Jump to content


Photo

Sciences Were Never Meant To Discover "origins".


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
47 replies to this topic

#1 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 15 December 2009 - 08:24 PM

Here it is, maybe the first and last topic I'll ever start.

Please refer to this site:
http://www.ancientsc...m/sciences.html
(a list of "Ancient Sciences")

I hand-picked some; some I just liked and some that have more significant meaning to my topic.

anthropology = study of human cultures
- NOT the study of the origins of humanity!

biology = study of life
- NOT the study of the origins of life!

cosmology = study of the universe
- NOT the study of the origins of the universe!

diabology = study of devils
- just thought this interesting.

ecology = study of environment

futurology = study of future
- How can one "study" the future? (rhetorical)

garbology = (yep) study of garbage
- Maybe those people are actually scientists!

heresiology = study of heresies
- hmmm

ideogeny = study of origins of ideas
- maybe we should start sub-study on the idea of evolution :lol:

kidology = study of kidding
- kind of like, say, um, evolution :blink:

limacology = study of slugs
- no wonder I never liked lima beans :(

Mariology = study of the Virgin Mary
- interesting

nautics = art of navigation (for my bro)

odology = science of the hypothetical mystical force of od
- huh? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Od_force)

paleo-osteology = study of ancient bones
- isn't that a doctor we'll all visit someday?

runology = study of runes
- what the heck is a "rune"? (rhetorical)

stasiology = study of political parties
- unbiased, non-presumptive, scientific study I'm sure

tegestology = study and collecting of beer mats
- now I could go for a degree in this branch :D

vulcanology = study of volcanoes
- no, not the study of Spoc

xylology = study of wood
- sounds more like the study of laughing out loudly whilst playing the xylophone

zygology = science of joining and fastening
- or, the study of Duct Tape B)


So, what's my point?
Simply put, sciences are meant to study things, and not with any presumption of outcome, rather to discover whatever is to be discovered. I believe God commands us to do this in Genesis 1 when He says "...have dominion over..." (vss. 26 & 28) God wants us to wonder at His creation, yes to unfold what we can while we can. He gave us an enormous capacity for thinking. He gave us an intelligence above all creatures on Earth, yet a "little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:4-5)
[see also Psalm 8:3 & 6, another reminder that God created it all and gave us "dominion" over it]

Evolutionists have 'mutated' the sciences into 'proving' their theory. The evo's are surely going to bite my head off by saying something like "we don't have to 'prove' our theory, but there are mountains of evidence that 'support' it". The same evidence, as shown in other threads, that creationists use to support creation - but then the evo's insist that we 'prove' creation!

I will now enjoy your responses.

#2 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 15 December 2009 - 10:06 PM

Simply put, sciences are meant to study things, and not with any presumption of outcome, rather to discover whatever is to be discovered.

View Post

Science is all about asking questions, and then using experiments or observations to find answers. There needs to be a presumption of outcome- this forms the basis of a hypothesis, which is then tested. You seem to be suggesting that a scientist should never ask questions, make predictions, and test his or her predictions... which is the very basis of the scientific method.

Evolutionists have 'mutated' the sciences into 'proving' their theory.

View Post

Not quite. In any good experiment, there are always two hypotheses and experiments are valid regardless of which one the evidence appears to support. If I conducted an experiment on some hypothesized evolutionary process (X) in a certain species (Y), my predictions would be as follows:
Null hypothesis: X has no effect on Y
Alternative hypothesis: X has an effect on Y
Then I would collect evidence and evaluate the results. In the end, my evidence may turn out to support my null hypothesis, and I would conclude that the evolutionary process did not affect that particular species. Perhaps it was another evolutionary process, or perhaps evolution isn’t the answer. I would need to do many more experiments before I could conclusively make that decision.
You’ll find that most experiments on evolution follow this format, and are published regardless of whether the results support evolution. Scientists are not out to “prove” their theory... they’re out to test their questions and evaluate the results. I believe in evolution, but I’m not afraid of seeing it proven wrong. If someone had convincing evidence against it, that would be exciting- it would open the door to new possibilities. Keep in mind that even if evolution is wrong, that doesn’t make theism automatically right. There would be many other options we would need to consider.

