Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] How do you see it?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
The following are not MY WORDS but a summation of perspectives on science that greatly influenced the way I see science and scientists. Is it incorrect for you? If so where and why? If not where and why?

Science is tentative and thus subject to change while SOME scientists are very resistant to change and sometimes interpret data in light of what they accept as theoretically true. This happens because empiricism is based largely on observation but often SOME scientists imaginatively infer possible conclusions based on popular paradigms in their time. Though new evidence and alternate inferences should always be objectively considered, often the accepted paradigm takes on the illusion of accepted or established truth despite history which shows that in some cases the paradigm changes and that science can indicate useful applicable information which later is considered obsolete.

Science isn’t simply the accumulation of observable evidence and the orderly gathering of knowledge. All observations require interpretation and inference by scientists. To do this, scientists require imagination and creativity to make inferential statements about what they see. In fact, imagination and creativity are needed in every aspect of a scientist’s work – making sense of observations, making the creative leap from data to possible explanation, coming up with new ideas, designing investigations and looking at old data in a new light, and then of course there is what Mayr calls the historical narrative attached which often takes on the tone of fact.

Creativity in research design (by the scientist, an outside intelligent force) can be seen in many research stories. These stories CAN and sometimes do challenge “the myth” that there is one universal way to do science, commonly referred to as ‘the scientific method’. The history of science shows that no single method can be used. Rather, there are often many ways to investigate the same problems in science and sometimes alternative explanations of what is meant by what is found

Scientists do strive to be objective, but it is just not possible to make truly objective observations and interpretations without any bias. A scientist’s mind is not a blank slate. Individual scientists have their prior knowledge, theoretical beliefs, experiences, cultural background, training, expectations and biases, each of which will affect their observations and conclusions. All observation is preceded by theory and conceptual knowledge. Science tries to overcome this lack of pure objectivity through the scientific community, which scrutinizes scientific work and helps balance individual scientists’ leanings.

All scientific knowledge is produced within a larger society and culture. This means that the social and cultural elements such as politics, economics, power structures, religion and philosophy will affect the science knowledge produced and how it is accepted. This also means that the direction and the products of science will be greatly influenced by the society and the culture in which the science is conducted. As societies change, so do scientific priorities.
 
The following are not MY WORDS but a summation of perspectives on science that greatly influenced the way I see science and scientists. Is it incorrect for you? If so where and why? If not where and why?

Science is tentative and thus subject to change while SOME scientists are very resistant to change and sometimes interpret data in light of what they accept as theoretically true. This happens because empiricism is based largely on observation but often SOME scientists imaginatively infer possible conclusions based on popular paradigms in their time. Though new evidence and alternate inferences should always be objectively considered, often the accepted paradigm takes on the illusion of accepted or established truth despite history which shows that in some cases the paradigm changes and that science can indicate useful applicable information which later is considered obsolete.

Science isn’t simply the accumulation of observable evidence and the orderly gathering of knowledge. All observations require interpretation and inference by scientists. To do this, scientists require imagination and creativity to make inferential statements about what they see. In fact, imagination and creativity are needed in every aspect of a scientist’s work – making sense of observations, making the creative leap from data to possible explanation, coming up with new ideas, designing investigations and looking at old data in a new light, and then of course there is what Mayr calls the historical narrative attached which often takes on the tone of fact.

Creativity in research design (by the scientist, an outside intelligent force) can be seen in many research stories. These stories CAN and sometimes do challenge “the myth” that there is one universal way to do science, commonly referred to as ‘the scientific method’. The history of science shows that no single method can be used. Rather, there are often many ways to investigate the same problems in science and sometimes alternative explanations of what is meant by what is found

Scientists do strive to be objective, but it is just not possible to make truly objective observations and interpretations without any bias. A scientist’s mind is not a blank slate. Individual scientists have their prior knowledge, theoretical beliefs, experiences, cultural background, training, expectations and biases, each of which will affect their observations and conclusions. All observation is preceded by theory and conceptual knowledge. Science tries to overcome this lack of pure objectivity through the scientific community, which scrutinizes scientific work and helps balance individual scientists’ leanings.

All scientific knowledge is produced within a larger society and culture. This means that the social and cultural elements such as politics, economics, power structures, religion and philosophy will affect the science knowledge produced and how it is accepted. This also means that the direction and the products of science will be greatly influenced by the society and the culture in which the science is conducted. As societies change, so do scientific priorities.
Yeah. Great.

"Creation science" still isn't science. It's an attempt to come up with plausible explanations that appear to be "scientific" in order to "prove" matters of faith such as; God created the universe and there was a worldwide flood.

"Creation scientists" and proponents of "intelligent design" (like me) cannot demonstrate their conclusion by any accepted scientific methodology.

Nice try.

iakov the fool
 
I wasn't speaking of "Creation Scientists" and even just intelligence cannot be proven by the scientific method unless intelligent men design approaches to demonstrate it.
 
neither creationism nor the the naturalistic origin theories are scientific. it doesn't mean both parts of these are always wrong. both have some truth. we cant prove how God made the universe.

oh and I am an youth earth creationist. I have a few videos about the early man in my county to post
 
Is not anyone able to discuss topics like the OP without dredging it into a debate over this same old Creationist vs non-Creationist argument? I was speaking of science no matter who does it. Neither creationists or non-creationists can prove their view of origins nor disprove the opposite camp's position so let it go...
 
