generated from non-life (in other words, that intelligence is needed to create something intelligent) than it is to think that an intelligent being was the one responsible to create the intelligence we see today? Would you like to give me an example where non-intelligence has created something intelligent?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanAre you suggesting that you did not use intelligence to create this "intelligent" post.
What you fail to realise is that your statement is not logical. There is no reason to assume that intelligence is needed to create intelligence. None. Since you cannot demonstrate the creation of intelligence, there is no way of proving ...[text shortened]... Consequently you arguement is question begging and irrational.
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerLet me ask you a question, what exactly is intelligence?
Do you mean to say that it is more comprehensible to think that life can be generated from non-life (in other words, that intelligence is needed to create something intelligent) than it is to think that an intelligent being was the one re ...[text shortened]... example where non-intelligence has created something intelligent?
I imagine you are referring to humans when you speak of intelligence. Fair enough, I would agree that, with some exceptions, humans are extremely intelligent beings.
What about early humans, homo erectus and the like? We have archaelogical evidence that they used simple tools, made fire, drew cave art and so on. I would say all that requires intelligence.
What about the great apes, chimpanzees, orang utans, gorillas and the like? They display creative problem solving skills to new and unusual problems not seen in their natural habitat. Are they intelligent? I would say so, although not as intelligent as a person.
What about monkeys? They are capable of simple problem solving, although their talents are not as impressive as those of the apes. Again, I would say that they possess intelligence, although not as much as the apes and, by extension, not as much as humans.
Can you see where I'm going with this? I suspect not, so I'll spell it out.
Intelligence, like eyes did not spontaneously arise in humans. It evolved, slowly - these things take a lot of time. Intelligence, like sight, is a useful survival trait and so those with more of it are more likely to live to pass on that trait. And since the most intelligent are breeding, the trait is enforced over the generations, eventually after many millions of years, you end up with us.