#3 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 15 December 2009 - 11:42 PM

So, what's my point?
Simply put, sciences are meant to study things, and not with any presumption of outcome, rather to discover whatever is to be discovered.  I believe God commands us to do this in Genesis 1 when He says "...have dominion over..." (vss. 26 & 28)  God wants us to wonder at His creation, yes to unfold what we can while we can.  He gave us an enormous capacity for thinking.  He gave us an intelligence above all creatures on Earth, yet a "little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:4-5)
[see also Psalm 8:3 & 6, another reminder that God created it all and gave us "dominion" over it]

Evolutionists have 'mutated' the sciences into 'proving' their theory.  The evo's are surely going to bite my head off by saying something like "we don't have to 'prove' our theory, but there are mountains of evidence that 'support' it".  The same evidence, as shown in other threads, that creationists use to support creation - but then the evo's insist that we 'prove' creation!

I will now enjoy your responses.

View Post

I very good topic, and one people would do well to think about.

I recently took a look at a very bad example, in fact.

The Big Bang is no longer theory, but fact.


http://www.er.doe.go...np/origins.html

NASA, NSF, DOE and the California Institute of Technology are collaborating to do more than just assert this one lie. They intend to "prove" the Earth is not unique or unusual, and produce "evidence" of space aliens.

Under a sweeping program called "ORIGINS," the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE) hope to combine their respective skills and expertise to learn how all objects -- from quarks to quasars, from galaxies to people -- are interrelated.

Notice how they've already determined their conclusions? All that remains is to spend money and convince everyone else.

http://astrobiology....s/beichman.html

TPF will allow us to identify habitable planets like our own Earth around the nearest stars and to assess how common they might be. By combining the sensitivity of space-borne telescopes with the high spatial resolution of an interferometer, TPF will study planets beyond our own solar system in a variety of ways: from their formation and evolution in the disks of newly forming stars to the properties of planets orbiting the nearest stars; from their numbers, sizes, locations, and diversity to their suitability as abodes for life. Using the special technique of interferometric nulling, TPF will be able to reduce the glare of parent stars by a factor of more than one hundred thousand to reveal planetary systems as far away as 15 parsec (pc) or 50 light years. The characterization of the size, temperature, and orbital parameters of entire planetary families, including bodies as small as the Earth in regions where liquid water might be expected to be present, i.e. the "habitable zones", will reveal the full diversity of planetary systems in a way that is only hinted at today.


Again, the conclusion is already known. They will "find" Earth-like planets and examine them closely.

A real scientist could not be sure what he would see until he had some observations to go on. These people "know" they're going to observe all sorts of stuff, including the formation of stars and planets, specifically Earth-like planets, and "life signs" coming from them.

This isn't science. This is advance notice of what they intend to claim, once they've spent enough money. The best science available indicates the Earth is quite unique in many, many respects. They know this, but they aren't interested at all.

One should recall that in real science, repeatability is a major factor. None of the revelations these people plan to announce will be repeatable. No, they set themselves up as authorities that their story should be immune from dispute. (Personal note: just watch - they're such pathetic liars they'll still tell an obviously inconsistent tale, even when they have a monopoly on "observations".)

And how anyone can trust them is beyond me. They insist I.D. is bogus, yet openly plan to "discover" space aliens so they can "solve" the problems facing evolutionism. The I.D. advocates who posit space alien intervention are labeled kooks by people positing exactly the same thing. Know the difference? The I.D. advocates admit that life appears to be designed, while the hypocrites insist it doesn't. They insist there's no way to detect design or intelligence, yet they're telling us they're going to discover space aliens. Do lies come more self-contradictory or self-serving?

Methinks there's no way to detect intelligence in any creature fooled by such a lie.

Of course it's all got to be snazzy and multi-media, too.

http://planetquest.j...a.gov/index.cfm

I think I've said enough for one post now. Those visiting from other threads may be amused to number the absolute statements to be found in the "Origins" propaganda.

#4 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 16 December 2009 - 09:32 AM

Science is all about asking questions, and then using experiments or observations to find answers. There needs to be a presumption of outcome- this forms the basis of a hypothesis, which is then tested. You seem to be suggesting that a scientist should never ask questions, make predictions, and test his or her predictions... which is the very basis of the scientific method.

