The Intersection of Theoogy and Science

[posthuman]

the whole basis of doing science -- the idea that doing science is possible -- comes from the notion that the universe is orderly, and follows patterns and laws that are constant and verifiable. this idea is a direct result of theism; because men believed in a God of order, who created the universe, they believed the universe itself is orderly.
it is based on faith - faith that experimental results found here on earth or in the nearby solar system will have the same results wherever they are repeated: this is not a verifiable exercise, because no experiment can be repeated infinitely in infinite locations.
so the notion that science can be done is an expression of belief in a Creator who is not chaotic, and the exercise of applied science depends on faith in the uniformity of His creation.

whenever i do science as a believer, i am looking at the fingerprints of God left on His creation, and i expect those fingerprints to be consistent everywhere i look.

 

[posthuman]

I generally agree with this part. Thanks for stating it clearly. The only comment I'll make is that in scientific terms, a "theory" is presumed to be true, and used as a foundation for further study. Calling theories the same as facts tends to muddy the water a little.

i understand Kisses' use of "theory" as "fact" -- but, maybe because the mathematician in me wants to always comprehensively and rigorously define everything -- i lean towards using Dino's understanding of the word. strictly speaking, a theory is the strongest statement of belief in a principle in scientific language other than an "axiom" - which is something taken to be true without proof. a theory however can be disproved - so it's not in the strictest sense a "fact" in the way that the word "fact" is used in other contexts.

i haven't thought the distinction was worth fussing over with her, but since Dino brought it up, figured i'd take the chance to go ahead and toss in my 2 cents.


.. alright, i ante'd -- can i have my cards now?

 

[posthuman]

i understand Kisses' use of "theory" as "fact" -- but, maybe because the mathematician in me wants to always comprehensively and rigorously define everything -- i lean towards using Dino's understanding of the word. strictly speaking, a theory is the strongest statement of belief in a principle in scientific language other than an "axiom" - which is something taken to be true without proof. a theory however can be disproved - so it's not in the strictest sense a "fact" in the way that the word "fact" is used in other contexts.

here's post the mathematician stirring again:

in math, a "theorem" is fact.

it relies on axioms, which are assumed truth, and usually also on other theorems. in this context, it can literally be proven to be true, using systematic, verifiable logic. what cannot be proven, but cannot be (or has not been) disproved is called sometimes a hypothesis or more commonly a conjecture. while there are similarities in the physical sciences with this language, theories in Biology, for example, aren't proven with the same degree of rigor, and might in some circumstance be overturned. they shouldn't be viewed as having a flimsy basis however - anything a scientist calls a "theory" has been substantially justified by experimentation and testing.

faith is axiomatic, and much like math, uses systematic logic to reach conclusions about spiritual truth that could be described as theorems. i think there are a lot of correlations with the most abstract mathematics and pure philosophy & theology. if one carefully defines groups, operations and notations, think that our Faith can be described in a quasi-mathematical language. maybe one day i'll have a "proof" for free-will/predestination or the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the pope, lol.

this remains God's universe, no matter what our human logic and understanding concludes -- and as such, He remains able to completely overturn every established "truth" about the observed universe, if He is willing. the miraculous is never excluded

 

[4enlightment]

[video]https://youtu.be/NhaOCIV1RMQ[/video]


[video]https://youtu.be/PZpRP1FV0lE[/video]

 

[crossnote]

Science mainly involves observation. (eyes)
Faith mainly involves hearing. (ears)

It's a sad day when the eye and ear become separate.

 

[Depleted]

I won't comment on the cosmology, but you don't know what you're talking about regarding biology. A missing chromosome has NOTHING to do with a missing rib. That story of the female gender coming from a rib of a guy is totally metaphor. 100% wrong if you take it literally. Females were actually around longer than males. Also, I think you're probably referring to Chromosome 2 which underwent fusion. All other great apes have 48 chromosomes. We have 46. You kind find precisely where this fusion happened in chromosome 2. Check out Ken Miller, a christian biologist, on this topic on youtube.



Just want to say once again that "theory" in science IS "fact". It doesn't make any sense to suggest something is "ONLY a theory". Is the theory of gravity "only a theory"? Or the germ theory of disease? Or that the earth revolves around the sun? These are all scientific theories. "Theories" in science are not random speculations. It's the highest degree of fact in scientific terms. People still can't understand the difference between the words of laypeople and the terms of professional scientists. Let me try one example because I've tried to explain it before with no luck. Take the word "gay". For years, the word had a meaning of "happy". Now, it implies one is a homosexual. Culture and time has changed the meaning of the word, but now take science. These two versions of the word "theory" co-exist right now. Unlike gay and gay, these two "theories" are used all the time. Again, when lay people use "theory" it's something TOTALLY different. I hope this example made sense.

