What does science not know?

[Jim_Baur]

I agree with Bubba, if there is a designer(s), one must consider THEM.

It seems to me the point of inanimate moving to animate is a great problem to solve before one jumps to evolution. The opinion of evolution is resting on one great unsolved problem.

 

[dshix]

Please do not laugh, but we do not know how life started.

It is begging the question(s) to assume it started on its own?

Again, please do not laugh, do we know what light is? As of yet, which metaphor do we use, wave or particle?

To what degree of certitude do we have for the forming of Earth? Or, are there competing opinions still?

Also, do we know how the micro physics correlates with the macro physics? Would that matter with the coming into existence of life?

THANKS!

We do know what starts the lowest form of bacteria life, and through the theory of evolution you can get to every other living being. However, this can be largely speculative.

As to light, it is photons. Not really much more to say about that. It is a particle.

The forming of the Earth is known (we can’t state the exact sequence of events, obviously) but we know what process led to its building.

 

[Jim_Baur]

dshix

Thanks!

We know what starts the lowest form of bacteria life. How does that related to life moving from inanimate matter to animate matter millions or billions of years ago? Or, does it relate.

Thanks!

Also how much agreement is there on how the planets formed? I have not studied recently in this area. I remember several competing scientific opinions, about 30 years ago. If I am correct, they all said that the other opinion was incorrect. Who do we mere mortals believe?

 

[dshix]

dshix

Thanks!

We know what starts the lowest form of bacteria life. How does that related to life moving from inanimate matter to animate matter millions or billions of years ago? Or, does it relate.

Thanks!

Also how much agreement is there on how the planets formed? I have not studied recently in this area. I remember several competing scientific opinions, about 30 years ago. If I am correct, they all said that the other opinion was incorrect. Who do we mere mortals believe?

To preface my answer, I’ll just state that I think evolution is WHOLLY compatible with God, and I believe he very likely used it in the creation of the universe. With this thought in mind, it is definitely possible for animals and humans to have morphed over time from bacteria into intelligent beings (granted God breathed into man an immortal soul and free will at some point, when he was almost entirely evolved) and so create the races of men and species of animals we have today.

As to the how the planets formed, there is no conjecture. Matter naturally comes together through gravity, and over a great amount of time it gradually collected into planets. If you are asking how exactly Earth happened to be just right for humans to live on, the answer would be the hand of God.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Again, please do not laugh, do we know what light is? As of yet, which metaphor do we use, wave or particle?

You have asked this question before and gotten the same response: light is a quanta of energy. It has particle-like behavior and wave-like behavior, but I do not believe we can narrow it down more than that.

To what degree of certitude do we have for the forming of Earth? Or, are there competing opinions still?

Well, since we live here, I am 100% certain that the earth formed .

As far as my planetary formation friends tell me, it is pretty much a known that earth formed from dust after the sun was born. The ‘how long it took to do this’ and some other details are argued, but the accumulation of dust and gas is well accepted.

Also, do we know how the micro physics correlates with the macro physics? Would that matter with the coming into existence of life?

Yes we know how, there are books galore on the connections between macro- and micro-physics, between macro-physics and cosmic-physics, and everything in-between.

 

[atheistgirl]

What are the most basic things that science does not know as of yet?

How to explain the Trinity.

What a Jesuit is thinking.

How many Orders of Franciscans are there.



(full credit to BrJR who said this in a reply about something else, somewhere else to someone else and I’ve never forgotten it, because I still haven’t got the coffee stains out )

Sarah x

 

[buffalo]

It does not know anything outside what is observable, testable and repeatable.

 

[dshix]

How to explain the Trinity.

What a Jesuit is thinking.

How many Orders of Franciscans are there.



(full credit to BrJR who said this in a reply about something else, somewhere else to someone else and I’ve never forgotten it, because I still haven’t got the coffee stains out )

Sarah x

Ha!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

While science has made amazing strides in the last 400 years, there are many realms of knowledge that science cannot even touch.

For example, science cannot explain how the universe began. The evernt is called the Big Bang, and the fact that it occurred is not even contested. But how the universe began is another matter. There are no known natural laws that can explain it, and there never will be. Also, how or if the universe will end is also unknown, as there are no laws to govern that except entropy.

 

[buffalo]

In addition science is tentative so what it thinks it knows today may be overturned tomorrow.

 

[inocente]

In addition science is tentative so what it thinks it knows today may be overturned tomorrow.

But let’s face it, it’s unlikely the earth is flat or that computers run on angel dust.

Besides, which is closer to humility - being proud of your certainty or admitting you might be wrong?

 

[buffalo]

But let’s face it, it’s unlikely the earth is flat or that computers run on angel dust.

Besides, which is closer to humility - being proud of your certainty or admitting you might be wrong?

Who is advocating a flat earth?

Humility is being open to God and Revelation. That I am certain of.

 

[Jim_Baur]

If we did not know how gravity works, could we say we have a theory of gravity?