View Post

Making predictions is fine, however in your example you have a "hypothesized evolutionary process " :blink:

How about this:
I think if I dissect this frog I will find there is a complexity of systems working together. Rather than, as I dissect this frog I will be able to see how evolution has worked over millions of years to result in this frog. There is a huge difference in my presumptions, one is science and one is not.

I would conclude that the evolutionary process did not affect that particular species. Perhaps it was another evolutionary process , or perhaps (see below). I would need to do many more experiments before I could conclusively make that decision .

View Post

(my emphasis added)

or perhaps evolution isn’t the answer.

View Post

Now you're catching on :)

You’ll find that most experiments on evolution follow this format, and are published regardless of whether the results support evolution. Scientists are not out to “prove” their theory... they’re out to test their questions and evaluate the results. I believe in evolution, but I’m not afraid of seeing it proven wrong. If someone had convincing evidence against it, that would be exciting- it would open the door to new possibilities. Keep in mind that even if evolution is wrong, that doesn’t make theism automatically right. There would be many other options we would need to consider.

View Post

Anything but Intelligent Design, please, anything but that! :P

#5 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 16 December 2009 - 12:06 PM

Science is all about asking questions, . . .

View Post

Then why are Evo "scientists" so afraid of the question "Could life be the result of design?"

#6 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 16 December 2009 - 02:37 PM

Hey before I respond to what is below... This better not be your last thread :P

It's always fun to ask questions and to see where the conversation goes from there. you never know what will be insightful to someone else. It's always the little things you say or do that make the biggest difference in someone else's life.

Anything but Intelligent Design, please, anything but that! :o

View Post



:) but why do you think that if Evolution is disproved that it will prove creationism?

Also how do you test for the supernatural? To prove that there was a designer, you would need to prove that there was one, you would need to be able to test for its influence, and then you would need to narrow down which if any religion is/was currently following this divine being.

But that is just off the top of my head. I'm sure some of these points don't matter too much.

#7 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 December 2009 - 02:58 PM

This is an excellent topic. I'll be curious to see how it unfolds.

Also how do you test for the supernatural?  To prove that there was a designer, you would need to prove that there was one, you would need to be able to test for its influence, and then you would need to narrow down which if any religion is/was currently following this divine being.

View Post

I'm not sure what the problem is, Javabean, all these avenues of investigation are perfectly viable through empirical data, logic, reason and an understanding of philosophy...

...oh, and a willingness to see things as they really are, helps too. :P

How have you been doing BTW? We haven't talked in quite a while.

#8 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 16 December 2009 - 06:14 PM

Hey before I respond to what is below...  This better not be your last thread :P

View Post

Not my last post, but *possibly the only "topic" I'll ever start.
(*reserving the right to actually start another topic :lol:)

... make the biggest difference in someone else's life.

View Post

I would like to make a difference for God in other peoples lives, thanks for the encouragement :o

:) but why do you think that if Evolution is disproved that it will prove creationism?

Also how do you test for the supernatural?  To prove that there was a designer, you would need to prove that there was one, you would need to be able to test for its influence, and then you would need to narrow down which if any religion is/was currently following this divine being.

But that is just off the top of my head.  I'm sure some of these points don't matter too much.

View Post

Firstly, evolution hasn't been proven, so it can not be disproved.

In my humble, and yes faith-filled, understanding - creation is proven over and over again. There is simply too much complexity in the universe to reason that it was done without an intelligence, a Creator, but I'm a simple layman. Take a look at a highly educated, and published, real scientist - there's a video at this site http://www.signatureinthecell.com. After you watch the short video click on "About the Author" in the top portion of that page, you'll see he's certainly not some quack.

#9 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 December 2009 - 07:48 PM

Here it is, maybe the first and last topic I'll ever start.

Please refer to this site:
http://www.ancientsc...m/sciences.html
(a list of "Ancient Sciences")

I hand-picked some; some I just liked and some that have more significant meaning to my topic.

anthropology = study of human cultures
- NOT  the study of the origins of humanity!

biology = study of life
- NOT the study of the origins of life!

cosmology = study of the universe
- NOT the study of the origins of the universe!

"study of the universe" (for example) includes study of the origins. There'd be no reason to list them as separate things.

