Faith v Science

C

cancel2 2022

Canceled
sciencevsfaith.png
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no....a theory is an hypothesis that has been tested and not proven false.....in the diagram above the "idea" would be the hypothesis.....

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
Click to expand...
No, a scientific theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. The "idea" would be a premise. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of an observable phenomena.


The scientific theory is more like: Observe nature, develop idea that could explain observation (premise), propose an explanation that tests premise (hypothesis), Make predictions based on testing the hypothesis (experiment), perform experiments to determine validity of predictions and gather valid experimental results (facts) and propose an explanatory framework that explains as many of these facts as possible (theory).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No, a scientific theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. The "idea" would be a premise. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of an observable phenomena.


The scientific theory is more like: Observe nature, develop idea that could explain observation (premise), propose an explanation that tests premise (hypothesis), Make predictions based on testing the hypothesis (experiment), perform experiments to determine validity of predictions and gather valid experimental results (facts) and propose an explanatory framework that explains as many of these facts as possible (theory).
Click to expand...

thats what the chart says.....you observe, get idea, test it to see if it doesn't fail.....its an hypothesis while your testing it......once you tested it enough to satisfy, it's a theory.....

that why abiogenesis isn't a theory.......its never been tested......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
thats what the chart says.....you observe, get idea, test it to see if it doesn't fail.....its an hypothesis while your testing it......once you tested it enough to satisfy, it's a theory.....
Click to expand...
No, even after you've tested the hypothesis with a lot of testing/experimentation you still need to propose an explanotory framework that explains all those facts. Until youve done so you're still at the hypothesis stage. A theory just doesn't pop out of the clear blue sky cause you've done a bunch of experiments.

that why abiogenesis isn't a theory.......its never been tested......
Click to expand...
That is correct. Abiogenisis is a hypothesis. Though it has been tested (Miller-Urey experiment comes to mind) it's just the hypothesis has not generated enough testable predictions to construct a plausable explanatory framework to consider it a valid scientific theory.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That is correct. Abiogenisis is a hypothesis. Though it has been tested (Miller-Urey experiment comes to mind) it's just the hypothesis has not generated enough testable predictions to construct a plausable explanatory framework to consider it a valid scientific theory.
Click to expand...

if Miller-Urey was an experiment of abiogenesis, it failed, as no life resulted....as far as I am aware, no one is even bothering to try experimentation of abiogenesis.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if Miller-Urey was an experiment of abiogenesis, it failed, as no life resulted....as far as I am aware, no one is even bothering to try experimentation of abiogenesis.....
Click to expand...

What about the Higgs Boson or gravity waves, they haven't been proved conclusively but come from pre existing theories.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if Miller-Urey was an experiment of abiogenesis, it failed, as no life resulted....as far as I am aware, no one is even bothering to try experimentation of abiogenesis.....
Click to expand...
It didn't fail. I did what it predicted it would to do. It produced the organic building blocks of life (amino acids) from inorganic matter. Now is that a long way from constructing an explanation for abiogensis? It certainly is but it's not a failed experiment as it clearly demonstrated that life could arise from inorganic conditions but that's a long way from demonstrating that life DID arise from inorganic matter and this, among other reasons, is why abiogensis is only a hypothesis.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, it only demonstrated that certain organic chemicals could create different molecules......that is no where near demonstrating that life could have arisen......
Click to expand...
Sure it demonstrated the possibility. It created amino acids from inorganic origins. Amino acids are the building blocks of organic life. If amino acids can occur under these conditions then its possilbe that life could too but that has never been demonstrated. But that's coulda, woulda, shoulda....the truth of the matter is no one currently has the ability to go back in time and actually obserive how life arose. So it's doubtful that abiogensis will be anything other than a hypothesis.
 
Why does science and faith have to be exclusive of one another? The more we learn about our world and what is beyond our world...either in macro or micro...is just more proof that at the root of it all is an intelligent designer.

I think the real issue isn't Science vs. Faith...but Science vs. Organized Religion. But that flies in the face of sectarian and religious differences. But... IMO, God gave us the brainpower and the curiosity that we have for a reason. Not to be squashed, but embraced.

The only issue with science that I have is that it tends to move into very gray areas of moral turpitude. We should be using our know how and ingenuity to serve mankind....not to amass extreme wealth and power and certainly not to destroy.

Maybe I am a dreamer...but I think this is what God wants us to do with our intelligence and aptitude....and this is where secularism and false religious teachings fall short. Don't get me wrong, I think that everyone deserves compensation for their dilligence and hard work. But when it gets to the point where you've amassed so much power that a person or a company can dictate public policy and squash new technology and innovation just so they can keep their gravy train rolling is no better than religious organizations damning technology and innovation as heresy.

In both instances it's about power and control.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Sure it demonstrated the possibility. It created amino acids from inorganic origins. Amino acids are the building blocks of organic life. If amino acids can occur under these conditions then its possilbe that life could too but that has never been demonstrated. But that's coulda, woulda, shoulda....the truth of the matter is no one currently has the ability to go back in time and actually obserive how life arose. So it's doubtful that abiogensis will be anything other than a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Glycine, the simplest of the 20 odd amino acids has been detected in galactic dust clouds.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top