The following are not MY WORDS but a summation of perspectives on science that greatly influenced the way I see science and scientists. Is it incorrect for you? If so where and why? If not where and why?

Science is tentative and thus subject to change while SOME scientists are very resistant to change and sometimes interpret data in light of what they accept as theoretically true. This happens because empiricism is based largely on observation but often SOME scientists imaginatively infer possible conclusions based on popular paradigms in their time. Though new evidence and alternate inferences should always be objectively considered, often the accepted paradigm takes on the illusion of accepted or established truth despite history which shows that in some cases the paradigm changes and that science can indicate useful applicable information which later is considered obsolete.

Science isn’t simply the accumulation of observable evidence and the orderly gathering of knowledge. All observations require interpretation and inference by scientists. To do this, scientists require imagination and creativity to make inferential statements about what they see. In fact, imagination and creativity are needed in every aspect of a scientist’s work – making sense of observations, making the creative leap from data to possible explanation, coming up with new ideas, designing investigations and looking at old data in a new light, and then of course there is what Mayr calls the historical narrative attached which often takes on the tone of fact.

Creativity in research design (by the scientist, an outside intelligent force) can be seen in many research stories. These stories CAN and sometimes do challenge “the myth” that there is one universal way to do science, commonly referred to as ‘the scientific method’. The history of science shows that no single method can be used. Rather, there are often many ways to investigate the same problems in science and sometimes alternative explanations of what is meant by what is found

Scientists do strive to be objective, but it is just not possible to make truly objective observations and interpretations without any bias. A scientist’s mind is not a blank slate. Individual scientists have their prior knowledge, theoretical beliefs, experiences, cultural background, training, expectations and biases, each of which will affect their observations and conclusions. All observation is preceded by theory and conceptual knowledge. Science tries to overcome this lack of pure objectivity through the scientific community, which scrutinizes scientific work and helps balance individual scientists’ leanings.

All scientific knowledge is produced within a larger society and culture. This means that the social and cultural elements such as politics, economics, power structures, religion and philosophy will affect the science knowledge produced and how it is accepted. This also means that the direction and the products of science will be greatly influenced by the society and the culture in which the science is conducted. As societies change, so do scientific priorities.

hello brother Paul, dirtfarmer here

If we base science on "empiricism", where do we find empirical evidence of where or how of the universe? Was it here, with no beginning or starting point. Was it by the "big bang" theory, or could it have come by way of "plasma filament" theory? Since no one alive today was there, humans have to accept some theory by faith.

The bible in Genesis 1 states that God said," Let there be light", we know this could not have been the light from the sun. It, the sun, was created on the 4th day. In recent years the study of "biophotons" has had an impact on science.
 
Thanks dirtfarmer and welcome...so in this summation about how doing science works the OP says "because empiricism is based largely on observation...SOME scientists imaginatively infer possible conclusions based on popular paradigms in their time" and that "All observations (referring to scientific ones obviously) require interpretation and inference by scientists."

What are your thoughts on this?
 
Biophotons are also interesting phenomena. They were not always thought of as something which can be seen or as visible to the normal human but now are known via instrumentation. In the 1960s when studies were early they were defined as cold electron emission (later called EFE or just FE) but they appear to be a subtle luminosity that is emitted by any form's electrostatic field. Bio fields register characteristics unique in that the radiance is similar to what we see when we turn a gas jet on our stove suddenly, form off to high, and depending on internal and external conditions of the bio system display a range in color.

Interestingly, SOME mystics have long claimed to have observed these "halos" though they do not fall into the "normal" visible range for most humans. Being of course a scientifically denied reality for over a century, this new research is telling us they are indeed there. Then something else, previously always denied, is the universal inference of an apparent afterglow at 3 degrees Kelvin, visible everywhere our instruments look. This afterglow preceded the light of the stars.
 
Thanks dirtfarmer and welcome...so in this summation about how doing science works the OP says "because empiricism is based largely on observation...SOME scientists imaginatively infer possible conclusions based on popular paradigms in their time" and that "All observations (referring to scientific ones obviously) require interpretation and inference by scientists."

What are your thoughts on this?

hello brother Paul, dirtfarmer here

It depends on the one doing the observing. There are those that recognize "paradigms shifts". An example is Kuhn's "duck-rabbit" illustration. Some see the rabbit, some see the duck, and some can see both. Do we need microscopes to observe? Can everyday observation be considered scientific? What is the difference between "sit back and observe" and coming up with a hypothesis that can be tested.

Can you not draw a conclusion from "set back and observe" as you can from a testable hypothesis?
 
Biophotons are also interesting phenomena. They were not always thought of as something which can be seen or as visible to the normal human but now are known via instrumentation. In the 1960s when studies were early they were defined as cold electron emission (later called EFE or just FE) but they appear to be a subtle luminosity that is emitted by any form's electrostatic field. Bio fields register characteristics unique in that the radiance is similar to what we see when we turn a gas jet on our stove suddenly, form off to high, and depending on internal and external conditions of the bio system display a range in color.

