Religon Vs. Science

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M

mikeuk

Guest
#21
#21
Sorry I missed this..You take definition
Human said:
'the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world
Click to expand...
And then say
Human said:
It can be fundamental in regards to what we can OBSERVE, which is, of course, part of the definition of science.
Click to expand...
Here we agree, but in doing so we disagree profoundly.

Observation space, and reality space are completely different things.

Because in practice we can only study and model the behaviour of observations.
All our models inevitably are in observations space of limited senses, and just a projection of what ever exists in the higher dimension reality. The 2D to 3D analogy I gave.

We are not modelling what is , just what we can observe of what is, and only then if it repeats.

You disagree with my definition of science. I point out the reality of actual science. It reduce to two processes, first patterns in observations of repeating things, then either fitting them in to the existing physical model, or adapting it to allow.
And that is the point. What is billed as study of the structure of the natural world , is in reality study of the structure of observations of it. If we were bats, our universe would stop at the end of the atmosphere. Because that is the limit of observations made in sound, not the limit of physical world, just our perception of it.

.
 
H

Human

Banned
#22
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
#22
mikeuk said:
Sorry I missed this..You take definition


And then say


Here we agree, but in doing so we disagree profoundly.

Observation space, and reality space are completely different things.

Because in practice we can only study and model the behaviour of observations.
All our models inevitably are in observations space of limited senses, and just a projection of what ever exists in the higher dimension reality. The 2D to 3D analogy I gave.

We are not modelling what is , just what we can observe of what is, and only then if it repeats.

You disagree with my definition of science. I point out the reality of actual science. It reduce to two processes, first patterns in observations of repeating things, then either fitting them in to the existing physical model, or adapting it to allow.
And that is the point. What is billed as study of the structure of the natural world , is in reality study of the structure of observations of it. If we were bats, our universe would stop at the end of the atmosphere. Because that is the limit of observations made in sound, not the limit of physical world, just our perception of it.

.
Click to expand...
Right, but that's kind of obvious. In less words -- we can only study what we have the ability to study, and if the senses, mental capacity and scope of our reasoning wasn't what it is, it'd be something else.

It doesn't stop us from being able to say with confidence ''anthropogenic climate change is a reality'' or ''homo-sapiens evolved from earlier hominids''.
 
M

mikeuk

Guest
#23
#23
Human said:
Right, but that's kind of obvious. In less words -- we can only study what we have the ability to study, and if the senses, mental capacity and scope of our reasoning wasn't what it is, it'd be something else.
Click to expand...
Which is true, but hits at the very heart of what it is we are studying. It is no longer the structure of the natural world, but our perception of it. Science is incapable of defining what it "is", but gets on well on what it "does".
.
 
H

Human

Banned
#24
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
#24
mikeuk said:
Which is true, but hits at the very heart of what it is we are studying. It is no longer the structure of the natural world, but our perception of it. Science is incapable of defining what it "is", but gets on well on what it "does".
.
Click to expand...
If we want to get technical, it's always been ''our perception of it''. I don't believe that anything humans do can be objective, not entirely. The colour of perception colours everything. What you're making is a point already established long before you and I ever came here to this forum, though, and it still does not change what we can and do observe -- all that evidence for evolution.
 
H

Human

Banned
#26
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
#26
Dan_473 said:
Hi Human, what's your source for this?
Click to expand...
Do you think it's meant to be an impersonal religious belief? Or an oppressive belief you force on others? If it is not supposed to be a personal religious belief, then what kind of belief is it supposed to be?
 
4enlightment

4enlightment

Banned
#27
May 15, 2013
4,307
27
0
#27
Nicole_ said:
Brought up in a household with no encouragement to find my faith, I was left to find God on my own. Through the years I've struggled trying to understand how science and the bible tell the same past. My heart tells me God is there but science is factual.

According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science tells us the world is actually 4.54 BILLION years old. Evidence of this comes from fossils and artifacts. A big confusion to me is the era of dinosaurs and why they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible. In addition, there are many fossils that date back to millions of years ago.

I've never believed in evolution but recently evidence has shown that all dogs descend from wolfs. If this is true, this transition would've taken thousands and thousands of years. Much longer than 6,000 short years. And of course this raises the question of evolution. Still, I have a hard time believing we come from monkeys. (Again I do not believe in evolution- my example is in reference to the timeline of creation.)

The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help
Click to expand...
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[SUP][1][/SUP]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions aboutnature and the universe. This knowledge is determined through the scientific method by experiments and observations, and may take the form of scientific facts, scientific models, or scientific theories.[SUP][nb 1][/SUP] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. Ever since classical antiquity, science as a type of knowledge has been closely linked to philosophy. In the West during the early modern period the words "science" and "philosophy of nature" were sometimes used interchangeably,[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP]:p.3[/SUP] and until the 19th century natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy.[SUP][3] [/SUP]Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Timothy 6:20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge (scientia),


 
Utah

Utah

Banned
#28
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
#28
Human said:
Do you think it's meant to be an impersonal religious belief? Or an oppressive belief you force on others? If it is not supposed to be a personal religious belief, then what kind of belief is it supposed to be?
Click to expand...
Way to dodge a question with three questions of your own. Bravo!
 
M

mikeuk

Guest
#29
#29
Human said:
If we want to get technical, it's always been ''our perception of it''. I don't believe that anything humans do can be objective, not entirely. The colour of perception colours everything. .
Click to expand...
Then like it or not you have already contested your definition of science as fundamental not empirical.
 