-- The "theory" of the Neanderthals were they were a different species that died out. Different species can't mate and bare children, and yet everyone has 2-4% of Neanderthal genes in them.

-- The "theory" of dinos was they evolved into birds, until 20 years ago when they found dinobird. And they found dinos that weren't birds but had feathers. Now the new "theory" is some evolved into birds, some birds evolved into dinos and some dinos had feathers.

-- The theory of the different species of humans was the last humans besides homo sapiens to walk the planet were gone 25,000-50,000 years ago. Whoopsie! They found another species of humans that didn't die out until 3000 years ago.

-- The theory of the brontosaurus was... well, ends up the "facts" were saying two species of dinos, when all along it was one. Just that one of the "species" was still a juvenile.

Don't drink the Kool Aid. The scientists are the ones who keep changing the "facts."

 

[Kisses1990]

i understand Kisses' use of "theory" as "fact" -- but, maybe because the mathematician in me wants to always comprehensively and rigorously define everything -- i lean towards using Dino's understanding of the word. strictly speaking, a theory is the strongest statement of belief in a principle in scientific language other than an "axiom" - which is something taken to be true without proof. a theory however can be disproved - so it's not in the strictest sense a "fact" in the way that the word "fact" is used in other contexts.

i haven't thought the distinction was worth fussing over with her, but since Dino brought it up, figured i'd take the chance to go ahead and toss in my 2 cents.


.. alright, i ante'd -- can i have my cards now?

Totally agree with this! Thanks for clarifying even further. I'd like to add, however, that yes theories can be disproved, but it's still the closest thing we have to "fact". I can say with a 99.99999% degree of confidence that the germ theory of disease will never be overturned or that the theory of evolution will never be overturned. People may fuss over the minute details of how evolution happened like in the quote just below this, but most definitely not that evolution happened in general. Science isn't in the "absolute fact" business. In fact, science can't really "prove" anything, it can only disprove things. The absolute best deduction of all the evidence obtained over the last 150+ years was that Darwin was right...at least right about the things that people want to talk about. He was wrong about some things too. No scientist is infallible.

-- The "theory" of the Neanderthals were they were a different species that died out. Different species can't mate and bare children, and yet everyone has 2-4% of Neanderthal genes in them.

-- The "theory" of dinos was they evolved into birds, until 20 years ago when they found dinobird. And they found dinos that weren't birds but had feathers. Now the new "theory" is some evolved into birds, some birds evolved into dinos and some dinos had feathers.

-- The theory of the different species of humans was the last humans besides homo sapiens to walk the planet were gone 25,000-50,000 years ago. Whoopsie! They found another species of humans that didn't die out until 3000 years ago.

-- The theory of the brontosaurus was... well, ends up the "facts" were saying two species of dinos, when all along it was one. Just that one of the "species" was still a juvenile.

Don't drink the Kool Aid. The scientists are the ones who keep changing the "facts."

Might I suggest that you should not "drink the Kool Aid". Scientists argue over many details. In fact, since we don't have a perfect fossil record of every species that ever existed, taxonomy is possible. If we had a perfect and detailed analysis of ever animal that ever walked earth, taxonomy would be a nightmare. It would be virtually impossible since all animals give birth to other animals in the same species. So, we are the same species as our parents and our children, yet minute changes over many many generations makes large differences, and that is why we have common ancestors with cockroaches and our X great grandparent was a fish. Now, to talk about the reverse of what I said, we actually have a VERY good fossil record and it keeps getting better and more expansive each day. You mentioned that we have "dinobirds". This is true. We also have "reptile-mammals" and "fish-amphibians". In fact, some animals are SUCH a perfect example of an "intermediate" that we wouldn't know to call them reptile-like-mammals or mammal-like-reptiles. It makes it very difficult to classify anything when we start getting an abundance of these creatures with the right features. That should be no surprise though. It's exactly what you'd expect if Darwin was right.

