Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - Page 29

[Infarction]

That is basically agnosticism. Agnostics aren't against the idea of a god. They just think there is a lack of evidence..

Coincidentally, I am an agnostic. :)

How can something be scientific if it is not proven?

Your question insinuates that most of the details of scientific theory and research are non-scientific. However, ~s.o.s.~ has asked me to stop, so I won't argue it anymore.

> Until the thread is closed or I am specifcally told to stop, I will continue the discussion.

Infaction, please stop.. ;-)

Fine :P

[Sturm]

awww...come one don't stop!

[~s.o.s~]

awww...come one don't stop!

*sigh* Are you really that debate hungry?

[joshSCH]

I seriously doubt this thread will be closed

[jbennet]

I think it will. They closed the VT thread didnt they?

[paramasivan]

The reason is "they are also humans"

[Serunson]

another purpose of man ~ debate until such a point where you are arguing the same point

[paramasivan]

It's hard to argue against truth..

[Serunson]

true but some people do it!

[paramasivan]

These like sayings lessen that count further...

[Mushy-pea]

Hi everyone. My apologies if this has already been said but....having come to this thread late I'm too lazy to read all 52 pages. I have read enough to get the gist of it, honest :) . So, what you believe does not affect what the truth is (unless you actually are God, of course). I have questioned the nature of existence and the point of my own existence for so long that it left me feeling empty and pointless. These days, I'm content to just wait for whatever is going to happen and deal with that. I know I'll never escape from this mystery, save for death.

One thought I did find interseting is: what would it be like if you could see inside other peoples minds? If I could see how everyone else reached there opinions and decisions, how could I have an opinion of my own?

Steven.

[christina>you]

The thing is, people are going to believe what they want. I don't think this is ever going to change on this thread. I've tried over and over to convey my beliefs, and I don't think it has had any affect on anyone.

I love debating and standing up for my faith, but it wouldn't bother me too bad if the thread closed. I mean, it is a good thread though. I believe everyone has made very valid posts, for the exception of the name-calling earlier on in this thread.

[sk8ndestroy14]

Seven Points Against Evolution

I also haven't read the whole fifty two pages, but I'll say what I want to say anyway. I think Genesis has a very direct way of saying that Adam was created on the sixth day. If this is true, then evolution seems unlikely. But again things can be interpreted differently. Perhaps these six days occurred before the Earth began rotating as fast as it is now and so six days (six revolutions) is about 4.6 billion years. I have read almost the entire bible and (even objectively) can't find anything deceptive. It all seems logical and rational to me.

I also want to say that objectively setting religion aside, evolution just seems illogical to me and I will explain why with a few examples.

1)I see two types of sciences: concrete and interpretive. Concrete sciences are like chemistry and physics. They are based one hundred percent on proven facts and nothing else is accepted. Interpretive science is like biology and geology. Just about every single aspect of bio and geo is based off of inferences. Very very little of bio and geo is based off of true concrete fact like chem and physics. Biologists and geologists spend their ENTIRE careers working off of nothing but inferences, but since it is their careers they consider most things as fact (they are usually right). When it comes to evolution, who do we turn to for a professional opinion? The biologists and geologists. The people that spend their entire lives declaring inferences as facts. They don't know anything else. So when a highly respected group of scientists says evolution is fact it becomes easy to believe. No offense to biologists, geologists (or anyone really).

2) Darwin himself said, before he died, that his own theory of evolution did not make sense.

3) Maybe this one can be explained and refuted but it came to my mind. I watched a video once and small organisms with eyespots were being shown. It was trying to show that evolution was taking place because they had eyespots (that can only sense light somewhat, no color or sharp lines or depth perception). I thought to myself, "Humans have two eyes so they can have depth perception, no other reason. Why do these organisms have two eyespots rather than one?" Natural selection cannot explain that.

4) Evolution is not something that can be tested. There is no test to prove it false. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific there must be some way to prove it false and there is no test for this one. That means it's unscientific.

5) Natural selection does not mean evolution is true. Although white bunnies die in the summer and brown bunnies die in the winter, no evolution or advancement of the species takes place.

6) Let's look at the beginning of organisms. Organisms have DNA and protein. DNA is arranged in such a sequence that it is copied in the form of mRNA. This is then taken outside the nucleus of the cell and this code is used for a specific sequence of amino acids that come together to form a protein. The sequence of amino acids allows the protein to fold in such a way that it is functional. At the beginning of life either the protein or DNA had to come first. If DNA came first, how in the world would it just happen to have the correct sequence of nucleotides to encode for a fully functional protein that doesn't collapse on itself? The two structures do not come in contact with each other. If protein came first then A) how did it form without the code from DNA? and B) If it could form without DNA then natural selection would not call for DNA at all and it wouldn't be used to create proteins today. A logical explanation is creation.

