26
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 199:
Line 199: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Plants on the ark?
:Plants were not mentioned as being on the ark, although there would have been plant material for the purposes of food, and this might have included seeds that could be planted after the flood. Apart from that, plants could have survived in floating mats of vegetation outside the ark. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:Plants were not mentioned as being on the ark, although there would have been plant material for the purposes of food, and this might have included seeds that could be planted after the flood. Apart from that, plants could have survived in floating mats of vegetation outside the ark. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
==response to top section==
A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific
My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are
a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).
Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only
5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)
--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )
You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree
you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)
One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science)
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers