Is science interested in finding God ?

[IndigoChild5559]

OK, so you say that humans evolved by "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" of dna into believing religious concepts. So it must be genetic, eh? Thanks btw for that. Therefore it follows according to the theory that it's "natural"? by the laws of evolution ("natural selection") to be true (that it's naturally evolved.)
Of course you can't thank evolution for anything good and you can't blame evolution for what you might consider good or bad, and thanks for your thoughts about that.

I realize that the TOE went through a period of time where it really focused in on genetics to the exclusion of all else. But we know today that heritability is not just genetic. An adaptive trait can be passed on to the next generation via epigenetics or culture, for example. Selection also isn't just individual selection -- there is also, i.e., sex selection and group selection. At any rate, that's why I gave the David Sloan Wilson link -- he is at the cutting edge of this newer, more accurate understanding.

Yes, I'm saying that humanity's predisposition to religion is a natural, adaptive thing.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It used to be.
Isaac Newton recognized that a Higher Power was necessary to explain many of his discoveries.

Regarding our solar system, in his Principia Mathematica, Newton declared: “Though these bodies [planets] may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws… This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”


Does science accept this explanation today? Nope.

Even tho the mainstream explanation — “through accretion” — has no solid evidence supporting it.

Newton did not have knowledge of star formation. He didn't have the evidence that we have today about supernovas, and how the debris comes to form new stars and planets.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Unfortunately those that have rejected the existence of God have bling faith.

I have several decades of experience with that decision - the decision to live as if gods don't exist and to remain outside of religions. It was a good choice for me, one that has paid dividends and still does. I understand that your scriptures teach you that that is foolishness, but that word has no meaning if applied to good choices that improve lives.

Isaac Newton recognized that a Higher Power was necessary to explain many of his discoveries.

Newton, like all of the rest of us, had no experience with gods, so such proclamations are expressions of faith, not knowledge.

Moreover, Newton claimed that the hand of God was necessary periodically to keep the planets in their orbits. His mathematics predicted that Jupiter and Saturn would toss planets like earth into the sun or out of the solar system. A century later, Laplace invented the mathematics that accounts for the relative stability of the solar system, and another gap is knowledge was filled giving this deity one less thing to do, something nature could do without intelligent supervision and intervention.

But if scientists say they don’t know, then it’s philosophy. I.e., guesswork. Not science.

Philosophy looks like this: "The first life in the universe was either intelligently designed or arose naturalistically." That's pure reason. We know that once there was no life in the universe and that now there is, and unless you or somebody else can come up with a third possibility, there are only two possible means to account for that - naturalism and supernaturalism, and we can't know which without some test, observation, algorithm, or experiment that can rule one of those out or the other in. That's as far as reason (philosophy) can take us.

If we go further and guess that one is true and the other false, whichever way we do that, we hold an insufficiently justified belief, which is also known as (religious) faith. THAT'S the guesswork, and why saying "We don't know" (not guessing) is the superior position when we don't to saying that "God did it" (guessing, faith).

 

[Bthoth]

I realize that the TOE went through a period of time where it really focused in on genetics to the exclusion of all else.

That's a joke right? Theory of Everything (TOE) ..."focused in on genetics ""

That could be good for stand up comedy but in the real world, it expresses a sense of bigotry WW2 style.

But we know today that heritability is not just genetic.

Sure, egyptians inbred their families trying to keep such a heredity. It's one of the facets showing the similarity to torah writing

An adaptive trait can be passed on to the next generation via epigenetics or culture,

Adaptability is a natural trait of living processes. The bigots like to consider that ability to one lineage is better than another. When in real world combining genetic populations improves genetic immunity of the next generations. It's butt backwards to the religious approach.

for example. Selection also isn't just individual selection -- there is also, i.e., sex selection and group selection.

Separating people does more damage than good. Look at what happened to the Vadoma.

At any rate, that's why I gave the David Sloan Wilson link -- he is at the cutting edge of this newer, more accurate understanding.

I will do a bit of homework on that persons writing. But I have also done research on evolution and how knowledge evolves over time.

Yes, I'm saying that humanity's predisposition to religion is a natural, adaptive thing.