Nothing that you brought up challenges evolution, I hope you know. All it does is show that scientists make mistakes that eventually get worked out and fixed and improved upon. It's not a bad that they "keep changing the facts". Do you feel that this makes science untrustworthy? On the contrary, it's a GOOD thing to be willing to change your mind, and no belief in science should be held so deeply that it's at a level of an incontrovertible fact. No student should feel that they cannot challenge their teacher. As it happens, these "theories" really are the best possible conclusions that the very best minds can come up with and that is one reason that I find it so bizarre to see laypeople challenge scientific theories as if they have any training in the subject at all. Where did they get their PHD from? There is a reason scientists think what they think about reality. Birds did come from dinosaurs, by the time. And sometimes the word "species" can be a little confusing or muddled. Most of the time it means animals that cannot reproduce or reproduce fertile offspring. Neanderthals still very likely fit this description. Or if they don't, perhaps "subspecies" would be a more appropriate taxonomic rank? They were different than us but also very similar.

P.S.

Dino, I'm not ignoring your question on page 1 about gender, I just didn't have the time to go into as much detail as I wanted to. Hopefully I can respond to you tomorrow night. It's been a hectic few days, not much internet time. Take care everyone

 

[Depleted]

Totally agree with this! Thanks for clarifying even further. I'd like to add, however, that yes theories can be disproved, but it's still the closest thing we have to "fact". I can say with a 99.99999% degree of confidence that the germ theory of disease will never be overturned or that the theory of evolution will never be overturned. People may fuss over the minute details of how evolution happened like in the quote just below this, but most definitely not that evolution happened in general. Science isn't in the "absolute fact" business. In fact, science can't really "prove" anything, it can only disprove things. The absolute best deduction of all the evidence obtained over the last 150+ years was that Darwin was right...at least right about the things that people want to talk about. He was wrong about some things too. No scientist is infallible.




Might I suggest that you should not "drink the Kool Aid". Scientists argue over many details. In fact, since we don't have a perfect fossil record of every species that ever existed, taxonomy is possible. If we had a perfect and detailed analysis of ever animal that ever walked earth, taxonomy would be a nightmare. It would be virtually impossible since all animals give birth to other animals in the same species. So, we are the same species as our parents and our children, yet minute changes over many many generations makes large differences, and that is why we have common ancestors with cockroaches and our X great grandparent was a fish. Now, to talk about the reverse of what I said, we actually have a VERY good fossil record and it keeps getting better and more expansive each day. You mentioned that we have "dinobirds". This is true. We also have "reptile-mammals" and "fish-amphibians". In fact, some animals are SUCH a perfect example of an "intermediate" that we wouldn't know to call them reptile-like-mammals or mammal-like-reptiles. It makes it very difficult to classify anything when we start getting an abundance of these creatures with the right features. That should be no surprise though. It's exactly what you'd expect if Darwin was right.

Nothing that you brought up challenges evolution, I hope you know. All it does is show that scientists make mistakes that eventually get worked out and fixed and improved upon. It's not a bad that they "keep changing the facts". Do you feel that this makes science untrustworthy? On the contrary, it's a GOOD thing to be willing to change your mind, and no belief in science should be held so deeply that it's at a level of an incontrovertible fact. No student should feel that they cannot challenge their teacher. As it happens, these "theories" really are the best possible conclusions that the very best minds can come up with and that is one reason that I find it so bizarre to see laypeople challenge scientific theories as if they have any training in the subject at all. Where did they get their PHD from? There is a reason scientists think what they think about reality. Birds did come from dinosaurs, by the time. And sometimes the word "species" can be a little confusing or muddled. Most of the time it means animals that cannot reproduce or reproduce fertile offspring. Neanderthals still very likely fit this description. Or if they don't, perhaps "subspecies" would be a more appropriate taxonomic rank? They were different than us but also very similar.

P.S.

Dino, I'm not ignoring your question on page 1 about gender, I just didn't have the time to go into as much detail as I wanted to. Hopefully I can respond to you tomorrow night. It's been a hectic few days, not much internet time. Take care everyone

I'm not the one drinking the Kool Aid. After all, I'm not the one agreeing facts change. Most people understand the definition of the word.

And yes, actually evolution is disputable. The original theory was replaced somewhere in my lifetime. To call evolution "evolution" still is like saying a violet is a violet while all the time discussing a large flower with pink petals on a thorny bush. Anyone paying attention to the discussion catches on eventually that you can't hit that moving target except the ones too busy drinking the Kool Aid.

I'm not getting my ever "evolving facts" from some Christian site. I'n getting it by reading The Smithsonian. And because of that, I can even tell you you aren't even preaching evolution. You have your own personal set of "facts" equal to the heart of an evolutionist, which tends to say, "When facts don't support it, hope no one notices the facts change, and then make up your own facts."