Interestingly, SOME mystics have long claimed to have observed these "halos" though they do not fall into the "normal" visible range for most humans. Being of course a scientifically denied reality for over a century, this new research is telling us they are indeed there. Then something else, previously always denied, is the universal inference of an apparent afterglow at 3 degrees Kelvin, visible everywhere our instruments look. This afterglow preceded the light of the stars.

hello brother Paul, dirtfarmer here

Not familiar with CMB's, but would they be possible with the "plasma filament" theory?
 
hello brother Paul, dirtfarmer here

It depends on the one doing the observing. There are those that recognize "paradigms shifts". An example is Kuhn's "duck-rabbit" illustration. Some see the rabbit, some see the duck, and some can see both. Do we need microscopes to observe? Can everyday observation be considered scientific? What is the difference between "sit back and observe" and coming up with a hypothesis that can be tested.

Can you not draw a conclusion from "set back and observe" as you can from a testable hypothesis?

As you would say some may only see one way or the other, and still others can see both ways. IMHO there is often a difference between the data a testable hypothesis yields and the narrative attached to explain what the data may mean. Likewise something we can set back and observe can elicit an array of testable hypotheses. Good thought thanks...
 
hello brother Paul, dirtfarmer here

Not familiar with CMB's, but would they be possible with the "plasma filament" theory?

Hmmm? I have not thought about that possibility! Let me think about it and explore the idea...just because many would reject the whole notion (and general modern consensus would say no) history has shown us that often the majority opinion (argumentum ad populum) is often the less enlightened.
 
Neither creationists or non-creationists can prove their view of origins nor disprove the opposite camp's position so let it go...
The difference:
Creationists believe that the entire universe was made by God as a matter of faith. The creation of all things by God is considered an unassailable truth.
Non-creationists (by which term I assume you mean scientists) can only propose theories based on their understanding of the universe at this point. They do not have a "statement of scientific faith" which they hold as the unassailable truth.

Creationists can tell us as much about God as He has revealed in scripture and in nature.
Scientists can't tell us anything about God because they don't have the ability to test a "theory of God."

my two kopecks


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)



DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
 
The difference:
Creationists believe that the entire universe was made by God as a matter of faith. The creation of all things by God is considered an unassailable truth.
Non-creationists (by which term I assume you mean scientists) can only propose theories based on their understanding of the universe at this point. They do not have a "statement of scientific faith" which they hold as the unassailable truth.

Creationists can tell us as much about God as He has revealed in scripture and in nature.
Scientists can't tell us anything about God because they don't have the ability to test a "theory of God."

my two kopecks

Even some scientists believe God created the Universe. God created all original things. Procreation, allele transmission, interbreeding, and other factors which produced variations later in time were also part of His plan. So from a few base pairs of dogs we now have thousands of varieties. From the two basic humans the potential for all variations we now see and experience sprang forth. The Bible describes that God creates the original soul or spirit person in each individual (many passages elude to this) but not each individual body with its unique post-fall potential genetic infirmities OR the effects of life and other souls on that spirit person's development. Each soul is subject to socio-cultural influences, economic conditions, modelling from already corrupt parents and peers, and more. But this OP was about science not who or how creation began (which IMO was all God)!
 
Even some scientists believe God created the Universe. God created all original things. Procreation, allele transmission, interbreeding, and other factors which produced variations later in time were also part of His plan. So from a few base pairs of dogs we now have thousands of varieties. From the two basic humans the potential for all variations we now see and experience sprang forth. The Bible describes that God creates the original soul or spirit person in each individual (many passages elude to this) but not each individual body with its unique post-fall potential genetic infirmities OR the effects of life and other souls on that spirit person's development. Each soul is subject to socio-cultural influences, economic conditions, modelling from already corrupt parents and peers, and more. But this OP was about science not who or how creation began (which IMO was all God)!

hello brother Paul, dirtfarmer here

Did God not create "procreation" and the law of kind begets kind? We are told in Genesis that when God created man, " God created he him; male and female created he them." Doesn't this tell us when man was created by God, he Adam, had a X chromosome and Y chromosome and when He made Eve from Adam's side, God only used the X chromosome and doubles it so that females have 2 X chromosomes and the males still has a X & a Y chromosome.
 
Science is very interesting to me because its a framework and tool set that tries to figure out how everything works. Mechanics, systems, Experience, and asking the all important question, how?

When I was reading the article, the idea of interpretation always make me skeptical, because the article doesn't distinguish Data interpretation and interpretation of what the combined data shows.

2 marbles sitting on a table doesn't change through testing because of different world views, and neither does an object falling faster or genes getting passed on. The interpretation is about the some of the whole parts.

Evolution gets brought up here a lot because one of the world view believe all life came at once, one believes that specific groups with hard boundaries came first, and there is a view that all life gradually emerged from a single lineage of primitive cells.

The interpretation aspect fills in the gaps of what we don't know either through theot, educated guess work, or through continued study.
 
Back
Top