Go back
Probability of evolution

Probability of evolution

Spirituality

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dj2becker
See:http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/bibleandscience.htm

What makes you so sure that science needs to be able to explain everything? Is science not simply human effort? What makes you sure that science is superior to the Bible? Can science explain everything?
The fact that science has done a stunningly good job of explaining many, many natural phenomena, and has helped us correctly and repeatably predict the requirements for the construction and use of many, many technologies that make use of those natural phenomena, makes many people sure that science is superior to the Bible as a tool for understanding the world we live in.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by PBE6
The fact that science has done a stunningly good job of explaining many, many natural phenomena, and has helped us correctly and repeatably predict the requirements for the construction and use of many, many technologies that make use of those natural phenomena, makes many people sure that science is superior to the Bible as a tool for understanding the world we live in.
Why do you think that the Bible and science don't go together?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dj2becker
Why do you think that the Bible and science don't go together?
Why do you think that the Bible and evolution are incompatible?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dj2becker
Why do you think that the Bible and science don't go together?
I didn't necessarily say that they don't go together (meaning that they are incompatible, contradictory and mutually exclusive). But I will say dogma and science don't go together.

The Bible relies on dogma to explain the "how", "what" and "why" of the world. Science relies on experimentation, observation, and methodical corroboration of evidence to provide proof of the "how", "what" and even the "why" of the world. I included "why" here because philosophy, while not a "hard science", uses the same principles to arrive at solutions.

The scientific method is far more useful than the dogmatic "method" in this regard, because the scientific method constantly challenges conclusions with a burden of proof, ensuring that weak and/or incorrect conclusions are eventually elimitated when they cannot stand up to scrutiny. The dogmatic method assumes the correctness of many conclusions based on tradition, references to texts assumed to be infallable, heresay, and other less than rigorous techniques, and does not challenge conclusions once they are established.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by PBE6
I didn't necessarily say that they don't go together (meaning that they are incompatible, contradictory and mutually exclusive). But I will say dogma and science don't go together.

The Bible relies on dogma to explain the "how", "what" and "why" of the world. Science relies on experimentation, observation, and methodical corroboration of evidence ...[text shortened]... her less than rigorous techniques, and does not challenge conclusions once they are established.
Do you think it is possible for thoughts or ideas within the community
of people who work in science to become dogmatic?
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you think it is possible for thoughts or ideas within the community
of people who work in science to become dogmatic?
Kelly
It sure it possible. Sociologists call this phenomenon 'groupthink'.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you think it is possible for thoughts or ideas within the community
of people who work in science to become dogmatic?
Kelly
Yes, it's possible, probable, and even happens from time to time, in the sense that scientists/people can believe something to be true without proper research and proof. However, this is a case of the scientific method not being applied rigorously.

Despite the possible validity of some scientific conclusion being taken as dogma, not to challenge the conclusion until it is proved (or similarly, not to revisit the conclusion when new evidence arises which could alter the conclusion), would be wrong. Until something is proved conclusively, it should be considered a hypothesis.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you think it is possible for thoughts or ideas within the community
of people who work in science to become dogmatic?
Kelly
They did that in the stone-age and came up with a creator god

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by bbarr
It sure it possible. Sociologists call this phenomenon 'groupthink'.
How large or small of the group could this phenomenon affect?
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dj2becker
Why do you think that the Bible and science don't go together?
Are you still searching for a site defending the garbage math in the OP that you dumped upon us? You really are going to have to think for yourself on this one. I suggest you enroll in the "Business Math" course at your college, and we'll see you again in about 3 years.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
How large or small of the group could this phenomenon affect?
Kelly
Who cares?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why do you think that the Bible and evolution are incompatible?
Why do you think the Bible and evolution are compatible?

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/compat.shtml

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by telerion
Are you still searching for a site defending the garbage math in the OP that you dumped upon us? You really are going to have to think for yourself on this one. I suggest you enroll in the "Business Math" course at your college, and we'll see you again in about 3 years.
What garbage Math? You are the one that has to defend the statement that DNA has evoloved.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dj2becker
Why do you think the Bible and evolution are compatible?

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/compat.shtml
Taking Genesis as a allegorical parable, like the ones Jesus told, leaves no contradiction at all. So much for reason 1. Reason 2, 3, 4 are all lies. And why don't you ever answer a direct question? You're one of the biggest, most snotnose jerks I've ever had the misfortune to deal with.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Taking Genesis as a allegorical parable, like the ones Jesus told, leaves no contradiction at all. So much for reason 1. Reason 2, 3, 4 are all lies. And why don't you ever answer a direct question? You're one of the biggest, most snotnose jerks I've ever had the misfortune to deal with.
Are you saying that Genisis 1 was not refering to literal 24 hour days?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.