A full record you say? Even evolutionists, (the real ones, the scientists in the field), tend to understand that's science fiction. There's reason that one doesn't fly either for evolutionists nor creationists. We understand what's happened to the earth in the last few thousand years -- why there can never be a full record of extinct species. (The same reason they will never find fossils or bones from all the animals killed in the Mt. St. Helens eruption.)

If you're going to preach a message, at least learn the message first. That you're still preaching the child's version tells me you were spoonfed the baby food, and never learned the grown up food. i.e. You drank the Kool Aid.

I love debating evolutionists -- real ones. The ones that understand what's happen and are still willing to buy the theory. (This time the real definition of theory too.) At least the understand the subject matter. You're not that either.

Blind allegiance isn't really allegiance. It's just not knowing any better but going along nonetheless.

 

[Kisses1990]

I'm not the one drinking the Kool Aid. After all, I'm not the one agreeing facts change. Most people understand the definition of the word.

And yes, actually evolution is disputable. The original theory was replaced somewhere in my lifetime. To call evolution "evolution" still is like saying a violet is a violet while all the time discussing a large flower with pink petals on a thorny bush. Anyone paying attention to the discussion catches on eventually that you can't hit that moving target except the ones too busy drinking the Kool Aid.

I'm not getting my ever "evolving facts" from some Christian site. I'n getting it by reading The Smithsonian. And because of that, I can even tell you you aren't even preaching evolution. You have your own personal set of "facts" equal to the heart of an evolutionist, which tends to say, "When facts don't support it, hope no one notices the facts change, and then make up your own facts."

A full record you say? Even evolutionists, (the real ones, the scientists in the field), tend to understand that's science fiction. There's reason that one doesn't fly either for evolutionists nor creationists. We understand what's happened to the earth in the last few thousand years -- why there can never be a full record of extinct species. (The same reason they will never find fossils or bones from all the animals killed in the Mt. St. Helens eruption.)

If you're going to preach a message, at least learn the message first. That you're still preaching the child's version tells me you were spoonfed the baby food, and never learned the grown up food. i.e. You drank the Kool Aid.

I love debating evolutionists -- real ones. The ones that understand what's happen and are still willing to buy the theory. (This time the real definition of theory too.) At least the understand the subject matter. You're not that either.

Blind allegiance isn't really allegiance. It's just not knowing any better but going along nonetheless.

Hmm Not sure what you're talking about. I'm currently studying it at university and it has been a big part of my life the last few years. I've read much of the popular works as well as had some really great teachers.. I think I'm pretty up to date... I think you might be confused. There is no "blind allegiance" to anything. And did you not read what I wrote previously? Because you seemed to have misquoted me about a "perfect fossil record". I never said that we had one or that we ever will have one. I was speaking hypothetically that if we DID have one, or rather, if every species that ever lived were still alive today, which is what I should have said, we would not be able to realize separate species at all.

 

[Depleted]

Hmm Not sure what you're talking about. I'm currently studying it at university and it has been a big part of my life the last few years. I've read much of the popular works as well as had some really great teachers.. I think I'm pretty up to date... I think you might be confused. There is no "blind allegiance" to anything. And did you not read what I wrote previously? Because you seemed to have misquoted me about a "perfect fossil record". I never said that we had one or that we ever will have one. I was speaking hypothetically that if we DID have one, or rather, if every species that ever lived were still alive today, which is what I should have said, we would not be able to realize separate species at all.

Your studying it at uni. So, unless you agree with what is preached, you fail. Yup, that rather sorts your allegiance right there.

 

[Kisses1990]

Your studying it at uni. So, unless you agree with what is preached, you fail. Yup, that rather sorts your allegiance right there.

No "belief" is preached without an abundance of demonstrably sound evidence. This isn't blind faith in evolution...

 

[Dino246]

... I can say with a 99.99999% degree of confidence that the germ theory of disease will never be overturned or that the theory of evolution will never be overturned...

P.S.
Dino, I'm not ignoring your question on page 1 about gender, I just didn't have the time to go into as much detail as I wanted to. Hopefully I can respond to you tomorrow night. It's been a hectic few days, not much internet time. Take care everyone

Hi, thanks for the acknowledgement. No worries, whenever you have time; no rush.

