No scientific proof of god

[therhythm]

The reason I won't watch the video is because, quite simply, I have seen a load of them kinds of videos in the past, and I've yet to hear an original argument from any of them. All of the arguments fail.

 

Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate topics, and are not related to each other. If your problem is with the fact that we do not currently have an answer to the first cell (if you like) then your issue is with abiogenesis, and not evolution. It's important to draw a distinction between the two, and it's not a matter of opinion here.

 

 

If you are interested in learning more about evolution (because I'm not a biologist) I think you'd be best off looking here: www.talkorigins.org Feel free to not click if you don't want, but as I said, I don't want to mangle anything.

 

Creation and Evolution Are the Only Valid Alternative Theories of Origins

Evolutionists often assert that creationists have constructed a false dichotomy between creation and evolution, that there are actually many theories of origins. However, all theories of origins can be fitted within these two general theories. Thus, Futuyma, an evolutionist, states:

 

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence"

 

I still fail to see how Abiogenesis is not part of the marked bold in the above statement...

[SuperGeek]

Yeah I understand. I grew up being forced to watch Pat Robertson, TBN, and Benny Hinn. I'll never forget my first forced experience at a pentecostal church... I was 12 years old at the time and some dude supposedly was touched by God and passed out falling on top of me Eventually I was able to get myself out from under the 200lb guy that just fell on top of me. I saw him smile while he was laying there. :/ I stood up really quickly and then suddenly noticed the spotlight attached to the ceiling shining on me.

 

The pastor came over to my area and put his hands on my forehead and said "god touch this child and heal him from illness". I thought "what illness is that?" I was a perfectly healthy 12 yr old.

 

Anyway, he kept touching me and I didn't fall down. The guy standing next to me eventually passed out ( randomly I guess?!?!?) and I was so glad. I was being put on the spot to fall down and nothing happened to me.

 

This was when I was 12, I'm 34 now. It has taken me YEARS to recover from this type of childhood. Religion of any faith can be dangerous.

 

Note: I have no agenda by posting this. I have nothing against religious people. I just personally don't understand it and my childhood was horrible due to the misuse of religion. I was even physically abused in the name of God at around 9-12 years old. So anyone who reads this and gets offended, it's not my intention to offend you.

 

SuperGeek

 

So far, no one has proven god. When I ask a religious person for any evidence, all they tell me is to read the bible or to have faith. Faith and feelings are not proof. The bible is nothing but a book which also contradicts itself. I do not understand how anyone can blindly follow religion of any kind, not just christianity.

Edited June 28, 2013 by SuperGeek

[pie2]

Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence"

 

I still fail to see how Abiogenesis is not part of the marked bold in the above statement...

 

Great question, therhythm!! Abiogenesis seems to be an integral part of the non-creationists' point-of-view. If you take evolution to its beginning, there's nowhere else to turn but abiogenesis.

 

If atheists are just referring to changes in species when talking about evolution, well I think many religious believers understand something related to that phenomenon called adaptation.

[Robert Z]

If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence"

 

Whoops, this completely ignore the possibility of Panspermia, which might explain why the precise mechanism for life has not been identified - life arrived here, it didn't begin here.

 

It could also explain why an application off Moore's Law suggests that life began 5 billion years before the Earth was formed.

[pureinheart]

Yeah I understand. I grew up being forced to watch Pat Robertson, TBN, and Benny Hinn. I'll never forget my first forced experience at a pentecostal church... I was 12 years old at the time and some dude supposedly was touched by God and passed out falling on top of me Eventually I was able to get myself out from under the 200lb guy that just fell on top of me. I saw him smile while he was laying there. :/ I stood up really quickly and then suddenly noticed the spotlight attached to the ceiling shining on me.

 

The pastor came over to my area and put his hands on my forehead and said "god touch this child and heal him from illness". I thought "what illness is that?" I was a perfectly healthy 12 yr old.

 

Anyway, he kept touching me and I didn't fall down. The guy standing next to me eventually passed out ( randomly I guess?!?!?) and I was so glad. I was being put on the spot to fall down and nothing happened to me.

 

This was when I was 12, I'm 34 now. It has taken me YEARS to recover from this type of childhood. Religion of any faith can be dangerous.

 

Note: I have no agenda by posting this. I have nothing against religious people. I just personally don't understand it and my childhood was horrible due to the misuse of religion. I was even physically abused in the name of God at around 9-12 years old. So anyone who reads this and gets offended, it's not my intention to offend you.

 

SuperGeek

 

I'm so sorry this happened to you love...so sorry:( See, the key thing is misuse. I have never once forced my kids or grandkids...they begged me to take them, lol. I don't believe in that. The only time my kids or grandkids were taken to church and not asked is when they couldn't talk as babies. I also ask them which church THEY want to go to.

