Intelligent? Design

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you think scientist who believe in evolution will bend every bit to back that up too?
Human nature is what it is, it doesn't change simply because of topics under discussion.

One thing about scientists: They love to prove other scientists wrong if they can. It gets them street cred and funding. For 150 years scientists have been trying to disprove evolution and failing. For a theory to stand up to that much scrutiny has to say something about the validity of the theory. 100 years on relativity is still being proven right even though there are several alternative versions.

Originally posted by sonhouse
One thing about scientists: They love to prove other scientists wrong if they can. It gets them street cred and funding. For 150 years scientists have been trying to disprove evolution and failing. For a theory to stand up to that much scrutiny has to say something about the validity of the theory. 100 years on relativity is still being proven right even though there are several alternative versions.

I get that, but they are also debating, or proposing theories about things that supposedly
took place millions of years ago. So what are they doing, if not putting out something that
has to bend with the facts as everyone acknowledges them to be today. As we view things
differently so do the theories about what may have occurred millions of years ago. We see
something new that doesn't fit the current belief system in science things change, but they
never come to concussion that stands. So we are always in an ever changing state of
altering beliefs about what might have occurred.

No matter what there will always be checks on the validity of the next theory, there will
always be scrutiny of the next...whatever the next, next is.

We are ever learning, but never really coming to real knowledge.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I get that, but they are also debating, or proposing theories about things that supposedly
took place millions of years ago. So what are they doing, if not putting out something that
has to bend with the facts as everyone acknowledges them to be today. As we view things
differently so do the theories about what may have occurred millions of years ago. We ...[text shortened]... .whatever the next, next is.

We are ever learning, but never really coming to real knowledge.

The debate about the age of Earth starts with creationists saying its 6000 years old, totally unsubstansiated in the bible which as you know does not give an age, instead, they have to add up all the john begat billy who begat mary who begat eddie and so forth totally depending on the validity of the statements in the bible. So that does not come from a god, that comes from men.

Scientists started thinking Earth to be a few hundred thousand years old till they found reliable indicators of the passage of time and after a few decades it comes out to about 4.5 billion years old. The thing about that is the only changes now are a few million years give or take depending on the paper of the day. NOBODY says now Earth has gone from 6 thousand years to 4.5 billion and now back to 6 thousand years except creationists who have a huge agenda, a big axe to grind. They start with a preferred premise and bend and twist science to try to force people to accept a preposterous age for Earth. No matter how many holes there are in the science, when pointed out, they just get stiffer into their agenda, they are right and EVERYONE else in ALL sciences are abolutely wrong, period.

That is not science. That is politics pure and simple, pushing an agenda is politics. They want to garner enough support, damn the science, to force schools to foist creationism as if it were a science, in a science class. And you know full well that is not science, that is a political agenda in action.

Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The debate about the age of Earth starts with creationists saying its 6000 years old, totally unsubstansiated in the bible which as you know does not give an age, instead, they have to add up all the john begat billy who begat mary who begat eddie and so forth totally depending on the validity of the statements in the bible. So that does not come from a god ...[text shortened]... ou know full well that is not science, that is a political agenda in action.

Prove me wrong.

I don't preach the age of the Bible is 6000 years old, I don't know how old it is. I see no
reason to think God couldn't do it all in 6000 years, but that does not mean He did. It is
very possible it could be billions of years old for all I know. No matter how old it is it did
have to begin or start and that beginning no matter its current age was done how?

There are a lot of things in the Bible I could also point to that I have an issue with and
much of those I could lay at translations, and other factors but by in large I trust God has
watched over His Word. I do tend to stick with translations that had several different
groups involved over a single source to avoid pet beliefs being written into text, but even
then I have look at everything possible when studying scripture.

Politics is in everything where human money, power, and prestige are involved don't kid
yourself thinking science is some how pure without political agenda. If you want to debate
how people get grant money, or how research can be funded I would submit you have to
follow the money.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't preach the age of the Bible is 6000 years old, I don't know how old it is. I see no
reason to think God couldn't do it all in 6000 years, but that does not mean He did. It is
very possible it could be billions of years old for all I know. No matter how old it is it did
have to begin or start and that beginning no matter its current age was done h ...[text shortened]... ple get grant money, or how research can be funded I would submit you have to
follow the money.

Our problem here is you don't believe humans when it comes to science and I don't believe humans when it comes to religion. That seems to be the crux of our debate. There seems no way out of that dilemma.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Our problem here is you don't believe humans when it comes to science and I don't believe humans when it comes to religion. That seems to be the crux of our debate. There seems no way out of that dilemma.

Bottom line we don't believe humans. There are people in religious circles I don't believe and I am quite sure you have people within science you would have issues with as well.

So I think it's more about what we do believe not so much people.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Bottom line we don't believe humans. There are people in religious circles I don't believe and I am quite sure you have people within science you would have issues with as well.

So I think it's more about what we do believe not so much people.

Except religious people insist on calling results in science as belief. It is not belief because further evidence can change a subject 180 degrees and when the proof comes it is undeniable and a new paradyme is made. Religion has none of that, the stance was the same a thousand years ago as it will be a thousand years from now if Christianity or Islam is even around that deep in time.
In other words, science grows. Religion is stuck thousands of years in the past and can never escape that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Except religious people insist on calling results in science as belief. It is not belief because further evidence can change a subject 180 degrees and when the proof comes it is undeniable and a new paradyme is made. Religion has none of that, the stance was the same a thousand years ago as it will be a thousand years from now if Christianity or Islam is ev ...[text shortened]... ords, science grows. Religion is stuck thousands of years in the past and can never escape that.