Regarding evolution, perhaps a little clarification is in order. Many people who believe in creation accept the idea of micro-evolution; small-beaked finches to large-beaked finches, for example. What we don't accept is the idea of macro-evolution: inanimate chemical soup to humans, trees, sea sponges, etc. It really helps to keep these two ideas distinct, lest we be talking at cross purposes. Perhaps you don't see a distinction; that's fine. Most of the people on this board see a very clear distinction, so it will help the discussion along by using one of these terms instead of the catch-all 'evolution' which has so many meanings.

There is a great deal of non-science which is tied up within the theory of (macro) evolution. Much of this is not discussed even at a university level; it is merely overlooked or accepted without investigation. Challenges to the foundations of evolution are passed off as 'creationist nonsense' and 'debunked' instead of being investigated dispassionately. There is a significant amount of bias in the academic world. For a primer, I would suggest you watch the YouTube movie, "Expelled" with Ben Stein.

 

[Bowman]

This is more a Theology/Science topic, but I suppose could be under "Bible Discussion." I just am curious on people's different view of where and how Theology and Science intersect. Any thoughts would be a joy to read

God's General Revelation (Nature) and God's Special Revelation (Scripture) must agree.

Any difference between the two is due to mis-interpretation of one, or both, Revelation.

To that end, the only plausible explanation is that we live on a Billions of years old Earth, and in an even older Universe.

The OEC worldview is the only stance that does not have to attack either science, or scripture, in order to harmonize the two...

 

[Dino246]

To that end, the only plausible explanation is that we live on a Billions of years old Earth, and in an even older Universe. The OEC worldview is the only stance that does not have to attack either science, or scripture, in order to harmonize the two...

Unfortunately, the only thing dogmatism does is discourage honest discussion.

 

[Bowman]

Unfortunately, the only thing dogmatism does is discourage honest discussion.

What you claim to be dogmatism, is, in fact, supreme confidence in my OEC position.

I also am proudly dogmatic in taking Jesus Christ as my God and Savior as the ONLY way towards Salvation.

Put that in your pipe...

 

[B1Davanda]

What you claim to be dogmatism, is, in fact, supreme confidence in my OEC position.

I also am proudly dogmatic in taking Jesus Christ as my God and Savior as the ONLY way towards Salvation.

Put that in your pipe...

What do you mean, 'towards' salvation?

 

[Magenta]

What do you mean, 'towards' salvation?

BM believes Mohammed was really Jesus Christ... so it could mean anything.

 

[Zmouth]

That story of the female gender coming from a rib of a guy is totally metaphor. 100% wrong if you take it literally.

LOL, you are joking right? So the female chromosome being (X)(X) produced the male chromosome (X)(Y)? And the explanation is?, or should I just insert "automagically by the random axiom"?

Of course in the scripture of Genesis 2:21, this verse regarding the procreation of "Woman" which states:

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept ; the donor was anesthetized

and he took one of his ribs, ; once anesthetized a surgical incision was made in the flesh of the Man whereby accessing to genetic material necessary to form the dna of the "Woman" was obtained.

Who would have thunk that the bone marrow inside the rib bone could be used for such genetic purposes.

Thus in Genesis 2:22; the passage continues with the following:

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Taking the (X)(Y) chromosome of the male and cloning it, thus producing two sets of (X)(Y) & (X)(Y) chromosomes .

Then removing the gene from the one (x)chromosome and replacing it with the (x) gene from the other (X)(Y) cloned chromosome you would then have produced the female (X)(X) chromosome.

 

[4enlightment]

Originally Posted by Kisses1990
That story of the female gender coming from a rib of a guy is totally metaphor. 100% wrong if you take it literally.




Well the only reason why God has made Eve from an rib, it is because you can take a part of a rib and the rib can restore itself back into a full rib. I doesn't know if the buttocks has regenerating qualities. But we know that we can produce life from any part of the body by abstracting some DNA from it. And so God had used the rib to let people know that He is an all knowing God, that the words that He speaks is the truth.





[h=2]Regenerating Ribs[/h]Although all bones can repair themselves, ribs can regenerate themselves.2 Ribs are commonly removed during surgeries that require bone grafts in other parts of the body. The rib is removed from the periosteum (a tissue surrounding the bone) much like a banana would be removed from its peel while keeping most of the peel intact. The periosteum must remain, as it contains osteoblasts which build the new rib bone. https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/the-amazing-regenerating-rib/

 

[Bowman]

What do you mean, 'towards' salvation?

Meaning that The Triune God is the only means of Salvation, possible. Period.

To people like Dino, I am a narrow minded bigot for thinking so...because I likewise carry the same attitude towards OEC...