[_ Old Earth _] Science

[ThinkerMan]

Quick question for science doubters, those who believe science is inherantly errant and therefore is unreliable.

They ususally refer to science as a "religion".

Do you think DNA science should be allowed in trials?

Without DNA, the case agains OJ has highly circumstancial at best. In fact, the general consensus among the jury was to nullify the physical evidence (i.e. DNA evidence) to find him not guilty.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I would hope that there's no one here who doesn't accept science as a good process for understanding the natural world. In order to do so, they would have to disagree with cause and effect... most likely is that we all disagree with conclusions that various people have come up with through the years using science. Not that science was flawed, just the scientists.

BL

 

[Featherbop]

I dought people. I question motives. People using science to promote their own ideas is not by any means unbelievable. The motives are there, and using scientific jargon that makes it difficult for people that don't have the knowledge of it to understand, certainly makes me suspicious. I don't veiw science as a religion, but I do not veiw scientists in high regard for their veiw of the facts either.

Besides, if scientists are concerned about people not understanding the "facts", they should get out there and preach it.

 

[JohnR7]

I would hope that there's no one here who doesn't accept science as a good process for understanding the natural world.

There is a difference between science and true science. Modern science contains things that conflict with the word of God. But true science lines up with the truth as we find it in our Bible.

 

[cubedbee]

I would hope that there's no one here who doesn't accept science as a good process for understanding the natural world.

There is a difference between science and true science. Modern science contains things that conflict with the word of God. But true science lines up with the truth as we find it in our Bible.

You're right that true science lines up with the truth as we find it in our Bible. However, modern science is true science. There is not a conspiracy by millions of scientists to propogate falsehoods. If science and the Bible appear to not lineup, then that is because you misunderstand one, not because science is false.

 

[JohnR7]

You're right that true science lines up with the truth as we find it in our Bible. However, modern science is true science. There is not a conspiracy by millions of scientists to propogate falsehoods. If science and the Bible appear to not lineup, then that is because you misunderstand one, not because science is false.

I think that perhaps you need to get your facts straight. Science falsifies it's own beliefs all the time. Modern science contains lots of error and no one other than perhaps you, would claim otherwise.

 

[Barbarian]

It's one of the primary differences between science and religion. Religion rarely corrects any of its' errors, while science constantly does so.

Religion and science are two things fallible humans do. And they get things wrong, sometimes.

But science has a self-correcting mechanism.

Religion generally does not.

 

[JohnR7]

Religion rarely corrects any of its' errors, while science constantly does so.

I am not talking about religion. I am talking about a relationship. I do not have anything against religion, but that is not what this conversation is about. This is about being a christian.

 

[Barbarian]

Last time I looked, every Christian denomination in America referred to itself as a "religion."

Tax purposes, you know.

God is about relationship. Stuff like theology is about religion. Whether or not Genesis is literal is religion.

It certainly is possible to be a fidiest and accept God without any theological trappings whatever. But I don't think that's the case for you, is it?

 

[JohnR7]

It certainly is possible to be a fidiest and accept God without any theological trappings whatever. But I don't think that's the case for you, is it?

It depends on the theology you use. I tend to lean toward covenant theology. I think a lot of problems could be avoided if people came to realize that we have a covenant relationship with God.

 

[Routerider]

I dought people. I question motives. People using science to promote their own ideas is not by any means unbelievable. The motives are there, and using scientific jargon that makes it difficult for people that don't have the knowledge of it to understand, certainly makes me suspicious. I don't veiw science as a religion, but I do not veiw scientists in high regard for their veiw of the facts either.

Besides, if scientists are concerned about people not understanding the "facts", they should get out there and preach it.

What do you call Nat'l Geographic, Discovery Channel, etc?

 

[Featherbop]

I dought people. I question motives. People using science to promote their own ideas is not by any means unbelievable. The motives are there, and using scientific jargon that makes it difficult for people that don't have the knowledge of it to understand, certainly makes me suspicious. I don't veiw science as a religion, but I do not veiw scientists in high regard for their veiw of the facts either.

Besides, if scientists are concerned about people not understanding the "facts", they should get out there and preach it.

What do you call Nat'l Geographic, Discovery Channel, etc?

I don't watch those. Thats not what I meant by 'preaching' the facts anyway.

 

[reznwerks]

facts

I dought people. I question motives. People using science to promote their own ideas is not by any means unbelievable. The motives are there, and using scientific jargon that makes it difficult for people that don't have the knowledge of it to understand, certainly makes me suspicious. I don't veiw science as a religion, but I do not veiw scientists in high regard for their veiw of the facts either.

Besides, if scientists are concerned about people not understanding the "facts", they should get out there and preach it.

===============
I suppose that creating a religion for power and prestige is beyond the scope of possibility also? Lets look at Christianity. Paul who never met Jesus created Christianity as we know it by going through the back door. He didn't appeal first to the Jew but went to the gentiles and the Greeks. Using your own code for authentication you should have invalidated your beliefs long ago. You can view scientists in any light you want but facts are facts and evidence is evidence. Its a lot like math , it either is or it isn't . One plus one is always two no matter if you like it or not.
Everyone is entitled to their own opionion but not their own facts.

 

[Featherbop]

Facts can be very irrelevant.

Things that are unchanging and true are what count for reality. Evidence is whatever anyone wants it to be. New things are discovered, and evidences change, the "facts" are altered, so on. I disagree with others interpretations of evidence on different issues. I know that facts can be very short lived.

Everyone is entitled to their own facts. Noone is entitled to their own truth.
Facts change. Truth does not.

 

[reznwerks]

facts

Facts can be very irrelevant.

Things that are unchanging and true are what count for reality. Evidence is whatever anyone wants it to be. New things are discovered, and evidences change, the "facts" are altered, so on. I disagree with others interpretations of evidence on different issues. I know that facts can be very short lived.
No, facts are facts. They may be incorrect but this is usually a very rare occurrance. Beliefs on the other hand are more prone to error.

Everyone is entitled to their own facts. Noone is entitled to their own truth.
Facts change. Truth does not.

You're trying and I like that. However the original saying which is true goes like this, Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but not their own facts.

 

[Featherbop]

facts are not truth, if they were, they should/would be called truth.

facts are facts, and some are false.

Everyone IS entitledc to their own facts. Noone can be entitled to any truth they want, however, because truth never changes. Facts do.

Everyone is also entitled to their own beleifs, wrong as they may be, atheists for instance.

 

[Barbarian]

My dictionary says that facts are true.

Are you sure you're using a decent dictionary?

 

[Featherbop]

My dictionary says that facts are true.

Are you sure you're using a decent dictionary?

I suppose the dictionary is in error. If facts change, and truth does not, then the dictionary is wrong.

 

[cubedbee]

My dictionary says that facts are true.

Are you sure you're using a decent dictionary?

I suppose the dictionary is in error. If facts change, and truth does not, then the dictionary is wrong.

Perhaps you are mistaken in your belief that facts change.

 

[Featherbop]

Well, then we get into the question of "Is it a fact that facts change, or is it a truth, that facts change, or is it a fact that facts do not change, or is it a truth that facts do not change?

Huh?