I do not speak for all religious people but I do say if you cannot be proven wrong about
something you are buying into something and you are using belief. A mountain of
evidence only means you have a lot of reasons to accept something you can later by
proven wrong over by new evidence showing how we viewed the mountain was done in
error. Even in science, isn't supposed to be that way, you find out something new it could
change the way we view things?

If God created everything and that was how it occurred, changing the story would be
leaving the truth for something else.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not speak for all religious people but I do say if you cannot be proven wrong about
something you are buying into something and you are using belief. A mountain of
evidence only means you have a lot of reasons to accept something you can later by
proven wrong over by new evidence showing how we viewed the mountain was done in
error. Even in science ...[text shortened]... and that was how it occurred, changing the story would be
leaving the truth for something else.

That is one of the tenants of Carl Popper, who said it is not science if it cannot be falsified.
Religious dogma can NEVER be proven wrong so it is never going to be science.

The dogma will remain the same no matter what science unravels about the universe.

We say the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second and that hasn't changed at all, at least c in a vacuum, because we know the speed of light goes down in a medium like air or water or oil or silicon fiber.

That is a fact of life and does not require any belief, just do the test yourself and you will see that is true. There is no belief in the fact of the constant speed of light in a vacuum.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That is one of the tenants of Carl Popper, who said it is not science if it cannot be falsified.
Religious dogma can NEVER be proven wrong so it is never going to be science.

The dogma will remain the same no matter what science unravels about the universe.

We say the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second and that hasn't changed at all, at ...[text shortened]... ill see that is true. There is no belief in the fact of the constant speed of light in a vacuum.

I agree Religion dogma cannot be proven wrong, but if your honest neither can millions of
years old time stamps on anything. Neither can you tell me what creature lived when and
what one came from another all the way back to so called first life forms with the gaps that
everyone admits are there.

I have no issues with anything that is in the here and now we can repeated test and come
up with the same data points. Where we differ is you accept theories about things that
cannot be proven wrong, and label them as factually true or as close to it as you allow
yourself to admit to.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree Religion dogma cannot be proven wrong, but if your honest neither can millions of
years old time stamps on anything. Neither can you tell me what creature lived when and
what one came from another all the way back to so called first life forms with the gaps that
everyone admits are there.

I have no issues with anything that is in the here and ...[text shortened]... en wrong, and label them as factually true or as close to it as you allow
yourself to admit to.

What kind of theories and such are you talking about that cannot be proven wrong?

Originally posted by sonhouse
What kind of theories and such are you talking about that cannot be proven wrong?

How old is the planet, the universe? How did life begin? Things believed to have happened millions of years ago?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree Religion dogma cannot be proven wrong, but if your honest neither can millions of
years old time stamps on anything. Neither can you tell me what creature lived when and
what one came from another all the way back to so called first life forms with the gaps that
everyone admits are there.

I have no issues with anything that is in the here and ...[text shortened]... en wrong, and label them as factually true or as close to it as you allow
yourself to admit to.

In other words, it's all or nothing with you, there can never be partial truths. We date deep past several ways and they agree with each other. That is good enough for the scientists involved and it's good enough for me.

Now if we find a parakeet dated 200 million years ago, evolution is off the table but till then, everything adds up, and, being humans and science only a few hundred years old, don't complain about what we don't know and use that as proof of your biblical belief's, a few hundred more years of the same growth in science will tell our great great great great grandchildren a lot more than we know today.

Originally posted by sonhouse
In other words, it's all or nothing with you, there can never be partial truths. We date deep past several ways and they agree with each other. That is good enough for the scientists involved and it's good enough for me.

Now if we find a parakeet dated 200 million years ago, evolution is off the table but till then, everything adds up, and, being human ...[text shortened]... th in science will tell our great great great great grandchildren a lot more than we know today.

No, I just admit I don't know and when someone is telling me they do know...I question
their views of reality! I have no problem with them questioning mine since as I said, I have
a foundation that is more 'religious' in nature and cannot be disproven. Where I have an
real issue is when people whose views are also based upon a foundation that is as
unprovable as mine think they are superior nonetheless.

Scientists are people like anyone else and are prone to all of the same flaws as the next
guy, and having good processes in place doesn't mean that garbage in will not produce
garbage out. It doesn't mean that if some foundational views about rates and time could
mean if those are not what people say, than much of what is accepted as true are really
false, yet because we cannot prove that false those types of things are just accepted.

Personally I believe we will all find out in the end the truth of all of these matters.

Originally posted by sonhouse
In other words, it's all or nothing with you, there can never be partial truths. We date deep past several ways and they agree with each other. That is good enough for the scientists involved and it's good enough for me.

Now if we find a parakeet dated 200 million years ago, evolution is off the table but till then, everything adds up, and, being human ...[text shortened]... th in science will tell our great great great great grandchildren a lot more than we know today.

"In other words, it's all or nothing with you, there can never be partial truths. "

Partial truths are as dangerous or more than complete lies when attempting to discover
the reality of what we are looking at. Thinking we are right about something and having a
truth on our side only causes us to dig in.