B
buffalo
Guest
Science does not always win. It is limited to what it can say about the universe by its own definition.
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
Again, the secular saint, Galileo, is brought up. Why? Science has no business with the Church. But the fiction continues that science has discovered the wheelwork of nature and peeked behind the veil. And for this theory, Popes are mentioned. Why? And some say there is a massive, miles thick wall between science and “that other stuff.” Call it religion or the supernatural or whatever. Science is obviously a “sacred” secular concept that is pure and untouchable, with a barrier that can never be breached. Leave religion out of this and just stick to science. That will save everyone some time. Adding the word God is just that, adding a word. Which can easily be discarded.
R
rossum
Guest
Not always, but in discussions about the material: “Does the sun go round the earth or the earth round the sun?” then science is the one to bet on.
The Bible is not a science textbook; science is. On scientific questions, science will win over theology.
rossum
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Evolution as understood by top researchers in biology does not pretend to “peek behind the veil” and make statements outside of what is observable. Do not be misled by those few atheists that say that is disproves God or any such nonsense.
E
edwest211
Guest
It is clear that an unrepeatable thing like evolution gets a pass. God? What’s that? Science is the only path to real knowledge. Religion, God/gods, whatever are not sources of real knowledge, right?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is repeatable at a level appropriate to the time span of the available experiments (even though some still call it “adaptation” rather than evolution just because of its magnitude). Repeatable experiments of small evolution are extrapolated to large evolution because it fits the pattern. This principle is the same as the one that says the half-life of radium is 1600 years. No actual experiment has repeatedly shown that half of a quantity of radium will have decayed in 1600 years because radium was not discovered that long ago. Yet we do extrapolate from small decreases in radium and see that it fits a pattern and then say that in 1600 years half of it will be gone. Same thing with how small evolution observed by repeatable experiments is extrapolated to large evolution.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Evolution is not extinct, it explains processes which our happening in our lifetime to antiobiotic resistant diseases and all kinds of species. It repeats over and over and will never stop.
E
edwest211
Guest
God? What’s that? Science is the only path to real knowledge. Religion, God/gods, whatever are not sources of real knowledge, right? Please, anybody, address that.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
God is the Centre of all Truth, and in all the spokes that radiate from Him, bringing us into existence, we whose lives are on the rim that is time and space and who can reach back as He reaches out to us.
Science is an expression of our relational nature, utilizing empiricism as it’s way of knowing what is other to us. As a social institution, it serves many purposes. Here it enters our discussions for the knowledge it has accumulated about the dynamic structure of the universe through observations and experiments involving the formulation of testable explanations.
I shared some thoughts on evolutionary science in a post above - [Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two - #1345 by Aloysium]
I want to elaborate on the position that evolutionary theory is bad science. It becomes so, seeking to explain what is usually set aside as the realm of the metaphysical. It does this failing to recognize that once we begin to talk about living things, we necessarily talk about life. The concept of life has to do with those involving being, wholeness, sentience, animation and soul. It tries to explain the existence of and changes in individual organisms as expressions of their species in materialistic terms. While it talks about matter, the subject of life is metaphysical. What evolutionary theory does is introduce a materialistic metaphysics pretending to be science.
If I were to say that living things exist as a form of being that have a physical structure and that the two combined give them their particular nature, this would be labelled as metaphysics. But, if I present a materialistic vision of a living thing, it is accepted today as science because it is about matter. This view, inherent in the theory of evolution, forms the basis of the materialist position that philosophy and religion are dead, having been replaced by science. For that reason evolutionary theory is interpreted as atheistic scripture.
The material reality of organisms is a field of study within the physical science. It describes the physical structure of organisms in terms of their anatomy and physiology, from their intracellular components, including the genome, to the interrelationship of organ systems. It studies changes in organisms within their environment that have occurred over time.
The problem with evolution is that it draws on that data and, resting on the premise that life boils down to molecules, to introduce a causal relationship between creatures that were and those that followed. Bacteria underwent changes to arrive through the branches of the tree of life, to mankind. There being no identified principle to explain this, the cause for all the complexity can be attributed only to the random activity of the fundamental interactions or forces of nature. This is clearly inadequate, so a nebulous natural selection process is entertained although it must act on pre-existing organisms. In the end there is no explanation other than it is what it is because it happened over billions of years.
That same data can be understood from a design perspective, which is not materialistic, and consequently is relegated to the bin of pseudoscience.
Science is an expression of our relational nature, utilizing empiricism as it’s way of knowing what is other to us. As a social institution, it serves many purposes. Here it enters our discussions for the knowledge it has accumulated about the dynamic structure of the universe through observations and experiments involving the formulation of testable explanations.