Next, we do not know how or if life moved from inanimate to animate, should we say that we have a theory about life from no life?

Next, building on that lack of knowledge (which is absolutely important), how many levels or gradations are there from the first movement of life to our consciousness?

The amount of questions or problems seems almost infinite. There is just so much that we do not know. isn’t there? Actually, I think an accurate question/statement, do we even know what we don’t know?

 

[dshix]

If we did not know how gravity works, could we say we have a theory of gravity?

Next, we do not know how or if life moved from inanimate to animate, should we say that we have a theory about life from no life?

Next, building on that lack of knowledge (which is absolutely important), how many levels or gradations are there from the first movement of life to our consciousness?

The amount of questions or problems seems almost infinite. There is just so much that we do not know. isn’t there? Actually, I think an accurate question/statement, do we even know what we don’t know?

I’m always amused when someone says “almost infinite” or “more than infinite” as if infinity was a finite, measurable concept.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

If we did not know how gravity works, could we say we have a theory of gravity?

We do not know how gravity works and we do call it a theory.

Next, we do not know how or if life moved from inanimate to animate, should we say that we have a theory about life from no life?

There is a theory (whose name is not to be mentioned) that explains moving from one level of animate to another level of animate, but not from inanimate to animate.

Next, building on that lack of knowledge (which is absolutely important), how many levels or gradations are there from the first movement of life to our consciousness?

I think only God knows this one.

The amount of questions or problems seems almost infinite. There is just so much that we do not know. isn’t there? Actually, I think an accurate question/statement, do we even know what we don’t know?

I think we only know a single digit percentage of the Truth out there. I think your latter question is difficult just because it would indicate we would know something about what we do not know.

 

[Jim_Baur]

As far as I am able to discern, we do not know the size of the universe. There could have been stars 16 billion light years out there that are: neither, not in existence now, or their light has not reached us, or the light passes out of existence.

We do not know how the laws came into existence.

We do not know if the laws of nature came into existence before, during or after the proposed Big Bang.

We do not know which one came into existence first, second or even all at the same moment.

We do not know the nature of the laws.

We do not know if inanimate matter moved to animated matter.

We do not even know whether math is extramental to the human mind, like Plato taught; or whether it is a creation of the human mind for measurement.

If all human beings passed away, does math still exist?

Some scientists have anthropomorphized the process of evolution. They seems to have given an extramental existence to a creation of the human mind. Just like Plato did to math. If evolution exists, what kind of existence does it have.

Again, how many degrees or grades of being are there from the first movement from inanimate matter to animated matter?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**Besides, which is closer to humility - being proud of your certainty or admitting you might be wrong? **

Submitting our will and out intellect and our imagination to certainty is certainly humbling. Submitting in all these ways to uncertainty is also humbling, but not more humbling than submitting to certainty.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

As far as I am able to discern, we do not know the size of the universe. There could have been stars 16 billion light years out there that are: neither, not in existence now, or their light has not reached us, or the light passes out of existence.

We do not know how the laws came into existence.

Correct.

We do not know if the laws of nature came into existence before, during or after the proposed Big Bang.

We do not know which one came into existence first, second or even all at the same moment.

Well, nothing can come before time was created, so laws of nature must have either come into existence simultaneously as the big bang, or after the explosion started.

We do not know the nature of the laws.

That is true.

We do not know if inanimate matter moved to animated matter.

Also true.

We do not even know whether math is extramental to the human mind, like Plato taught; or whether it is a creation of the human mind for measurement.

No, math is definitely objective. It is not conditional on the human mind.

If all human beings passed away, does math still exist?

Absolutely. Otherwise math only would have been true for the supremely short duration of human existence as compared to the age of the universe.

Some scientists have anthropomorphized the process of evolution. They seems to have given an extramental existence to a creation of the human mind. Just like Plato did to math. If evolution exists, what kind of existence does it have.

I did not realize anyone had anthropomorphized evolution. Is that not saying the same thing as “God did it!”??

Again, how many degrees or grades of being are there from the first movement from inanimate matter to animated matter?

No one can know, at this point.

 

[TTheCreator]

Science does not know why science works. In fact, scientists will go out of their way to avoid that question and, if pressed, will give the sort of amusing and unscientific answers one would expect from a child.

Science works because it give reasonable explanations to phenomena based on evidence, experimentation, and observation. I honestly don’t know where you are getting your statement from.

 

[inocente]

Submitting our will and out intellect and our imagination to certainty is certainly humbling. Submitting in all these ways to uncertainty is also humbling, but not more humbling than submitting to certainty.

I think you just proved that it’s impossible to commit the sin of pride .

But surely this is playing with words - the truth is that if we are certain we’re certain then our mind is closed while if we are certain we’re doubtful then our mind is open.

We are not the lord of nature and so we cannot ordain how nature behaves, therefore we cannot be certain of what it will do.