Science vs Religion, I will solve this debate for you once and for all.

[shunyadragon]

Theory doesn't refer to a guess as myth doesn't refer to fairy tale.

Incoherent, please explain.

 

[pearl]

Incoherent, please explain.

If there is to be a conversation among scientists and theologians there must be mutual respect for the meaning of the terms as they apply to the their respective field of expertise.

"......if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking

 

[osgart]

Chemistry creates enzymes, but the process begins with simpler compounds like sugars, lipids, amino acids &c, which can polymerize into larger, more complex structures. No-one's saying life just popped into being fully formed.
The mechanism, once underway, is not pure chance. The video doesn't rule out chemistry. It strikes me as a variation of the irreducible complexity argument.

Maybe proto-life does appear frequently, but we're not likely to "see" it unless we've got a microscope focused at exactly the right spot at exactly the right time. As far as developing further into a fully developed, 2nd lineage of life, once available biological niches are successfully occupied by well adapted life forms, it's unlikely an new, poorly adapted organism could successfully compete and gain a foothold.

yeah but does the chemical process continue to happen again and again before getting consistently snuffed out or is life a one time event and science will never find the catalyzing of new life?

I suppose bacteria would kill the process before it ever gets off the ground.

 

[Ponder This]

Science never proposed that it establishes the truth.

It appears that science is unable to establish that your post exists.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes, we know you feel that way. However, others on here do seem to think science establishes truth.

Only non-scientists I'd wager.

 

[shunyadragon]

If there is to be a conversation among scientists and theologians there must be mutual respect for the meaning of the terms as they apply to the their respective field of expertise.

"......if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking

There are any very good science publications on all levels education and age available through the internet, schools, book stores and libraries. It is available and understanding fro everyone.

The problem remains your initial posts were combative concerning science, and reflected a poor understanding of the nature of Methodological Naturalism, and the concept of falsification of theories and hypothesis.

First, and foremost, scientists do not prove nor disprove theories and hypothesis.

Second, the science of evolution is based on the same sound science as all the sciences. The sciences of chemistry, biology, geology, and physics all support the science of evolution, and 99%+ of all the scientists in these fields support evolution.

Third, there very very few, and likely no scientists believe they have all the answers. If they did they would stop all research and give up advancing the evolving body of knowledge of science, which in reality changes and evolves over time.

The conversation of finding harmony between religion and science does not begin by putting down science.

 

[shunyadragon]

It appears that science is unable to establish that your post exists.

Actually science could care less about the existence of my posts, but some scientists have read the articles on soil science and coastal plain geomorphology that I have published in the past.

 

[Milton Platt]

Theory doesn't refer to a guess as myth doesn't refer to fairy tale.

What is the factual difference between a myth and a fairy tail?

 

[Ponder This]

Actually science could care less about the existence of my posts, but some scientists have read the articles on soil science and coastal plain geomorphology that I have published in the past.

Would you say that is verifiable or falsifiable?

 

[shunyadragon]

Would you say that is verifiable or falsifiable?

The research I did for the articles is verifiable based on the data I collected in the field, and repeatable by anyone who wishes to repeat the data collection and tests, therefore falsifiable.

 

[Valjean]

yeah but does the chemical process continue to happen again and again before getting consistently snuffed out or is life a one time event and science will never find the catalyzing of new life?

I suppose bacteria would kill the process before it ever gets off the ground.

The chemical "pieces" from which proto life assembles arise naturally, through ordinary chemical reactions. This has been observed both in the lab and in Nature.
I'm not sure how extensively you're defining "the chemical process." Various components get created all the time, combinations less often, proto cells even less often, but it's a big planet, with billions of organic chemical reactions occurring every second.
Exploring Life's Origins: Fatty Acids -- Click around. Explore site.

How often complex organic structures form is unknown, How hardy they are is unknown. How they function within established biological systems is unknown. How often components assemble into structures most people would consider "alive" is unknown.

This is an active area of study, and most people pooh poohing abiogenesis don't seem to have enough knowledge of chemistry, biology or ecology to support their skepticism.
I'd also point out that the alternative usually proposed is magic -- an even more dubious "explanation," IMHO.

 

[pearl]

First, and foremost, scientists do not prove nor disprove theories and hypothesis.

If it was proven it would not be a theory. A hypothesis represents the most probable solution.

The problem remains your initial posts were combative concerning science

How so?

The conversation of finding harmony between religion and science does not begin by putting down science.

I don't believe I did 'put down' science.

 

[shunyadragon]

If it was proven it would not be a theory. A hypothesis represents the most probable solution.

Not in science.

How so?

I don't believe I did 'put down' science.

Here;

". . .the same way science makes claims, uh, I mean theories, many that can't be proven, but must be believed with faith. To put it more plainly science is merely the new age religion."

 

[pearl]

". . .the same way science makes claims, uh, I mean theories, many that can't be proven, but must be believed with faith. To put it more plainly science is merely the new age religion."

That is not my post

 

[pearl]

What is the factual difference between a myth and a fairy tail?

Each represents a particular literary genre.

 

[osgart]

There are any very good science publications on all levels education and age available through the internet, schools, book stores and libraries. It is available and understanding fro everyone.

The problem remains your initial posts were combative concerning science, and reflected a poor understanding of the nature of Methodological Naturalism, and the concept of falsification of theories and hypothesis.

First, and foremost, scientists do not prove nor disprove theories and hypothesis.

Second, the science of evolution is based on the same sound science as all the sciences. The sciences of chemistry, biology, geology, and physics all support the science of evolution, and 99%+ of all the scientists in these fields support evolution.

Third, there very very few, and likely no scientists believe they have all the answers. If they did they would stop all research and give up advancing the evolving body of knowledge of science, which in reality changes and evolves over time.

The conversation of finding harmony between religion and science does not begin by putting down science.

let me understand this, you believe in God and methodological naturalism.

I can actually appreciate naturalism as a method. but I won't concede my conviction that intelligent agency plays a role in evolution. perhaps their is room for both; methodological naturalism, and methodological intelligence in science.

either way let the naturalists be free, and let the religious be free as well.

freedom from religion, is just as important as freedom of religion to me.

it's when people demand conformity to either one, that I oppose.

I am glad science is well honored and respected, and I hope that there is a diversity of convictions, among scientists, and a strong common ground among them all as well because religious and non religious scientists have both contributed to society majorly.

I actually hate to see religious people be put down so hard in society as well.

 

[Valjean]

If it was proven it would not be a theory. A hypothesis represents the most probable solution

If it were proven it would be a mathematical equation.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of observed facts, put forward for testing. If it's found to be sound after all attempts to find flaws, and no other explanation can be found, it may rise to the level of theory. A theory represents science's highest degree of certainty. Heliocentrism and a spherical Earth are theories, for example.

 

[pearl]

There are any very good science publications on all levels education and age available through the internet, schools, book stores and libraries. It is available and understanding fro everyone.

You were responding to a quote from Stephen Hawking.

 

[pearl]

If it's found to be sound after all attempts to find flaws, and no other explanation can be found,

And to the theologian this represents the most probable solution. It can never be proved as history can never be present.

 

[Darkstorn]

It can never be proved as history can never be present.

I don't think you know what "proof" means.