#10 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 16 December 2009 - 08:22 PM

"study of the universe" (for example) includes study of the origins.  There'd be no reason to list them as separate things.

View Post

Obviously I don't agree with you :P, you can study anything and everything without being concerned with its origin.

I can wonder, and study, what a nebula is made of without caring how it got there!

#11 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 16 December 2009 - 10:25 PM

Making predictions is fine, however in your example you have a "hypothesized evolutionary process "

View Post

What’s wrong with that? Evolution is a valid prediction, as long as the experiment is unbiased. When you make two hypotheses, and one is a statement of “no correlation” or “no effect”, your prediction can be anything you want it to be as long as your experiment doesn’t favour a certain outcome.
When numerical data is analyzed, it’s the null hypothesis that is assumed to be true. So in my example, we would assume evolution did not occur and then evaluate the data under that assumption. This is how statistical analysis works, and it’s an effective way to avoid experimental bias.

How about this:
I think if I dissect this frog I will find there is a complexity of systems working together. Rather than, as I dissect this frog I will be able to see how evolution has worked over millions of years to result in this frog. There is a huge difference in my presumptions, one is science and one is not.

View Post

But dissecting a frog is not really testing a prediction. It is more likely that by doing so, you will form some sort of prediction that you might later want to test.

Anything but Intelligent Design, please, anything but that!

View Post

Intelligent design is certainly a possibility, but it doesn’t seem very probable to me. Not only is there no direct evidence supporting it, but a lot of the features seen in organisms seem to contradict it. Mitochondrial DNA, for example. If you could find conclusive evidence (or even just strong evidence) for intelligent design, I would have no trouble changing my point of view. But as far as I know, no such evidence exists. More often than not, evidence for creation is really just evidence which refutes evolution... and that doesn’t make a designer more likely.

Then why are Evo "scientists" so afraid of the question "Could life be the result of design?"

View Post

I’m not afraid of that question at all. I was a theist for a long time before I became an atheist, so that’s a question I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about. Unfortunately, a designer is a difficult prediction to test for. Supernatural causes require that all natural causes first be ruled out. If scientists found that the current evidence is inconsistent with evolution (and the vast majority of it is not) then they would move on to other scientific options. And if those were ruled out as well, then they might be inclined to believe in the supernatural.

I'm not sure what the problem is, Javabean, all these avenues of investigation are perfectly viable through empirical data, logic, reason and an understanding of philosophy...

View Post

Can you give me an example of an empirical test for God? I’ve yet to hear of one.

#12 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 16 December 2009 - 10:56 PM

What’s wrong with that?  Evolution is a valid prediction, as long as the experiment is unbiased.

View Post

You started with evolution, that is bias.

But dissecting a frog is not really testing a prediction.

View Post

My prediction was not that I would end up with a disected frog! :P It was that I would find complex systems.

If in finding those complex systems, sure, I might want to dig deeper to find what makes those complex systems tick. I could then predict that I might find less complex systems.
...
As I dig deeper and deeper I would certainly come to a molecular level and would realize that my hypothesis was wrong, the systems are NOT less complex - they are actually more complex . With information in DNA that baffles the imagination.

This is the point at which reasonable thinking persons might wonder where all that programmed information came from. To then hypothesize (and CONCLUDE) anything other than intelligence is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

#13 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 17 December 2009 - 01:05 AM

Here it is, maybe the first and last topic I'll ever start.
....
Simply put, sciences are meant to study things, and not with any presumption of outcome, rather to discover whatever is to be discovered.  I believe God commands us to do this in Genesis 1 when He says "...have dominion over..." (vss. 26 & 28)  God wants us to wonder at His creation, yes to unfold what we can while we can.  He gave us an enormous capacity for thinking.  He gave us an intelligence above all creatures on Earth, yet a "little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:4-5)
[see also Psalm 8:3 & 6, another reminder that God created it all and gave us "dominion" over it]


Hi bobabelever

I totally agree with what you say above. Science should be about seeing what is to be seen, without bias and presupposition, as best we can.

Evolutionists have 'mutated' the sciences into 'proving' their theory.  The evo's are surely going to bite my head off by saying something like "we don't have to 'prove' our theory, but there are mountains of evidence that 'support' it".  The same evidence, as shown in other threads, that creationists use to support creation - but then the evo's insist that we 'prove' creation!