7) Evolution has simply never been proven even after all these years.

[sk8ndestroy14]

In addition what is accepted as truth has been proven wrong before. The Earth is not flat, nor is it the center of the universe, nor are protons, electrons, and neutrons the smallest particles in the universe. Classical physics fell when quantum physics was discovered. Scientific fact is constantly changing.

[christina>you]

Bravo sk8ndestroy.
You make very good points.

[WaltP]

Seven Points Against Evolution
...
I also want to say that objectively setting religion aside, evolution just seems illogical to me and I will explain why with a few examples.

1)I see two types of sciences: concrete and interpretive. Concrete sciences are like chemistry and physics. They are based one hundred percent on proven facts and nothing else is accepted....

So Einstein's Relativity obviously does not fall within the concrete sciences. And where does Maxwell's Electromagnetic equations fall? Biology?

4) Evolution is not something that can be tested. There is no test to prove it false. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific there must be some way to prove it false and there is no test for this one. That means it's unscientific.

7) Evolution has simply never been proven even after all these years.

So point us to the test that shows that Creationism is experimentally tested and therefore true.

Read up on the definition of the word "theory" and how it relates to science.

[Sturm]

Very well thought out. A theory is a fact. As much as the fact that I have five fingers or something.

[christina>you]

Very well thought out. A theory is a fact. As much as the fact that I have five fingers or something.

Oh my gosh, we have gone over this in the first 20 pages. THEORY does not = FACT. Go back and read.

['Stein]

1)I see two types of sciences: concrete and interpretive. Concrete sciences are like chemistry and physics. They are based one hundred percent on proven facts and nothing else is accepted. Interpretive science is like biology and geology. Just about every single aspect of bio and geo is based off of inferences. Very very little of bio and geo is based off of true concrete fact like chem and physics. Biologists and geologists spend their ENTIRE careers working off of nothing but inferences, but since it is their careers they consider most things as fact (they are usually right). When it comes to evolution, who do we turn to for a professional opinion? The biologists and geologists. The people that spend their entire lives declaring inferences as facts. They don't know anything else. So when a highly respected group of scientists says evolution is fact it becomes easy to believe. No offense to biologists, geologists (or anyone really).

As pointed out by Walt, it's simply untrue. There are many things we still don't understand about Chemistry and Physics, such as quantum theory. Likewise, much of biology is concrete. As a society, we believe that Cell Theory (that all living things consist of cells) and Germ Theory (that bacteria/viruses cause disease, not fate) as truth, no?

2) Darwin himself said, before he died, that his own theory of evolution did not make sense.

Darwin never had a theory of Evolution. Rather, he had a theory of Natural Selection. And officially, he never stated his belief or disbelief in the theory. Thirdly, I might point out that he received much negativity due to his publication. Most likely, this biased his judgement.

3) Maybe this one can be explained and refuted but it came to my mind. I watched a video once and small organisms with eyespots were being shown. It was trying to show that evolution was taking place because they had eyespots (that can only sense light somewhat, no color or sharp lines or depth perception). I thought to myself, "Humans have two eyes so they can have depth perception, no other reason. Why do these organisms have two eyespots rather than one?" Natural selection cannot explain that.

You might be referring to the evolution of sight in Mollusca. There are various species of Mollusca, that have differnet levels of sight. Some have primitive eye spots, that detect light/dark (as you mentioned). The next level of complexity has the eye spots shaped sort of a bowl. Eventally, through evolution, advanced forms have this bowl filled with fluid. Depth perception comes from this bowl-shaping.

4) Evolution is not something that can be tested. There is no test to prove it false. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific there must be some way to prove it false and there is no test for this one. That means it's unscientific.

I might want to point out that this apples to Creationism as well (yes yes, I know, creationism isn't scientific). Not everything in science is scientific. There are entire fields based on 'non-science,' as you call it. Just take Theoretical Physics (black holes), for example. Microevolution has been widely tested. But yes, macroevoluton has not yet been fully tested. However, this does not make it 'unscientific.'

5) Natural selection does not mean evolution is true. Although white bunnies die in the summer and brown bunnies die in the winter, no evolution or advancement of the species takes place.

Natural selection is not 'white bunnies dying, brown living'. Actually, they are the same bunny (it sheds). Natural selection is the selection of specific animals in a species. Let's take bacteria for example. We have a normal population of 100,000 organisms. Then, an antiseptic is introduced. This kills 99,950 organisms (every organism except those with a specific mutation). These 50 remaining organisms continue to reproduce. The previous percentage of the mutation was (50/10,000), or .5%. Now, however, those with the mutation is (50/50), or 100%. This is natural selection.

Over time, these changes will lead to the difference between the mutated bacteria and the originial organism. This leads into new species.