There is no predisposition for religion. The predisposition is that conscious life wants to understand. Religion just happens to have a huge hold on what people believe is true.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

THAT'S the guesswork, and why saying "We don't know" (not guessing) is the superior position when we don't to saying that "God did it" (guessing, faith).

But see, here’s the thing:
If I search Google by asking, “How did planet Earth form?”, what do you think I’ll find? Will I find science saying, “We don’t know”?

No, I haven’t found that yet.
They offer guesses.

Take care, IANS.

EDIT: I just found a website that said, “the accepted theory is…”
At least it’s not stated as a given. But many websites word Earth’s origin “through collisions & bombardment” as a fact.

 

[YoursTrue]

I realize that the TOE went through a period of time where it really focused in on genetics to the exclusion of all else. But we know today that heritability is not just genetic. An adaptive trait can be passed on to the next generation via epigenetics or culture, for example. Selection also isn't just individual selection -- there is also, i.e., sex selection and group selection. At any rate, that's why I gave the David Sloan Wilson link -- he is at the cutting edge of this newer, more accurate understanding.

Yes, I'm saying that humanity's predisposition to religion is a natural, adaptive thing.

Yes, that's ok. I believe fetuses in the womb can be influenced by emotions and other things, like music, language, etc. outside the womb. Likely even food the mother eats. We know infants can unfortunately experience fetal alcohol syndrome if the mother over indulges in alcohol. It is possible the genes are affected to influence that person for the rest of his life, and who knows if those feelings/emotions and inclinations are passed on? But that is not the point. Remember -- mankind alone has the ability to write down their experiences. And verbally transmit them. The written word is more reliable than the transmission of experiences verbally over the centuries. Yes, gorillas and fishes do not engage in recording their history. Or anyone's history.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But see, here’s the thing:
If I search Google by asking, “How did planet Earth form?”, what do you think I’ll find? Will I find science saying, “We don’t know”?

No, I haven’t found that yet.
They offer guesses.

Take care, IANS.

EDIT: I just found a website that said, “the accepted theory is…”
At least it’s not stated as a given. But many websites word Earth’s origin “through collisions & bombardment” as a fact.

So I actually did ask google, How did earth form? This is what came up.

"The Earth formed over 4.6 billion years ago out of a mixture of dust and gas around the young sun. It grew larger thanks to countless collisions between dust particles, asteroids, and other growing planets, including one last giant impact that threw enough rock, gas, and dust into space to form the moon."

 

[McBell]

But see, here’s the thing:
If I search Google by asking, “How did planet Earth form?”, what do you think I’ll find? Will I find science saying, “We don’t know”?

No, I haven’t found that yet.
They offer guesses.

Take care, IANS.

EDIT: I just found a website that said, “the accepted theory is…”
At least it’s not stated as a given. But many websites word Earth’s origin “through collisions & bombardment” as a fact.

How is this any different from the guess "GodDidIt" presented as fact?

 

[YoursTrue]

So I actually did ask google, How did earth form? This is what came up.

"The Earth formed over 4.6 billion years ago out of a mixture of dust and gas around the young sun. It grew larger thanks to countless collisions between dust particles, asteroids, and other growing planets, including one last giant impact that threw enough rock, gas, and dust into space to form the moon."

And so are you saying that the 4.6 BILLION years is correct? And better yet (I was going to say worse yet) our of a mixture of dust and gas around the young sun??? C'mon, that's maybe good for Star Trek or sci-fi. But not for real people. Now just so you might figure this out, did the website (or any website) say HOW they know (questionable know) this? It's a guesstimate. That means, they don't KNOW.

 

[YoursTrue]

How is this any different from the guess "GodDidIt" presented as fact?

For one thing, and we're discussing to an extent religion including the reports of God or gods is a part of "natural" evolution, meaning genetics & dna, etc. that biologically moves onward. Go show the documents left behind by the writers of religious experiences are guesses. Is evolution guesswork? See if you or anyone can answer that...maybe it's my next question. Is evolution guesswork? I'm purty sure, based on answers I've already read, that many will say No! Absolutely not! ("Science makes mistakes, they say, and it's corrected, BUT! it's not guesswork," they say -- "It's FACT!" they say.) Because if it's NOT guesswork, how do you figure that religion is part of the human experience, often to disastrous results? Maybe some don't LIKE evolution...because there ain't nothing much that can be done about it according to the evolutionary process ...and that includes death. Speaking of the Bible, however, do you know that the inspired (yes, inspired by GOD) writers acknowledge the process of DEATH, sickness and sorrow cannot be done away with EXCEPT BY GOD??? Now, is that recognition part of the evolutionary process, according to evolutionists? Because -- evolution doesn't lie, does it?

 

[McBell]

For one thing, and we're discussing to an extent religion including the reports of God or gods is a part of "natural" evolution, meaning genetics & dna, etc. that biologically moves onward. Go show the documents left behind by the writers of religious experiences are guesses. Is evolution guesswork? See if you or anyone can answer that...maybe it's my next question. Is evolution guesswork? I'm purty sure, based on answers I've already read, that many will say No! Absolutely not! ("Science makes mistakes, they say, and it's corrected, BUT! it's not guesswork," they say -- "It's FACT!" they say.) Because if it's NOT guesswork, how do you figure that religion is part of the human experience, often to disastrous results? Maybe some don't LIKE evolution...because there ain't nothing much that can be done about it according to the evolutionary process ...and that includes death. Speaking of the Bible, however, do you know that the inspired (yes, inspired by GOD) writers acknowledge the process of DEATH, sickness and sorrow cannot be done away with EXCEPT BY GOD??? Now, is that recognition part of the evolutionary process, according to evolutionists? Because -- evolution doesn't lie, does it?

Looks I should have put a trigger warning on my simple little question....

Interesting how with all that you have not in any way shown that "GodDidIt" is any less of a guess than all the guesses that were claimed in the port my simple question was in reply to.

i wonder if the member I asked has anything better?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And so are you saying that the 4.6 BILLION years is correct? And better yet (I was going to say worse yet) our of a mixture of dust and gas around the young sun??? C'mon, that's maybe good for Star Trek or sci-fi. But not for real people. Now just so you might figure this out, did the website (or any website) say HOW they know (questionable know) this? It's a guesstimate. That means, they don't KNOW.

I'm saying its a good sound estimate based on the evidence. It is not a random guess.

We know the earth was formed via accretion because we have observed this process happening in other forming solar systems elsewhere in the Galaxy. Again, evidence based.

That's a far cry from saying "The earth was created in six days because that is what is written in my holy book."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And so are you saying that the 4.6 BILLION years is correct? And better yet (I was going to say worse yet) our of a mixture of dust and gas around the young sun??? C'mon, that's maybe good for Star Trek or sci-fi. But not for real people. Now just so you might figure this out, did the website (or any website) say HOW they know (questionable know) this? It's a guesstimate. That means, they don't KNOW.

I'm saying its a good sound estimate based on the evidence. It is not a random guess.

We know the earth was formed via accretion because we have observed this process happening in other forming solar systems elsewhere in the Galaxy. Again, evidence based.

That's a far cry from saying "The earth was created in six days because that is what is written in my holy book."

 

[Eli G]

I'm saying its a good sound estimate based on the evidence. It is not a random guess.

We know the earth was formed via accretion because we have observed this process happening in other forming solar systems elsewhere in the Galaxy. Again, evidence based.

That's a far cry from saying "The earth was created in six days because that is what is written in my holy book."

Those are false assumptions. Nobody have seen any of that. Consider how much time would take that process to finish ... and consider if there is an invisible to humans Intelligent Being controlling the infinitesimal part of the assumed process some scientists think they are observing in their infinitessimal ephimerous "instantaneous" observations, based on their interpretaions of what they "see".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Those are false assumptions.

No sir. An estimation based on factual evidence is not a false assumption.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Those are false assumptions.

No sir. A reasonable estimate based on factual evidence is not a false assumption.

 

[jes-us]

Is science interested in finding God ?

We did that already V*

 

[Eli G]

Exactly: Who considers an estimate "scientific"?
NOT ME.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Those are false assumptions.

No sir. A reasonable estimate based on factual evidence is not a false assumption.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And so are you saying that the 4.6 BILLION years is correct?

That is what the evidence supports.