H

Human

Banned
#30
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
#30
mikeuk said:
Then like it or not you have already contested your definition of science as fundamental not empirical.
Click to expand...
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

That was the definition I gave. That definition doesn't include the word ''fundamental''. But whatever. Evolution is true.
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#31
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#31
Human said:
Do you think it's meant to be an impersonal religious belief? Or an oppressive belief you force on others? If it is not supposed to be a personal religious belief, then what kind of belief is it supposed to be?
Click to expand...
yes, I think it's meant to be an impersonal religious belief... meaning that it doesn't arise from, nor is it supposed to stay within, inside of a person...
 
posthuman

posthuman

Senior Member
#32
Jul 31, 2013
36,661
13,127
113
#32
Human said:
This is false. Making calculations on the probability of life arising is meaningless.
Click to expand...
good point.

so tell me again why there "must" be life on other planets .. ?

:rolleyes:
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#33
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#33
Human said:
Evolution is true.
Click to expand...
I think Evolution is the best current theory to explain the changes in species over time... I'm not sure if it's good at explaining life arising from chemicals... I do see some real advantages in Creationism.
 
H

Human

Banned
#34
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
#34
posthuman said:
good point.

so tell me again why there "must" be life on other planets .. ?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sorry, what I should have said was making restrictive calculations on the improbability of life is meaningless because there are SO MANY variable ways that molecules can interact in infinite universal spacetime. However, the chance of life arising on Earth is 100%. It has arisen.

If we take the probabilistic viewpoint that there are infinite number of stars and planets in our universe, thus infinite possibilities for life to arise, then the chances of life arising on other stars are infinite. Can you reduce infinity into restrictive probability calculations? No. Calculations that conclude ''there is only X chance of life arising on Y planet given the complexity of Z molecule'' are inherently meaningless in that regard.

As far as Earth is concerned, calculations that state ''there is only X chance of life arising on Earth given the complexity of interaction of Y molecule'' are also false and meangingless, as there are innumerable ways in which molecules can interact, form complexity and further interact. These calculations are also calculated with a view to intelligent design, yet we have no evidence of a designer. They're not only based off an unrealistically restricted viewpoint of the conditions available in which life might arise, but off a base notion that such a calculation proves the impossibility of life arising by natural means, when we have absolutely no evidence of ANYTHING that's ''un-natural'' in the most fundamental sense, that being ''consisting or composed of energetic transfers of various kinds''.
 
H

Human

Banned
#35
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
#35
Dan_473 said:
I think Evolution is the best current theory to explain the changes in species over time... I'm not sure if it's good at explaining life arising from chemicals... I do see some real advantages in Creationism.
Click to expand...
Evolution isn't supposed to explain origins of life, only the diversification/speciation of life, or ''origins of species''.
 
C

Calminian

Guest
#36
#36
Nicole_ said:
...According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old....
Click to expand...
I agree and I think this sums it up. Do you trust the Bible or do you trust man's ever-changing theories about our past?

I think you'll find there are times when you can reconcile the Bible with man's theories, but when you can't, you must conclude that man is wrong. For as you say, the Bible doesn't described the earth and man being made at the beginning, and there is not good reason not to believe this.
 
E

Elijah19

Guest
#37
#37
Well, I know you said you don't believe in evolution and stuff, but here's for faith nonetheless...

There are actually TWO classifications of the scientific term Evolution: one of them means the changes a species undergoes within it's own genetic limitations (this is referred to as Micro-Evolution), the other of them means massive jumps from one kind of creature to another (i.e. ape to man). Wolf to dog evolution is an example of Micro-Evolution and does not need to be false for the Bible to be true. You can technically believe one (Micro-Evolution) without believing the other (Macro-Evolution). Micro-Evolution would explain the diversification of the various species without the need for them to have billions of years of progress. In fact, another name for Micro-Evolution might be generational-change, although I've never heard that term used. It is in fact quite possible for an organism to change without becoming another kind of creature within just a short, few-generations span.
 
C

Calminian

Guest
#38
#38
Human said:
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.....
Click to expand...
The thing is, though, not everything in Genesis is described as a natural occurrence, in fact, the entire creation narrative is said to be brought about supernaturally. How can current observations of processes today enlighten us about a non-natural process in the past?
 
C

Calminian

Guest
#39
#39
Deluge said:
...The Bible does not say anything about the age of the Earth anywhere.....
Click to expand...
But we do find chronological genealogies (Gen. 5 and 11) which count the years from Adam who was created at the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6) to Terah the father of Abraham. And we have other dating means after Abraham. These won't be perfectly exact since we don't know the year fractions at the time of each birth, but they get us real close, to the nearest century at least.

I think it's a least true that God felt the need to pass down this chronology to us.
 
C

Calminian

Guest
#40
#40
Nicole_ said:
Brought up in a household with no encouragement to find my faith, I was left to find God on my own. Through the years I've struggled trying to understand how science and the bible tell the same past. My heart tells me God is there but science is factual.

According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science tells us the world is actually 4.54 BILLION years old. Evidence of this comes from fossils and artifacts. A big confusion to me is the era of dinosaurs and why they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible. In addition, there are many fossils that date back to millions of years ago.

I've never believed in evolution but recently evidence has shown that all dogs descend from wolfs. If this is true, this transition would've taken thousands and thousands of years. Much longer than 6,000 short years. And of course this raises the question of evolution. Still, I have a hard time believing we come from monkeys. (Again I do not believe in evolution- my example is in reference to the timeline of creation.)

The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help
Click to expand...
Here are a list of resource websites where you can look up practically any subject on origins, age of the earth or creation vs. evolution.

Answer in Genesis
Creation Ministries International
Institution for Creation Research
Apologetics Press

I think you'll find you're on solid intellectual ground if you just affirm the plain reading of the text.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.