 

If you don't mind me asking, was there verbal abuse also? I would almost say that there was, but want to ask as long as it isn't too forward...

 

Take it easy love, you're among friends here;)

[pie2]

Whoops, this completely ignore the possibility of Panspermia, which might explain why the precise mechanism for life has not been identified - life arrived here, it didn't begin here.

 

It could also explain why an application off Moore's Law suggests that life began 5 billion years before the Earth was formed.

 

But where would that life have originated from?

[Robert Z]

But where would that life have originated from?

 

For all that we know, life could be common throughout the universe and is easily spread by cosmic events. As for the actual origins, it doesn't answer the question of where life began, but it might explain why a model for this is tough to produce. Perhaps the conditions that allow for abiogenesis never did exist here on earth.

 

There is even a chance that deep down, we are all Martians.

[pie2]

For all that we know, life could be common throughout the universe and is easily spread by cosmic events. As for the actual origins, it doesn't answer the question of where life began, but it might explain why a model for this is tough to produce. Perhaps the conditions that allow for abiogenesis never did exist here on earth.

 

That's an interesting point...definitely something to think about.

 

There is even a chance that deep down, we are all Martians.

 

This sounds like something for M30 . (It was inevitable )

[therhythm]

Whoops, this completely ignore the possibility of Panspermia, which might explain why the precise mechanism for life has not been identified - life arrived here, it didn't begin here.

 

It could also explain why an application off Moore's Law suggests that life began 5 billion years before the Earth was formed.

 

Actually the where the life begins is pointless, it had to be either created or evolved...

[therhythm]

Great question, therhythm!! Abiogenesis seems to be an integral part of the non-creationists' point-of-view. If you take evolution to its beginning, there's nowhere else to turn but abiogenesis.

 

Thank you Pie2, that is exactly my point!

 

If atheists are just referring to changes in species when talking about evolution, well I think many religious believers understand something related to that phenomenon called adaptation.

 

I agree with that too... there is obviously evidences that a parrot can change color or a lizard can become a bigger reptile... but I still have not found any evidence is the evolution claim that we have a common ancestor ( a fish) that then became a reptile (a totally other living form)...

Saying that because two different species share a lvl of DNA one evolved from the other is like saying that because two houses were made by the same bricks one evolved from the other....

[Robert Z]

I agree with that too... there is obviously evidences that a parrot can change color or a lizard can become a bigger reptile... but I still have not found any evidence is the evolution claim that we have a common ancestor ( a fish) that then became a reptile (a totally other living form)...

Saying that because two different species share a lvl of DNA one evolved from the other is like saying that because two houses were made by the same bricks one evolved from the other....

 

I believe the path through evolution for various species is pretty well established through not only DNA, but also bones. Generally the trouble with this sort of thing is that one would have to spend a lot of time studying biology [in this case] before the evidence would become clear. I know this is true in physics. There is no way to prove many points unless someone is willing to spend the time to become an expert in physics.

 

Dogs are somewhat of a good example. All modern dogs came from the wolf in recorded history. And it could be argued that we have seen speciation in dogs during that time as not all can successfully reproduce. I don't think it is possible for a Saint Bernard and a Chihuahua to produce a successful offspring, which is one definition of speciation. That only took about 10,000 years. Imagine how much different they might be given 100 times a long - in another million years.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Robert Z

[therhythm]

I believe the path through evolution for various species is pretty well established through not only DNA, but also bones. Generally the trouble with this sort of thing is that one would have to spend a lot of time studying biology [in this case] before the evidence would become clear. I know this is true in physics. There is no way to prove many points unless someone is willing to spend the time to become an expert in physics.

 

Dogs are somewhat of a good example. All modern dogs came from the wolf in recorded history. And it could be argued that we have seen speciation in dogs during that time as not all can successfully reproduce. I don't think it is possible for a Saint Bernard and a Chihuahua to produce a successful offspring, which is one definition of speciation. That only took about 10,000 years. Imagine how much different they might be given 100 times a long - in another million years.

 

as you say maybe there is enough substantiation to that claim if you are a biologist but to me the only real claim they have is the similitude in the DNA.

Regarless your dog-wolf analogy doesn't really work as wolf and dog are from the same familly ... but the evolution theory want me to believe that we (our ancestor) once reproduced with eggs (oviparous) and then evolved to mammal. The steps from fish to reptile to mammal are the ones I would like to have proof from (not only DNA comparisons...)

[Robert Z]

as you say maybe there is enough substantiation to that claim if you are a biologist but to me the only real claim they have is the similitude in the DNA.

