Science/Faith And origins Of Life!

[JesusFan]

I think there is very little true science today.

Also very little "real" Bible teaching going on much today either!

 

[glfredrick]

Speaking (momentarily) for science FAL, you according to your statement, also do not KNOW, real science, true science always leaves itself open for criticisms and refinement and yes corrections. Real and honest science seeks to know "truth" that can be codified in equations and mathematical relationships. Unfortunately, many scientists (some deservedly) approach science with agenda, far too often and agenda marked by anti-theism.

That is a very naive view from someone who claims to be involved with science, as you do. Sounds rather like the 2nd grade textbook explanation of the scientific principle.

The real way it works is that once a scientist (or consensus) falls into place on a certain item it takes what amounts to an act of God to change their minds, never mind any facts, further theorizing, falsification of the main tenet of the theory, etc.

In other words, while there is "true and honest" science happening in our world, it is not wrapped up in the large worldview questions such as "how did we get here." That is an a priori decision made that cannot be changed and that precipitated on the attempt to prove or disprove a negative, something that is philosophical in nature, not scientific.

To those who insist that science is only observation, experiment, and theory, think again. You too are using a 2nd grade level textbook approach. Science is much more than that now and has been since Copernicus.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I'm sorry crabby but I just think intelligent life out there is just a silly proposal.

If there is intelligent life out there they may well believe there is no intelligent life out there ... i.e. where we are. Can't be proven either way.

 

[glfredrick]

The general direction these days is to back peddle against the idea that there is intelligent life everywhere in the universe. That was a position founded on raw probability, i.e., there are millions of solar systems and by the law of averages "this many" should have intelligent life. Since the advent of the anthropic principles we now (rightly) understand how rare life may be in the cosmos.

And even if we did find other "life" out there (by any definition currently in use) I still cannot see how that could be used to further the theory that life came to earth from some point in outer space. Rather difficult to prove what we cannot see, touch, or test, no? Just pushes the a priori philosophy to a place where it can never be falsified.

 

[mandym]

The general direction these days is to back peddle against the idea that there is intelligent life everywhere in the universe. That was a position founded on raw probability, i.e., there are millions of solar systems and by the law of averages "this many" should have intelligent life. Since the advent of the anthropic principles we now (rightly) understand how rare life may be in the cosmos.

And even if we did find other "life" out there (by any definition currently in use) I still cannot see how that could be used to further the theory that life came to earth from some point in outer space. Rather difficult to prove what we cannot see, touch, or test, no? Just pushes the a priori philosophy to a place where it can never be falsified.

Anthropic principles is used by evolutionists to defend their view.

Source: "Darwin on Trial" Phillip E. Johnson pg. 104

 

[JesusFan]

That is a very naive view from someone who claims to be involved with science, as you do. Sounds rather like the 2nd grade textbook explanation of the scientific principle.

The real way it works is that once a scientist (or consensus) falls into place on a certain item it takes what amounts to an act of God to change their minds, never mind any facts, further theorizing, falsification of the main tenet of the theory, etc.

In other words, while there is "true and honest" science happening in our world, it is not wrapped up in the large worldview questions such as "how did we get here." That is an a priori decision made that cannot be changed and that precipitated on the attempt to prove or disprove a negative, something that is philosophical in nature, not scientific.

To those who insist that science is only observation, experiment, and theory, think again. You too are using a 2nd grade level textbook approach. Science is much more than that now and has been since Copernicus.

Modern scientists whose world view is full naturalistic would ALWAYS been seeing "scientific facts" thru that lense, as they will inteprete it as one whose basis is to deny beforehand that there can be ANY supernatural aspect to life being originated, how man developed etc...

that is why very hard to have those holding to creationism, intelligent design to get peer reviewed/published, as majority of those scientists would reject beforehand anything going against their naturlastic viewpoints!

 

[JesusFan]

The general direction these days is to back peddle against the idea that there is intelligent life everywhere in the universe. That was a position founded on raw probability, i.e., there are millions of solar systems and by the law of averages "this many" should have intelligent life. Since the advent of the anthropic principles we now (rightly) understand how rare life may be in the cosmos.

And even if we did find other "life" out there (by any definition currently in use) I still cannot see how that could be used to further the theory that life came to earth from some point in outer space. Rather difficult to prove what we cannot see, touch, or test, no? Just pushes the a priori philosophy to a place where it can never be falsified.

If one looks at the incredible odds against even simple life forms "originating" apart from a Creator, by natural processes...

extremely hard to prove by math that any other Planet would have life, as needs to have all factors exactly right, temperature, Sun type/atmosphere etc... Much less what is needed to have intelligent life happen "naturally!"

 

[Deacon]

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
Romans 11:33 (ESV)

 

[glfredrick]

Anthropic principles is used by evolutionists to defend their view.

Source: "Darwin on Trial" Phillip E. Johnson pg. 104

Sure, but the anthropic principles are also working largely against the evolutionists view as more and more are discovered. They point -- decidedly -- to a fine-tuned, created universe that was build on purpose to specifications pre-know by the creator. All working in favor of the Christian worldview and more, convincing persons like one of the world's most famous atheist, Anthony Flew, to change his views to deism.

 

[quantumfaith]

Science is knowledge gained by observation.
There was no one there to observe the creation of the earth, or the origins of the universe as others would put it.

DHK, there is much "knowledge" in the domain of science which is not "directly" observed, that does not necessarily relegate that science to being wrong or incorrect. In fact, one cannot PROVE even the logical foundations of mathematics. This goes also for our faith in God, one cannot PROVE the existence of God but yet we as believers count it an absolute truth.

 

[quantumfaith]

If one looks at the incredible odds against even simple life forms "originating" apart from a Creator, by natural processes...

extremely hard to prove by math that any other Planet would have life, as needs to have all factors exactly right, temperature, Sun type/atmosphere etc... Much less what is needed to have intelligent life happen "naturally!"

JF, first of all I am completely in agreement with you regarding the Creator YHWH, but keep in mind to in Genesis 1, we are informed that the world was designed to "bring forth life", designed of course this way by God Himself.

then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

 

[freeatlast]

DHK, there is much "knowledge" in the domain of science which is not "directly" observed, that does not necessarily relegate that science to being wrong or incorrect. In fact, one cannot PROVE even the logical foundations of mathematics. This goes also for our faith in God, one cannot PROVE the existence of God but yet we as believers count it an absolute truth.

Please give an example of knowledge in the domain of science that is not directly observed.

 

[quantumfaith]

That is a very naive view from someone who claims to be involved with science, as you do. Sounds rather like the 2nd grade textbook explanation of the scientific principle.

The real way it works is that once a scientist (or consensus) falls into place on a certain item it takes what amounts to an act of God to change their minds, never mind any facts, further theorizing, falsification of the main tenet of the theory, etc.

In other words, while there is "true and honest" science happening in our world, it is not wrapped up in the large worldview questions such as "how did we get here." That is an a priori decision made that cannot be changed and that precipitated on the attempt to prove or disprove a negative, something that is philosophical in nature, not scientific.

To those who insist that science is only observation, experiment, and theory, think again. You too are using a 2nd grade level textbook approach. Science is much more than that now and has been since Copernicus.

Sorry you feel that way, and no, "real honest and true science" should in fact be that way. So I will just be content in the naivete implied by you.

 

[quantumfaith]

Please give an example of knowledge in the domain of science that is not directly observed.

The interaction of atomic and sub atomic particles. The results of collisions of said particles and the aftermath, which is the point of the LHC. The four fundamental forces, gravity, electro-magnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces.

 

[freeatlast]

The interaction of atomic and sub atomic particles. The results of collisions of said particles and the aftermath, which is the point of the LHC.

How is the interaction of atomic and sub atomic particles not observable? To be observable does not require visibly seeing the interaction.

 

[quantumfaith]

How is the interaction of atomic and sub atomic particles not observable? To be observable does not require visibly seeing the interaction.

That was my understanding as to the argument that science knows nothing that it does not directly observe. As to the particles, it is sensors and computers that "see" and interpret the aftermath, not direct observation. .......As I see it.

Guess it comes down once again to definitions, our definition of "observable".

 

[freeatlast]

That was my understanding as to the argument that science knows nothing that it does not directly observe. As to the particles, it is sensors and computers that "see" and interpret the aftermath, not direct observation. .......As I see it.

Guess it comes down once again to definitions, our definition of "observable".

All right. Back to the OP question. Would you agree with this answer?

The answer is no.It is impossible for science to prove the origin of life on earth.
The reason is the definition of science;
""knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws"

The creation of life on earth was a supernatural event, ( a miracle) by God outside the laws of science and cannot be duplicated in practice. Science cannot prove how life started. All they can do is speculate and make false statements as if they know.

 

[quantumfaith]

All right. Back to the OP question. Would you agree with this answer?

The answer is no.It is impossible for science to prove the origin of life on earth.
The reason is the definition of science;
""knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws"

The creation of life on earth was a supernatural event, ( a miracle) by God outside the laws of science and cannot be duplicated in practice. Science cannot prove how life started. All they can do is speculate and make false statements as if they know.

I guess I don't understand our disagreement, if there is one, I did not intend to suggest that life was anything but the creation of God. I am not a "naturalist".

 

[freeatlast]

I guess I don't understand our disagreement, if there is one, I did not intend to suggest that life was anything but the creation of God. I am not a "naturalist".

No I am not suggesting that about you. The point is the OP question. “has science proved yet where/how life on earth started, and just how man developed intelligence/self awareness?” My response is Science cannot prove how all this or any part of it came about one way or the other is my contention, as nothing can be duplicated, reproduced in any fashion, or observed because this is outside the realm of the laws of science being done by a miracle.
Science cannot prove or disprove how the results of a miracle happened or its origin. That only comes by faith. In fact science by its very nature has to deny miracles although a scientist can believe in them and explain them outside of the scientific realm, yet not by scientific study.

 

[OldRegular]

Life is a natural phenomenon. It is highly likely that any planet where the conditions are similar to that on earth will have life of some kind. This, IMHO, does not make life less of a miracle. Someday it will be discovered that life does exist on other planets ... maybe even intelligent life. Does God love that life, if it exists? The answer is yes.

There is no universal agreement on what the word "life" means.

Can I prove the above. No. However it cannot be disproven either.

If the origin of life is a natural phenomena why do we not observe new life forms appearing daily? We don't and that is proof enough that life is not the result of natural phenomena! It is nonsense to believe that that life originated by natural means given the complexity of even the simplest life forms!

It is also very sad when those who profess salvation through Jesus Christ would deny Him as Creator. If God did not create then why would he die for the salvation of "an accident of nature"?