I will now enjoy your responses.

View Post


May I ask, who do you count as evolutionists? Presumably you would include biologists and paleontologists, who explicitly study biology and evolution. What about astronomers, geologists, and particle physicists? These sciences give support to the great age of the universe and the earth, and thus indirect support to biological evolution. Would you also include non-scientific engineers who make the instruments used by biologists, astronomers etc?

I'm just trying to understand which professions you believe are coloured by evolutionist bias, and which ones are not.

Thanks and regards
SeeJay

#14 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 December 2009 - 04:20 AM

Obviously I don't agree with you  :P, you can study anything and everything without being concerned with its origin.

I can wonder, and study, what a nebula is made of without caring how it got there!

View Post

Well, yeah, obviously. But saying studying nebulas does not exclude studying the origins of nebulas, which is a principle that your op is based on.

#15 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 17 December 2009 - 05:20 AM

Well, yeah, obviously.  But saying studying nebulas does not exclude studying the origins of nebulas, which is a principle that your op is based on.

View Post

Change the word "studying" to "speculating about". :P

#16 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 17 December 2009 - 07:55 AM

Hi bobabelever

I totally agree with what you say above. Science should be about seeing what is to be seen, without bias and presupposition, as best we can.

View Post

Thank you :)

May I ask, who do you count as evolutionists? Presumably you would include biologists and paleontologists, who explicitly study biology and evolution. What about astronomers, geologists, and particle physicists? These sciences give support to the great age of the universe and the earth, and thus indirect support to biological evolution. Would you also include non-scientific engineers who make the instruments used by biologists, astronomers etc?

I'm just trying to understand which professions you believe are coloured by evolutionist bias, and which ones are not.

Thanks and regards
SeeJay

View Post

I only count those who count themselves.

There are "biologists" and also "evolutionary biologists", a, relatively speaking, new 'science'. There are also "creationist biologists", my speculation is that this is an even newer 'science'.


******************************************************
* In the beginning God said let there be biologists
* "...have dominion over...". Man sinned and
* perverted it into "evolutionary biology". God then
* commanded His faithful followers to defend their
* faith and allowed them to re-tool, and thus were
* created the "creation biologists". :lol: :lol: :lol:
******************************************************


#17 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 17 December 2009 - 08:19 AM

Well, yeah, obviously.  But saying studying nebulas does not exclude studying the origins of nebulas, which is a principle that your op is based on.

View Post

I did not say that it excluded origins study, nor can you say that it must include origins study. Which is my point!

1) marte sees a nebula and wonders, "wow, how'd that get there".
2) bob sees a nebula and wonders, "wow, God is quite an artist".

1a) marte digs deeper and gets all caught up in origins; it's this far away, x event must have happened, light speed/distance, etc...
(please don't side-track this topic with light speed/distance, that's already being discussed here: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2411)

2a) bob takes a picture using his high powered 'bobalactic' telescope and blows it up to poster size and hangs it on the wall in his laboratory. He also uses the imagery to discover that it is full of certain gases. (never even caring about 'how it got there', bob knows how it got there [faith])

#18 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 December 2009 - 01:03 PM

So ....your point is that because a person who studies something isn't necessarily studying the thing's origin, the person's general field of study isn't meant to discover the thing's origin? That's quite a stretch.

#19 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 17 December 2009 - 02:13 PM

I’m not afraid of that question at all. I was a theist for a long time before I became an atheist, so that’s a question I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about. Unfortunately, a designer is a difficult prediction to test for. Supernatural causes require that all natural causes first be ruled out. If scientists found that the current evidence is inconsistent with evolution (and the vast majority of it is not) then they would move on to other scientific options. And if those were ruled out as well, then they might be inclined to believe in the supernatural.

View Post

There is no need to include supernatural. Creation can be accomplished by an intelligence which is just better able than us, not even necessarily smarter. Supernatural is therefore evasion, not contradiction.

#20 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 17 December 2009 - 03:32 PM

So ....your point is that because a person who studies something isn't necessarily studying the thing's origin, the person's general field of study isn't meant to discover the thing's origin?  That's quite a stretch.

View Post

Not a stretch at all.

Look at the list of sciences again - they are study's of X - not study's of origins of X.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users