I shared some thoughts on evolutionary science in a post above - [Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two - #1345 by Aloysium]
I want to elaborate on the position that evolutionary theory is bad science. It becomes so, seeking to explain what is usually set aside as the realm of the metaphysical. It does this failing to recognize that once we begin to talk about living things, we necessarily talk about life. The concept of life has to do with those involving being, wholeness, sentience, animation and soul. It tries to explain the existence of and changes in individual organisms as expressions of their species in materialistic terms. While it talks about matter, the subject of life is metaphysical. What evolutionary theory does is introduce a materialistic metaphysics pretending to be science.
If I were to say that living things exist as a form of being that have a physical structure and that the two combined give them their particular nature, this would be labelled as metaphysics. But, if I present a materialistic vision of a living thing, it is accepted today as science because it is about matter. This view, inherent in the theory of evolution, forms the basis of the materialist position that philosophy and religion are dead, having been replaced by science. For that reason evolutionary theory is interpreted as atheistic scripture.
The material reality of organisms is a field of study within the physical science. It describes the physical structure of organisms in terms of their anatomy and physiology, from their intracellular components, including the genome, to the interrelationship of organ systems. It studies changes in organisms within their environment that have occurred over time.
The problem with evolution is that it draws on that data and, resting on the premise that life boils down to molecules, to introduce a causal relationship between creatures that were and those that followed. Bacteria underwent changes to arrive through the branches of the tree of life, to mankind. There being no identified principle to explain this, the cause for all the complexity can be attributed only to the random activity of the fundamental interactions or forces of nature. This is clearly inadequate, so a nebulous natural selection process is entertained although it must act on pre-existing organisms. In the end there is no explanation other than it is what it is because it happened over billions of years.
That same data can be understood from a design perspective, which is not materialistic, and consequently is relegated to the bin of pseudoscience.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
“This view, inherent in the theory of evolution, forms the basis of the materialist position that philosophy and religion are dead, having been replaced by science. For that reason evolutionary theory is interpreted as atheistic scripture.” Quote
OK. That fits what I’ve been reading. Evolution can be, and is for some, everything. It becomes their worldview, which replaces philosophy and religion. Having seen books along this line, and some posts here, then that is THE answer - for some. The only answer.
OK. That fits what I’ve been reading. Evolution can be, and is for some, everything. It becomes their worldview, which replaces philosophy and religion. Having seen books along this line, and some posts here, then that is THE answer - for some. The only answer.
B
buffalo
Guest
I do not want to get into this too deep, but science cannot actually tell what goes around what until it can see from outside the frame of reference. Nothing has been proven. The math works both ways.
Nope, Revelation is the macro, science is the micro.
Nope, Revelation is the macro, science is the micro.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is not repeatable. One time events are not repeated.
That is the achilles’ heel of evolution, the extrapolation. Even one time adaptations are not repeatable.
These are not apples to apples. Living organisms and the information are way to complex to try this comparison.
That is the achilles’ heel of evolution, the extrapolation. Even one time adaptations are not repeatable.
These are not apples to apples. Living organisms and the information are way to complex to try this comparison.
B
buffalo
Guest
What? Over and over i have showed with science papers and links showing anti-biotic resistance does not “evolve”. Did you even read one of them?
A
Aloysium
Guest
Others do, thanks.
B
buffalo
Guest
I thought these were pretty clear about anti-biotic resistance being complex adaptation, communication and memory.
E
edwest211
Guest
Apparently not. Or ignored.
T
Techno2000
Guest
We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics.
Antibiotic Resistance Is Prevalent in an Isolated Cave Microbiome
Antibiotic resistance is a global challenge that impacts all pharmaceutically used antibiotics. The origin of the genes associated with this resistance is of significant importance to our understanding of the evolution and dissemination of antibiotic resistance in pathogens. A growing body of...
journals.plos.org
E
Ender
Guest
I think one time Darwinian events are not repeatable because they are driven by chance, but if the changes are not Darwinian then they ought to be repeatable. An example I referred to earlier was an experiment where bacteria were genetically altered so that they were created without flagella. Over a four day period the emergent bacteria had re-engineered flagella by altering another section of their DNA so that section was re-purposed. Assuming they weren’t just sloppy with their experiment, I would expect other researchers to achieve similar - repeatable - results.
I thought this was what epigenetics showed: one organism appropriating genetic material from another organism to achieve antibiotic resistance. That surely is a form of evolution.
E
edwest211
Guest
That is a built-in ability.
E
Ender
Guest
What is? …
- Status