6) Let's look at the beginning of organisms. Organisms have DNA and protein. DNA is arranged in such a sequence that it is copied in the form of mRNA. This is then taken outside the nucleus of the cell and this code is used for a specific sequence of amino acids that come together to form a protein. The sequence of amino acids allows the protein to fold in such a way that it is functional. At the beginning of life either the protein or DNA had to come first. If DNA came first, how in the world would it just happen to have the correct sequence of nucleotides to encode for a fully functional protein that doesn't collapse on itself? The two structures do not come in contact with each other. If protein came first then A) how did it form without the code from DNA? and B) If it could form without DNA then natural selection would not call for DNA at all and it wouldn't be used to create proteins today. A logical explanation is creation.

Current theory actually has RNA coming first. RNA can be found in the most primitive of bacteria, and is much more likely to mutate. It can also act as an enzyme, eliminating the very-early needs of protiens.

7) Evolution has simply never been proven even after all these years.

Yes, it's still a theory. And yes, you said yourself that it's simply not provable. Yet, this applies to the following 'theories' that are vastly taken as fact:

Cell Theory
Germ Theory
Atomic Theory (theory that all matter is atoms)
Gravitational Theory
Electromagnetic Theory (think electricity)
Plate Tectonics (the moving continental plates beneath us)

Thanks.

[Sturm]

Oh my gosh, we have gone over this in the first 20 pages. THEORY does not = FACT. Go back and read.

THEORY DOES EQUAL FACT. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Who are you to say that theory !=fact when hundreds of people with PHDs say otherwise?

['Stein]

THEORY DOES EQUAL FACT. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Who are you to say that theory !=fact when hundreds of people with PHDs say otherwise?

False. Theory is not fact. Take Cell Theory for example. There is no possible way to prove that every living organism consists of cells.

[christina>you]

Again, we have already discussed this topic in the first couple of pages! Go back and read them.

christina>you
Theories do not = fact.
They are simply a hypothesis of what could have happened if this or that took place.

joshSCH
Theories are not fact, true. But they have been proven true from every scientific experiment so far. The theory of evolution has yet to fail a scientific test, and has never come into conflict with any other scientific law/theory

‘Stein
Theory is a theory> Indeed

mattyd
No, Evolution is not a proven fact; a theory is not a series of proven theorems but only a series of tests (or observations) backed-up at times by successful, single experiments that may-or-may-not-be able to be repeated. How does this prove Evolution?

[Infarction]

I know I said I'd stop in this thread, but I can't help it :(

THEORY DOES EQUAL FACT. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Who are you to say that theory !=fact when hundreds of people with PHDs say otherwise?

hm...

the·o·ry –noun, plural -ries.
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.contemplation or speculation.
7.guess or conjecture.

I point you to #1, 2, 6, and 7. Propositions, conjectures, speculations, and guesses. A standing theory is the "best guess" of how something works, not a proven truth.

[~s.o.s~]

> I know I said I'd stop in this thread, but I can't help it :(

:-()

[jbennet]

False. Theory is not fact. Take Cell Theory for example. There is no possible way to prove that every living organism consists of cells.

other than the fact that you can see them under a microscope?

[Infarction]

other than the fact that you can see them under a microscope?

Existential quantification and universal quantification are different :icon_wink:

['Stein]

Existential quantification and universal quantification are different :icon_wink:

Exactly.

Simply because we observe it on one occasion does not mean it applies everywhere. For that very reason, it's Cell Theory and not the Law of Cells.

[sk8ndestroy14]

So Einstein's Relativity obviously does not fall within the concrete sciences. And where does Maxwell's Electromagnetic equations fall? Biology?

So point us to the test that shows that Creationism is experimentally tested and therefore true.

Read up on the definition of the word "theory" and how it relates to science.

Some things fall in what is called "theoretical physics" and everything in there is not actually proven (and it uses the word theory in it). A scientific fact starts out as an idea like Einstein's theory of relativity. We haven't proven some things yet in chemistry and physics but those things are still not accepted as fact.

I never said creationism has been scientifically tested and true but in my opinion it is more logical than evolution.

I don't really want to get into a heated argument about this because I doubt either of us will change our minds and that isn't what I'm going for anyway. There's no reason people can't disagree on the issue and still be friends. So don't take anything I say as an attack.

[sk8ndestroy14]

One of the earlier pages I read talked about confusion of an omnipotent creator that allows free will or something like that. I read a book called Angels and Demons once (it's a good book that relates christianity with science, although it doesn't discuss evolution much). It explained it like this:

If you have a kid you love him with all your heart right? And you wouldn't want him to get hurt. Let's say he wants to ride his bike. Chances are he will end up hurting himself and you know it. Do you stop him? No, because you know he will learn on his own. And he needs to learn on his own, it isn't enough to say, "Don't ride your bike" because he won't learn anything.

['Stein]

It's good book. :icon_biggrin: