Is the origin of life a scientific or theological question?

[alex garcia]

Theory can be true, but rarly ever is.

 

[outhouse]

Theory can be true, but rarly ever is.

now why would you post blatantly false information.

scientific theorys are true.

I think you have a severe lack of education in the scientific method

 

[gnostic]

Statements like that, while true, make me wince with the intolerance they mask.

Both religion and science are human activities, so both religionists and scientists can make mistakes and be prejudiced.

I think the main difference between science and religion has to be seen as a matter of testability and falsifiability, not that one deals with reality and the other doesn't.

Is it?

Dealing with the bible, you have the following:

1. God creating the earth in 6 days (Genesis 1).
2. A talking serpent (Genesis 3).
3. Turning Lot's wife into pillar of salt (Genesis something).
4. A talking burning bush (Exodus)
5. Moses using parlor trick, turning staff into snake (Exodus)
6. Parting the Red Sea (Exodus)
7. A talking donkey (Numbers)
8. Elijah taken to heaven on fiery chariot pulled by horses (2 Kings 2)
9. Jesus turning water into wine (gospels)
10. Jesus walking on water (gospels)
11. Jesus healing the sick (gospels)
12. Jesus raising the dead Lazarus (was that Luke's or John's)
13. The resurrection

All of which, we can't verify. Lots of it, either supernatural or unnatural phenomena, which I would call "magic" or "illusion", if not outright lies by the composers of these books.

Could you say anything of these miracles to be dealing with natural reality?

 

[Frank Merton]

Well, yeah. Isn't that to be expected?

Theory always matches with the truth, though. More importantly, the theories predict things we don't know are true.

I have trouble with your first sentence (your second sentence is an important observation).

Surely you are not saying in your first sentence that theory is always "true" in a definite sense, since we know that theories are constantly changed to keep up with new discoveries.

While it is true that usually changes are only of details, and the changes are more often accumulative rather than replacements of old ideas, it still has happened in the past that theories were either radically changed or even replaced. There is even a branch of scientific philosophy, referred to as "paradigm changes" that deals with how this sort of thing comes about in the scientific community.

 

[Frank Merton]

Is it?

Dealing with the bible, you have the following:
All of which, we can't verify. Lots of it, either supernatural or unnatural phenomena, which I would call "magic" or "illusion", if not outright lies by the composers of these books.

You confuse your perception of reality with actual reality. Someone who believes in the OT believes these things are real. That you and I don't is a matter of our perception, and the believer thinks we are out of touch with reality just as much as you think they are. As a result, both sides talk at each other rather than to each other.

 

[diosangpastol]

Originally, it was a theological question, but as we move forward, it is more and more becoming a scientific question.

it should be viewed properly, Creation is an act of God, but how exactly it went about can be explained by science.

so there is no contradiction

 

[Skeptisch]

... it still has happened in the past that theories were either radically changed or even replaced.

Can you give us an example where scientific theories were either radically changed or replaced? Try not to go close to the speed light with that one!

Let the tap dance begin, or more likely, let’s enjoy the silence. :run:

 

[Frank Merton]

Can you give us an example where scientific theories were either radically changed or replaced? Try not to go close to the speed light with that one!

That's not hard; how about the origin of the Moon in a catastrophic collision rather than from a disk evolved from a too-rapidly spinning Earth.

Also, continental drift rather than land bridges.

Also, the origin of the metals in supernova explosions rather than during the Big Bang.

Then there is that birds derived from a group of dinosaurs rather than both dinosaurs and birds deriving from the proto-dinosaurs.

Or perhaps upright posture in pre-humans leading to big brains rather than big brains leading to upright posture.

Or homo sapiens evolving from homo erectus in Africa and emerging to replace homo erectus elsewhere rather than homo sapiens evolving everywhere in parallel evolution.

That's enough. The point is that each change was for the most part directed by the appearance of new data.

 

[Frank Merton]

it should be viewed properly, Creation is an act of God, but how exactly it went about can be explained by science.

so there is no contradiction

That looks nice on paper, but when you drill down to the details (mm) it makes God look messy and undirected and cruel.

Evolution as it took place on Earth shows no signs of a designer -- it went through fits and starts in no organized course, and its progress was mainly through suffering and extinctions.

 

[Skeptisch]

That's not hard; how about the origin of the Moon in a catastrophic collision rather than from a disk evolved from a too-rapidly spinning Earth.

Also, continental drift rather than land bridges.

Also, the origin of the metals in supernova explosions rather than during the Big Bang.

Then there is that birds derived from a group of dinosaurs rather than both dinosaurs and birds deriving from the proto-dinosaurs.

Or perhaps upright posture in pre-humans leading to big brains rather than big brains leading to upright posture.

Or homo sapiens evolving from homo erectus in Africa and emerging to replace homo erectus elsewhere rather than homo sapiens evolving everywhere in parallel evolution.

That's enough. The point is that each change was for the most part directed by the appearance of new data.

In science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method.

Your examples are not scientific theories. Keep tap dancing though!

 

[fantome profane]

True because sciene changes every time it is spanked by truth and reality.

Yes, but science likes to be spanked.

 

[sniper762]

depends on how you ask it.

 

[Frank Merton]

In science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method.

Your examples are not scientific theories. Keep tap dancing though!

What are they if they aren't theories; are you seriously contending that they aren't? That is unbelievable in anyone who knows anything about the history of science. Pardon me, but I cannot suppress my astonishment at your demonstration of bald ignorance.

 

[Frank Merton]

That piece of nonsense that I just responded to continues to get my goat. What do you think the theory of land bridges was based on if not empirical observations and how do you think it was reached if not by scientific methods? I could make the same argument for all of my examples and many others. ARE YOU REALLY THAT IGNORANT OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE? (You need to be shouted at on this one.)

 

[Skeptisch]

ARE YOU REALLY THAT IGNORANT OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE? (You need to be shouted at on this one.)

Frank, it might be advisable not to do too much shouting; it won’t give credence to what you are saying. The disagreement in an argument could simply be a misunderstanding or a definition problem.

You were asked to give us an example where scientific theories were either radically changed or replaced? You posted what you thought were scientific theories. I happen to disagree that they are since I think that a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it can in principle be falsified by experiment; any idea not susceptible to falsification does not belong to science.

Take a deep breath before you tell us what, in your view, a scientific theory is.

 

[Frank Merton]

Frank, it might be advisable not to do too much shouting; it won’t give credence to what you are saying. The disagreement in an argument could simply be a misunderstanding or a definition problem.

Now that sort of thing is a real pisser. Are you really such a pedant? Don't you understand that those who lose credibility are those who type everything in all-caps. Real people do occasionally shout (and swear, and make deliberate grammatical mistakes, and so on).

You were asked to give us an example where scientific theories were either radically changed or replaced? You posted what you thought were scientific theories. I happen to disagree that they are since I think that a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it can in principle be falsified by experiment; any idea not susceptible to falsification does not belong to science.

The problem is you are showing a blatant ignorance of the history of science: everything I listed was believed by the scientific community until new evidence appeared. Indeed, I picked things that had been the scientific belief in the twentieth century. If you want to go around naked showing your privates, go ahead, but don't be defensive if people remark that you are naked.

 

[diosangpastol]

That looks nice on paper, but when you drill down to the details (mm) it makes God look messy and undirected and cruel.

Evolution as it took place on Earth shows no signs of a designer -- it went through fits and starts in no organized course, and its progress was mainly through suffering and extinctions.

that is only your opinion.

fact, there were Dinosaurs and they went extinct.

 

[outhouse]

how about the origin of the Moon in a catastrophic collision rather than from a disk evolved from a too-rapidly spinning Earth.

hypothesis

Also, continental drift rather than land bridges.

hypothesis

Also, the origin of the metals in supernova explosions rather than during the Big Bang.

hypothesis

Then there is that birds derived from a group of dinosaurs rather than both dinosaurs and birds deriving from the proto-dinosaurs.

hypothesis

Or perhaps upright posture in pre-humans leading to big brains rather than big brains leading to upright posture.

hypothesis

Or homo sapiens evolving from homo erectus in Africa and emerging to replace homo erectus elsewhere rather than homo sapiens evolving everywhere in parallel evolution.

hypothesis

That's enough. The point is that each change was for the most part directed by the appearance of new data

you didnt list a real scientific theory.


If you stated evolution or gravity, I would say yes that is a scientific theory

 

[McBell]

True because sciene changes every time it is spanked by truth and reality.

Where as religion holds fast regardless of truth and reality...

 

[outhouse]

What are they if they aren't theories; are you seriously contending that they aren't? That is unbelievable in anyone who knows anything about the history of science. Pardon me, but I cannot suppress my astonishment at your demonstration of bald ignorance.

sir, it is you that needs the education here from what I see.