rrobs
Well-Known Member
Settled? And it will stand for the next 2,000 years?Aristotle did not apply the scientific method to the concept of vitalism.
The both the fact and the theory of evolution is settled already.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Settled? And it will stand for the next 2,000 years?Aristotle did not apply the scientific method to the concept of vitalism.
The both the fact and the theory of evolution is settled already.
In no way is science anti-God and, at least two me, the two must mesh because the Truth cannot be relative even though they approach the Truth from different perspectives.Who to believe? I made my choice a long time ago. Goodby science and hello God!
I forgot Einstein said that. Brilliant man, that Einstein.In no way is science anti-God and, at least two me, the two must mesh because the Truth cannot be relative even though they approach the Truth from different perspectives.
As Einstein said, to study the universe and all that's in it is to study God.
Aristotle actually laid the groundwork the scientific method. Do you not think that Aristotle was as sure of his science as we are or ours? Probably, and yet we now know he wasn't close to the actual nature of things.Aristotle believed in Apollo, too. Should we draw the same conclusions about the fate of your current religion, whatever that is?
anyway, you are confusing conclusions coming from philosophy with conclusions coming from scientific evidence.
We have known that the square root of 2 is not a rational number for about 2300 years and I know that that won't change within the next 2300 years. Am I closed minded?Christians are often accused of closed mindedness. I'd say the poster child of closed mindedness is to believe that what we know about life today will stand, albeit with a few minor adjustments, for the next 2,000 years. It's mind boggling to me that few are willing to even consider the possibility that we have evolution 180 degrees backwards. That's closed mindedness on steroids.
Well, you didn't understand me correctly. Probably from my lack of clarity. In any case, pi is pi, and evolution is evolution. Pure mathematics is not at all like evolution. Pi is a mathematical constant whereas evolution is a theory.We have known that the square root of 2 is not a rational number for about 2300 years and I know that that won't change within the next 2300 years. Am I closed minded?
If I understand you correctly, you advocate the position that knowledge about anything is impossible, a much more radical position than even my radical Agnosticism. It borders on solipsism.
Am I right?
And all scientific theories are subject to change or replacement. What are not subject to change or replacement are the facts, fossil record, DNA, evo-devo. Every new theory has to explain all of these facts and make predictions other than the ToE and be found more correct than the ToE.Well, you do not understand me correctly. Probably from my lack of clarity. In any case, pi is pi, and evolution is evolution. Pure mathematics is not at all like evolution. Pi is a mathematical constant whereas evolution is a theory.
Cosmology has been mostly stuck for a hundred years.
When do we admit the problems might be fundamental?
You must be joking.
Cosmology didn’t even start until about a century ago, and all its advances have been due to relativity and quantum mechanics, combined with the new forms of observation of the heavens that these have led to, I.e. the big advances in physics during the c.20th.
A century ago we had no idea about stellar nuclear fusion and the lifecycle of stars. We had no idea about the red shift or the CMBR and hence no idea about the Big Bang or the age of the universe . We had no observation of pulsars or the effects of black holes, or countless other features of modern astronomy that cosmology profits from.
It is very hard to take you seriously when you say such egregiously silly things.
Or maybe you take modern cosmology for granted without questioning anything?You must be joking.
Natural Cosmology and Cosmogony have really existed for thousands of years in several cultures with their descriptions of Creation Stories. If you study Comparative Mythology and Religion from all over the World, you´ll find very similar tellings how the creation/formation came to be.Cosmology didn’t even start until about a century ago, and all its advances have been due to relativity and quantum mechanics, combined with the new forms of observation of the heavens that these have led to, I.e. the big advances in physics during the c.20th.
Every single one of these issues can be and are been questioned because they all are based on just ONE single (speculated) fundamental force and even the weakest of them all.A century ago we had no idea about stellar nuclear fusion and the lifecycle of stars. We had no idea about the red shift or the CMBR and hence no idea about the Big Bang or the age of the universe . We had no observation of pulsars or the effects of black holes, or countless other features of modern astronomy that cosmology profits from.
You must be joking.
Cosmology didn’t even start until about a century ago, and all its advances have been due to relativity and quantum mechanics, combined with the new forms of observation of the heavens that these have led to, I.e. the big advances in physics during the c.20th.
