Or germ theory. Or relativity.
What forced the change in orthodoxy? Facts.
What doesn't force a change? Outrageous beliefs and claims.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A.B. : Artificial Biology.
- Thread starter John D. Brey
- Start date
What forced the change in orthodoxy? Facts.
What doesn't force a change? Outrageous beliefs and claims.
Or doesn't believe something you do.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
It's all down to definitions of random, cleverness and evolution.
Random is very precise - go try your luck at a casino and see
how 'random chance' is stacked in the casino's favor.
'Normal Distribution' (or the bell-curve) gives 100% accurate
assessment of your chances.
If you are coming from a Judeao Christian perspective then we
are told not to question how God does things - anything from our
biology, translations of the bible to the way the Gospel is given.
Just accept that it's all strange. Exodus 1, in the first creation
account, gives the precise sequence of events from nothing to
us people - and it says, 'God commanded the seas to bring forth
life...'
You can assume that for most anyone that has had a science class.
Why bother to waste my time more than I have. Your posts are nonsense, supported by fantasy, misunderstanding and wild conjecture, and defended with logical fallacies. You believe you are revealing truth. Any attempts to interject knowledge, evidence and reality into that would be futile.
I believe some people not only drink koolaid, but they drink their own mix.
I see the same patterns repeated in these things. Truth that will shake the orthodoxy, but never published in a peer reviewed format for all to see. Claims supported largely by attacking the orthodox view and declaring persecution of the staunch defender as evidence of this new and revealing truth. No significant support of the claims. Expounding the virtue of logic while using logical fallacies as a support mechanism. It is the same hamster wheel of pseudoscience, belief and nonsense strung together with fancy looking bailing wire and chewing gum.
Careful how you use that funny face John. My post was not intended as a joke. But that sort of response is what I would expect.
Mutations are random, but selection is not.
There is, of course, no evidence that organisms are self-selecting or cause specific mutations as seems to be indicated by the radical, unsupported views piled up by others on here.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
It's often new facts, in opposition to existing facts, that lead to the rescinding of what were once considered orthodox truth. For instance, at one time it was considered factual that light doesn't, can't, bend. But when Einstein noted undeniable facts that contradicted the orthodox factuality of the belief that light can't bend, something had to bend or break: either the new observations, or the old orthodoxy.
John
The fact that science is built on new evidence and understanding superseding existing understanding does not magically make wild conjecture a challenge to that existing understanding. You propose conjecture using a typical format, layered in the overuse of words and irrelevant quotes by the likes dead presidents.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
I come from a Judeo/Christian foundation. And I've never been told not to question how God does things, but rather, I've been told from the start not to question that God does things.
In a similar vein, someone earlier in the thread implied that Christians are taught not to believe in global warming. So I corrected them by pointing out that Revelation 16:8 claims that at the end of the age God will cause intense global warming.
But in the same place the Bible says God will cause intense global warming it points out that he sends it not because of fossil fuels, or modern technologies, but because of the very people who claim that what God has full control over is in fact the result to natural causes, and even man made decisions.
The Bible predicts global warming will come about at the same time, according to its two-thousand year old prediction, that people begin to buy and sell by using numbers in their hand or their memory (say a credit card number), rather than tangible legal tender. As a triune prophesy of literally biblical proportions, it adds to global warming, and credit card purchasing, same-sex marriages, as the sign that one of the things you should use your credit card to purchase is a bomb shelter and a few tons of asbestos.
The Bible's claim is that global warming is the result of agnostics, and atheists, whom it calls "blasphemers," and not because of fossil fuels or those who reject that global warming is a natural phenomenon. The Bible literally implies that if agnostics and atheists would quit claiming global warming is a natural phenomenon caused by men, then it wouldn't even exist. The hot air of the atheist and agnostic's worldview is, according to the Bible at least, causing God to send global warming.
John
Last edited:
Facts don't oppose each other. Only interpretations of facts are faulty.
The BELEIF that light couldn't bend was shown to be in error.
This is why when someone proposes a belief is true then it has to be built on substantial facts. Belief in Bible stories have no such facts, so they remain irrelevant to describing reality.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
The advance of science is not due to the fact that more and more perceptual experiences accumulate in the course of time. Nor is it due to the fact that we are making ever better use of our senses. Out of uninterpreted sense-experiences science cannot be distilled, no matter how industriously we gather and sort them. Bold ideas, unjustified anticipations, and speculative thought, are our only means for interpreting nature: our only organon, our only instrument, for grasping her.
Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, p. 280.
Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, p. 280.
John
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
I would say "facts" are themselves interpretations that are subject to revision. At one time it was considered factual that the earth was flat. At one time it was considered factual that the sun revolved around the earth.
I'm not sure what you think a "fact" is such that they never oppose one another?
Facts are supported by the belief that they're factual. When that belief is proven wrong, the fact is no longer considered factual. In science, things that have been considered factual fall by the wayside all the time when a bigger badder fact kicks a weaker fact's ***.
It's a sad spectacle when certain unnamed persons collect weak, beaten facts, with which to establish their epistemology, under the mistaken belief that like a once great fighter, pulverized facts might still have some fight left in them. They usually don't. They just get thrown another good beat-down like the once great Evander Holyfield did just the other day.
John
Last edited:
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
Is your avatar your pet rabbit? He's truly adorable.
John
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Which particular bible stories?
Some stories?
All stories?
Are you challenging the Babylonian exile, for instance, as recorded in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, Daniel, Nehemia etc.. ?
The story about a Davidic monarchy?
Luke account of the spread of Christianity across the Roman Empire?
Any arbitrary Bible text that has no historical or factual basis. John was referring to Revelations predicting climate change. That's pretty weak.
Any text that is used to guide scientific enquiry that isn't based in fact, like females being their own species. How is that sort of thing defendable?
So whatever you think facts are could be in error?
Give us a few examples of really established facts that turned out to not be facts. We can't count assumptions like how infection was caused by bad spirits instead of micro-organisms. Micro-organisms were observed, thus factual. Spirits were just assumptions left over from obsolete religious beliefs.
Well don't get down on yourself about it.
Unfit for human consumption.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
. . . The Gospel John's prediction that a credit card number will eventually replace legal tender for buying and selling (Revelation 13:16-17).
John