McBell
Unbound
It is quite evident you have no interest in honest discourse.
Have a nice day.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do Scientists Have "Faith" in the Same Sense some Christians do?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Have a nice day.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
These scientists have only proved that they are wrong over and over again in that they change their theories around quite often. God's word does not change. You should do some serious thinking and praying about that.
Proof is for theorems in math band formal logic with human assumptions, and not science.
What 'proof' would you have for your assertions, other than 'faith?'
McBell
Unbound
Which version of "Gods Word" are you claiming did not change?
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Trust is the issue here. I trust God. I trust in no man, therefore, men must prove they are correct or be regarded as the assumptive creatures that we are. If it contradicts the Bible you'll prove it absolutely or I will not ever believe it.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Based on mythology.
Christians who reasonable acknowledge the objective verifiable evidence of science. Unfortunately many only conditional acknowledge science and accept only certain aspects of science.
So there are two groups of Christians.
The more reasonable rational Christians not stoically devoted to blind faith and mythology.
In a previous post some one proposed 'blind faith' that favors literal scripture from 2 to 3 thousand years old rife with more ancient mythology, and with weak provenance over the objective verifiable evidence of science.[/QUOTE]
Yes I can agree with what you said.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Asked and answered. Do you want me to tell you the same thing yet again?
McBell
Unbound
Since I do not recall you ever actually answering, yes, please tell the same thing again.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
You have no idea yourself, what God's word actually does say.
The Dinosaurs bones proves this to be true, that the earth is Millions if not Billions of years old.
But yet you have no clue, all because you chose to follow man's teachings and not what the word God Actually does teach.
That is your choice. Your claim that scientific conclusions about evolution are based on assumption rather than evidence has been refuted.
Actually no, the knowledge of science evolves and improves over time. The basic fundamental theories and hypothesis of science have not changed a great deal, except for refining and improving science. The fundamental theories and hypothesis of evolution have not changed since Charles Darwin. It is the knowledge of science that has increased based successful predictions and new predictive hypothesis and knowledge over time. Yes, science has changed in a positive direction and is self correcting over time, and science itself has weeded out false science using the methodology of science. The frontiers of science in physics and cosmology are also an evolving science based on the firm foundation of physics and remain based on potentially falsifiable theories and hypothesis, but at present not conclusive nor falsified, because this is the frontiers of science. This is not a weakness, but how science advances over time.
You are arguing from an unsupported 'argument from ignorance' and not sound science. Your erroneous claims of science being 'wrong' is without useful foundation, and understanding of how science evolves when new information becomes available.
Need some coherent scientific references where science has been repeated so wrong, and wrong again over time. Claims of being 'wrong' is too subjective and anecdotal without an explanation.
Example: Newton's physics has never been considered wrong. It was just found to have limited application to the macro world. Over the millennia humans used Newtonian physics to build vast monuments like the pyramids, and when they violated Newtonian physics things fell down, and the same thing happens today. Today buildings, bridges, the most modern ships and submarines are still being built based on the engineering of Newtonian physics. What was found is that as we enter the micro world of physics new scientific theories and hypothesis were needed to explain the Quantum world and the interaction with the macro world.
Last edited:
The assumptions of science, and the science of evolution as well are that our natural existence is consistent, and predicable, and this is tested every time the predictability of a theory or hypothesis is tested with scientific methods, research, and the confirmation of the predictions.
Last edited:
Late to the thread, back to the OP:
This question seems almost to boil down to a philosophical one. I would say that scientists hold scientific values as most of us hold a general set of values. E.g., I'd hope we all "value" the Golden Rule.
Scientists value:
- repeatable, predictable evidence
- logic
- parsimonious explanations (i.e. Occam's Razor)
- the quest for understanding how the universe works.
I suppose you could say that scientists have "faith" in these values, but I'd agree with the OP in that if some new, more powerful way of understanding the universe was discovered, scientists would alter their approach. In other words, I would say that one difference is that scientists don't hold these values dogmatically.
This question seems almost to boil down to a philosophical one. I would say that scientists hold scientific values as most of us hold a general set of values. E.g., I'd hope we all "value" the Golden Rule.
Scientists value:
- repeatable, predictable evidence
- logic
- parsimonious explanations (i.e. Occam's Razor)
- the quest for understanding how the universe works.
I suppose you could say that scientists have "faith" in these values, but I'd agree with the OP in that if some new, more powerful way of understanding the universe was discovered, scientists would alter their approach. In other words, I would say that one difference is that scientists don't hold these values dogmatically.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
I will not debate versions of the Bible with you since you believe them all to be invalid.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Opinion noted.
McBell
Unbound
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Not to my satisfaction, it hasn't. You still have yet to prove you're right and I'm wrong.
McBell
Unbound
Of course not.
But then, we all know that that will never happen.
You have all but flat out admitted that you cannot be convinced you are wrong.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Those bones do not have a tag attached to them signed by God stating they are millions of years old. Even the theories concerning the dating methods themselves contain large margins of error. The Bible has zero margin for error. You may believe men rather than God but I will not.
McBell
Unbound
Bold empty claim.