Hi all
Let me start by clarifying a few things.
I have never writen a dictionary in my life.
When I want to know what something means, that's where I go.
I was taught that from school days, and I have learned it's the right thing to do.
The definitions I posted came directly from a dictionary - copy -> paste.
Evolutionists
A person who believes in organic evolution
Evolutionism
(biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals
So please do not quarrel with me about definitions. If anything, take it up with th dictionary producers.
However, I appreciate any updated information. Thanks.
The following definition is copy and paste from a dictionary, as well.
Science
1. Study of the physical and natural world using theoretical models and data from experiments or observation.
(Oh, I just love that one.)
2. A particular branch of scientific knowledge.
(Very nice. Right up your alley, Divine Insight.)
3. Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain.
(Wonderfull! Thank you, scientist, for helping with medicine, and other important things.)
4. Research into questions posed by scientific theories and hypotheses.
(Ooh. My, my, my. Isn't this a beauty?)
There's the positives.
Here comes the negatives.
Searching... searching...
scientific evolution - results: no such thing.
Searching... searching...
science of evolution - results: evolution.
Who called it "science of evolution"?
Google it and see.
It's evolution, full stop.
There we go.
Conclusively...
science is not evolution, nor is evolution science.
So why am I constantly seeing these ?
Kenisaw wrote:Let's not pretend, though, that you don't trust science every day of your life. Every time you drive over a bridge (mechanics of materials) or step on the brake (fluids) or take medicine when you're sick (germ theory) or use a computer (quantum mechanics) or use a GPS system (relativity) you are not only trusting that science got it right, you are proving they got it right because all that stuff works. The big difference is that all that stuff doesn't directly contradict the very first part of your religious book, whereas evolution does.
The scientific theory of evolution is as solid as it gets in science.
Divine Insight wrote:This is the fallacy of your position in a nutshell. You attempt to make out like an understanding of evolution is based on nothing other than "faith" thus attempting to REDUCE the science of evolution to have no more merit than your faith-based religious views.
This is your attempt to place religion on a level-playing-field with science. That's absolute baloney right there, and to use the point you previously made, even a teenager who has no degree should be able to see the fallacy of your argument here.
By trying to bring science down to the level of your faith-based religion all you end up doing is pulling the rug out from under everything, including your own religion. Even your religion wouldn't have any special merit on this level playing field.
Also theStudent's attempt to "bring science down" to a faith-based status in an effort to place it on a level playing field with religion does nothing to elevate the religion. To the contrary, if religion and science are BOTH equally faith-based then it wouldn't matter which one a person chose to place their faith in.
It doesn't help the Bible at all. All it does is bring science down to the meaningless level of pure faith-based religion.
And if a person had decent reasons to believe in their religion, then they would be far better off trying to argue for those reasons rather than taking a stab and trying to belittle science.
The mere fact that "belittling science" is the thrust of the argument here speaks volumes of how there is actually no rational support for this religion at all. Because if there were any rational support for the religion it wouldn't be necessary to belittle science. Instead of focusing on belittling science he could just present a positive case for his religion. Clearly he doesn't have a valid argument for the religion thus the only option left is to try to belittle science.
This is like trying to scrape at the bottom of a theological barrel whose bottom has already been completely scraped off. There's nothing left to scrape at now but science. Theology clearly has nothing left to offer. The Catholics knew better than to take that path.
When the Catholics hit the bottom of the theological barrel they found science.
benchwarmer wrote:I don't understand theists who constantly rail against science.
You know.
It's a bit sad, and disturbing, but at the same time a bit funny.
Sad and disturbing to see how a man's thinking can so warp his understanding, and cloud his mental vision.
Funny that, for some strange reason, you just have to laugh.
Guys,
please quit.
I love science!
Please, read my earlier posts. Read the other two threads in the Rambling section.
I said it many times.
Science is not the problem.
However, if even up to this point, that hasn't sunk in. I'm done with that.
So lets get back to the definition of science,
and I'm going to focus primarily on number
4.
Research into questions posed by scientific theories and hypotheses.
Let's get a definition for that before we go on.
hypotheses
1.
A proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
2. A tentative insight into the natural world;
a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
3. A message expressing
an opinion based on incomplete evidence
While scientists are doing their research into whether the theory/theories of evolution are true.