A century ago we had no idea about stellar nuclear fusion and the lifecycle of stars. We had no idea about the red shift or the CMBR and hence no idea about the Big Bang or the age of the universe . We had no observation of pulsars or the effects of black holes, or countless other features of modern astronomy that cosmology profits from.
It is very hard to take you seriously when you say such egregiously silly things.
I rather would say we´ve learned of lots of cosmological theories and learned almost nothing regarding real cosmological advances and unified knowledge.We've certainly learned a lot in the last century but theory has not advanced a lot.
I rather would say we´ve learned of lots of cosmological theories and learned almost nothing regarding real cosmological advances and unified knowledge.
In fact, modern cosmology has gone completely into "dark mode" all over the places because "gravity" cannot explain several observations and cosmological motions and provide logical explanations. When being contradicted, dark matter, dark energy and dark holes or objects are all just speculative and inserted Newtonian ghosts.
A theoretical unification in cosmology will not happen before modern cosmologists drop the Newtonian speculative idea of "gravity" and include the EM forces, qualities and motion of formation.
I rather would say we´ve learned of lots of cosmological theories and learned almost nothing regarding real cosmological advances and unified knowledge.
Natural Cosmology and Cosmogony have really existed for thousands of years in several cultures with their descriptions of Creation Stories. If you study Comparative Mythology and Religion from all over the World, you´ll find very similar tellings how the creation/formation came to be.
Most of the modern cosmology is de facto based on ideas from about 1650 with Newtons speculations about gravity, "laws of celestial motions" and the later gravitational ideas of cosmic collisions, explosions and accretion of the explosed stars.
I can hear Aristotle saying all of that about his ideas. That doesn't mean what you say is wrong, but it is food for thought. I'm talking about 2,000 years of using at least as good of scientific methods we currently use (probably much better methods will arise, but we'll discount that probability for now) just may prove our current theory of evolution is completely wrong.And all scientific theories are subject to change or replacement. What are not subject to change or replacement are the facts, fossil record, DNA, evo-devo. Every new theory has to explain all of these facts and make predictions other than the ToE and be found more correct than the ToE.
That makes it impossible that the ToE is turned by 180 degrees. Evolution is a fact, the ToE is backed by so much evidence like few other theories and the principle of evolution is a mathematical certainty.
The knowledge about evolution makes those who know the details as sure as a mathematician is sure that pi is irrational.
Maybe our misunderstanding is in the term "completely wrong". What do you mean by that?I can hear Aristotle saying all of that about his ideas. That doesn't mean what you say is wrong, but it is food for thought. I'm talking about 2,000 years of using at least as good of scientific methods we currently use (probably much better methods will arise, but we'll discount that probability for now) just may prove our current theory of evolution is completely wrong.
Good question. I guess "completely wrong" is too much. Maybe "a lot wrong?"Maybe our misunderstanding is in the term "completely wrong". What do you mean by that?
Do you think it is possible that we find that DNA is not the carrier of the building plan of the phenotype?
Nobody educated in science thinks that, though. It's just another of these silly straw men erected by creationists in order to ridicule science. No doubt it is rhetorically useful, when ridiculing science to a select audience of ignorant creationists, though. I'm sure it gets a lot of laughs in such company.Christians are often accused of closed mindedness. I'd say the poster child of closed mindedness is to believe that what we know about life today will stand, albeit with a few minor adjustments, for the next 2,000 years.
Well, then we mostly agree. Evolution will still be "the change of allele frequencies n a population over time", we will still have descent with modification and we will still have (natural) selection. Only that you call that "totally different" and I call it "basically the same".Good question. I guess "completely wrong" is too much. Maybe "a lot wrong?"
As far phenotype go, they do carry the building plan. That is precisely what makes a dog a dog, and why a dog will always make a dog. They can undergo mutations, but it will be a mutated dog, perhaps over time a new species of dog, but a dog nonetheless. I don't think in and of themselves they either prove or disprove evolution.
Having said that, I would consider it highly possible that in 2,000 years science will see something more fundamental than phenotypes that make us what we are. But maybe not.