concept of GOD in science

[recursion]

 

While that is true, your vague claims do nothing to change the very clear evidence that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. It may be that new evidence will emerge that will change, slightly, our understanding of the history of the Earth. This might add or subtract a few million years here or there but it will not change the overall picture.

 

 

[i hope you will excuse me cutting some of your rambling, near incoherent sentences down a bit, to focus on the main point.]

 

IF god exists. But, from a scientific (objective, measurable evidence) point ot of view, there is no reason to consider such a possibility.

 

 

Correct.

 

 

That is not what science is about (and hasn't been for a long time). You might wish science had different goals but ... well ... <shrug> ... tough.

 

 

You have some very weird ideas. Philosophy is not conjecture, it is about the rigorous analysis of questions. Logic is part of philosophy (with formal logic becoming part of mathematics). Logic is NOT fact.

 

 

So it is not really objective, is it.

 

No, the nature of science is to understand information found through observation, understanding, and perfect logic. When a true scientists says "the earth is over 6,000 years old," he knowingly is saying, at a deeper level, "the evidence that we have been presented or found suggests that the earth is over 6,000 years old," which on a personal level, I don't disagree with -- it certainly seems like it's over 6,000 years old, however just as it's really easy to build and destroy a pile of dirt, machine automation could easily fool our surprisingly egotistical and short-sighted society, both of which science is purposefully designed to avoid (with science there is no truth that is not absolutely true -- not that we make bold assumptions and we state it as absolute fact -- we understand the material fact is based on material observation combined with human understanding with adherence to strict logic).

 

Error-free logic from a true foundation is fact, unequivocally. It is completely objective. Error-free logic from a true foundation (the process of truthful deduction and understanding of interconnected codefining existences or phenomena) is the essence of science, which I think actually stems from the technical definition of philosophy, which is the love of knowledge.

 

To further reiterate, science is definitely, at the very least, entirely founded upon "the objective and error-free search for truth" -- to claim it is not is to claim it is the search for a lie or a search for truth filled with errors.

 

 

[Strange]

No, the nature of science is to understand information found through observation, understanding, and perfect logic. When a true scientists says "the earth is over 6,000 years old," he knowingly is saying, at a deeper level, "the evidence that we have been presented or found suggests that the earth is over 6,000 years old,"

 

This is true. However, your vague ramblings, once again, do nothing to suggest how the wealth of evidence we currently have could magically be shown to be wrong.

 

Unless you are resorting to that schoolboy philosophy of "maybe the world was created 10 minutes ago and only made to look 4 billion years old".

 

 

Error-free logic from a true foundation is fact, unequivocally.

 

The word you are looking for is "sound" not fact.

 

 

To further reiterate, science is definitely, at the very least, entirely founded upon "the objective and error-free search for truth" -- to claim it is not is to claim it is the search for a lie or a search for truth filled with errors.

 

That isn't what science is. And you have now added "straw man" to your collection of fallacies. Well done.

[Arete]

Science does absolutely nothing to disprove that. There is strong evidence of dozens of prior completed developments of a species ("completed development" meaning evolved to a level at which they understand truth at a fundamental level and have a mastery of physics). The rate at which evolution occurs is extremely fast – from a fairly basic development of life (lizards and frogs, simple but not very simple creatures – still highly complex) it appears evolution takes no more than 4 million years or so, with 2-3 million looking to be the time required. Thus, scientifically, there is a strong possibility of changing history. Science only explains that with the observations we have accounted, we see there is a strong trend towards a certain cause being the reason.

 

This a seriously commendable effort to fit the most number of flawed statements into a single paragraph.

 

1) Just so I'm straight, you're claiming that nothing in the entire realm of science provides any evidence to counter the claim that the known universe is 6,000 years old? If that is what you're saying, that's patently absurd. I'm struggling to think of a scientific field which DOESN'T reject the idea of young earth creationism to an extremely high statistical probability. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Branches_of_science_you_have_to_ignore_to_believe_in_young_Earth_creationism

 

2) Strong evidence of multiple species which, to quote "understand truth at a fundamental level and have a mastery of physics". Really? Excluding Homo sapiens, name one.

 

3) "Completed development" is meaningless in the context of a continuous process like evolution. Not even wrong territory.

 

4) The rate at which evolution occurs (i.e. the change of allele frequency in a population) is a product of mutation rate, generation time, population size and selective pressure. It can be extremely slow, or very rapid. A blanket statement about rates of evolution is inherently incorrect.

 

5) The next section is highly confusing. Are you saying that for a lizard or a frog (two completely different vertebrate lineages btw) are "simple organisms" and you know precisely how long it takes them to evolve from the primordial soup?

 

6) "Speciation takes X years" is a laughably ignorant statement. Aside from the fact that "species" is an arbitrary point on the continuum of biological diversification, the process of diversification ranges in rate from extremely fast (>200 years in the case of the apple maggot fly http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v407/n6805/abs/407739a0.html)to extremely slow (hundreds of millions of years in crocodilians http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10709-005-8008-2#page-1) To say it takes "no more than 4 million years" is comprehensively false.

 

7) "Strong possibility of changing history" - this sentence is nonsensical in this context.

 

8) Again, it is difficult to make sense of your last sentence here, but you appear to be saying that science only takes into account that which is observable, and thus looks for causation of observations in observable phenomena. Which is absolutely true, but I would utterly fail to see why this a weakness of the scientific method.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Arete

[halsienkiewicz1]

I never heard anyone say their own views are illogical.