While scientists are doing their research into the proposals, the concepts, the opinions, etc. etc., they are also doing somthing else.
Scientists are
learning stuff. Great!
They learn how the different parts of living, and non-living things works, the cells etc. etc.
But what they are learnig is, what's already there, and functioning according to how they were designed to function.
Then they can use what they learn to fix things, and even make fantastic things - destructive things as well.
There's a word for that though - it's called
DISCOVERING.
1. Determine the existence, presence, or fact of
2. Get to know or become aware of, usually accidentally
3. Make a discovery, make a new finding
4. Determine following investigation
5. Find unexpectedly
6. Make known to the public information that was previously known only to a few people or that was meant to be kept a secret
7. See for the first time; make a discovery
8. Classify or apply the appropriate name to, e.g. in botany or biology
That's a lot, of what scientist are doing right there -
discovering.
It's sort of like Columbus.
He traveled the seas, and he made discoveries.
But you didn't hear Columbus say, "When I went here, I found an island. When I went there, I found an island. So
the islands must be evolving."
Duh. The island were there already. Before Columbus came and found them.
Columbus! Mr. Scietist.
The processes you are discovering existed long before you came.
So
you found out that cells have the ability to do some amazing stuff, as though they have an intelligent mind.
You are making some amazing discoveries. give credit where it's due.
I believe that credit is due the creator of all life - a truly awesome God.
Some scientists however, are continuing there search for the hypotheses, the scientific theories, such as the theory of evolution.
Thus far according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
on Abiogenesis
Eugene Koonin said, "Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution. The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system. The MWO [Ed.: "many worlds in one"] version of the cosmological model of eternal inflation could suggest a way out of this conundrum because, in an infinite multiverse with a finite number of distinct macroscopic histories (each repeated an infinite number of times), emergence of even highly complex systems by chance is not just possible but inevitable."
At the time of the Miller–Urey experiment, scientific consensus was that the early Earth had a reducing atmosphere with compounds relatively rich in hydrogen and poor in oxygen (e.g., CH4 and NH3 as opposed to CO2 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)). However, current scientific consensus describes the primitive atmosphere as either weakly reducing or neutral (see also Oxygen Catastrophe). Such an atmosphere would diminish both the amount and variety of amino acids that could be produced, although studies that include iron and carbonate minerals (thought present in early oceans) in the experimental conditions have again produced a diverse array of amino acids. Other scientific research has focused on two other potential reducing environments: outer space and deep-sea thermal vents.
Chemical evolution was followed by the initiation of biological evolution, which led to the first cells. No one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components with the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to focus on chemosynthesis. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen and Jack W. Szostak. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, successfully attempted by Craig Venter and others at J. Craig Venter Institute, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached.
Bruce Damer and David Deamer have come to the conclusion that cell membranes cannot be formed in salty seawater, and must therefore have originated in freshwater. Before the continents formed, the only dry land on earth would be volcanic islands, where rainwater would form ponds where lipids could form the first stages towards cell membranes. These predecessors of true cells are assumed to have behaved more like a superorganism rather than individual structures, where the porous membranes would house molecules which would leak out and enter other protocells. Only when true cells had evolved would they gradually adapt to saltier environments and enter the ocean.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/big-bang-model
The big-bang model is based on two assumptions. The first is that Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity correctly describes the gravitational interaction of all matter. The second assumption, called the cosmological principle, states that an observer’s view of the universe depends neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. This principle applies only to the large-scale properties of the universe, but it does imply that the universe has no edge, so that the big-bang origin occurred not at a particular point in space but rather throughout space at the same time. These two assumptions make it possible to calculate the history of the cosmos after a certain epoch called the Planck time. Scientists have yet to determine what prevailed before Planck time.
No proof have been presented that can be considered fact on how life started on earth.
So again.
Science follows the evidence wherever it leads, is not alway the principle of some.
Blind faith, seem to be the crutch of those believing in the theory that life is a product of evolution, or blind chance.
This is not just the words of those whom have been labeled "fundamental Christians".
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
The origin of life is a scientific problem which is not yet solved. There are plenty of ideas, but few clear facts.
The scientific magazine Discover - October 1980, p. 88
Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley
After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.