Regarless your dog-wolf analogy doesn't really work as wolf and dog are from the same familly ... but the evolution theory want me to believe that we (our ancestor) once reproduced with eggs (oviparous) and then evolved to mammal. The steps from fish to reptile to mammal are the ones I would like to have proof from (not only DNA comparisons...)

 

Unless you are willing to take the time to study and learn about the existing theory and the supporting evidence, how can you ever come to an informed conclusion? Surely you don't expect to gain a proper education on biology at Love Shack or surfing the internet. You would need to break out the books and study, study, study. If you really want to understand this stuff, go to college and start taking classes.

 

I wanted to understand physics so I went out and got a degree, which means that I dedicated many thousands of hours to learning the facts and the math to support them.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Robert Z

[therhythm]

Unless you are willing to take the time to study and learn about the existing theory and the supporting evidence, how can you ever come to an informed conclusion? Surely you don't expect to gain a proper education on biology at Love Shack or surfing the internet. You would need to break out the books and study, study, study. If you really want to understand this stuff, go to college and start taking classes.

 

I wanted to understand physics so I went out and got a degree, which means that I dedicated many thousands of hours to learning the facts and the math to support them.

 

I don't pretend to learn but the basics.. in science if there is a claim it should be a theory that support it, I don't need to learn biology I just would like to get the basic explanation where the evolution is substantiated from fish to reptile and from reptile to mammal.

 

I don't pretend to comprehend physics or medicine not even the theory of the origins but I can understand the basics and over that basics is what we have been debating here.

[Robert Z]

I don't pretend to learn but the basics.. in science if there is a claim it should be a theory that support it, I don't need to learn biology I just would like to get the basic explanation where the evolution is substantiated from fish to reptile and from reptile to mammal.

 

If you don't know the subject, how can you claim that it can easily be shown. There is a reason why it takes years to get through college.

 

I don't pretend to comprehend physics or medicine not even the theory of the origins but I can understand the basics and over that basics is what we have been debating here.

 

No, you can't. You just think you can. I have no doubt that biology is just as complex and takes just a much time to learn properly.

 

A famous physicist names Feynman once said that you really don't understand physics until you can explain it to your mother. While that may be true, that doesn't mean your mother will understand it. It means that you can reduce a highly complex set of facts to conclusive statements that anyone can understand, just as biologists do.

 

Whenever I have tried to explain physics to my mother, she lasted about five minutes before her eyes glazed over. That doesn't even cover the introduction.

[therhythm]

If you don't know the subject, how can you claim that it can easily be shown. There is a reason why it takes years to get through college.

 

 

 

No, you can't. You just think you can. I have no doubt that biology is just as complex and takes just a much time to learn properly.

 

A famous physicist names Feynman once said that you really don't understand physics until you can explain it to your mother. While that may be true, that doesn't mean your mother will understand it. It means that you can reduce a highly complex set of facts to conclusive statements that anyone can understand, just as biologists do.

 

Whenever I have tried to explain physics to my mother, she lasted about five minutes before her eyes glazed over. That doesn't even cover the introduction.

Ok then I would like someone to try to explain it to me... if I don't get it is my problem I guess

 

Just by saying you would not understand it it doesn't proof any point...

[Robert Z]

Ok then I would like someone to try to explain it to me... if I don't get it is my problem I guess

 

Just by saying you would not understand it it doesn't proof any point...

 

Well, try this. You can't ask how we got from bacteria to frogs because I would imagine that covers about 10,000 Ph.D.s! and multitudes more hours of research. You have to take it one adaptation at a time. Those questions can be answered with perhaps a few Ph.D.s worth of knowledge at a time.

 

But the question here is, do enough adaptations lead to speciation. Well, I think the dogs are a good example because it demonstrates how dramatically a species can diverge within a staggeringly short period of time. You tell me, Assume that St. Bernards and chihuahuas continue to diverge at the same rate that we have seen since the wolf, 10,000 years ago. What will we have in another 990,000 years? This gets to the root of the problem. Our minds cannot conceive of periods of time this long. It is completely beyond human experience.

 

As for evidence of speciation that you can review, I would only be able to refer you to sites like these

Evolution 101: Speciation

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

A great place to watch lectures is

Khan Academy

 

It started as a math and physics oriented effort but has expanded to cover a great many subjects.

 

My take on science has been that if anyone puts in the time and effort to learn the subject, they will eventually [almost always] agree with what is taught because the weight of the evidence is overwhelming. While there are always renegades and the ever so rare Einsteins and Darwins, the consensus opinion in science is what many brilliant people have agreed to over a long period of time and based on many decades of supporting evidence. So while you might choose to accept or reject the conclusions of science, and while it is also true that long held paradigms can be overturned, I think a person has to take it on faith the science is a proven process that leads to good models and explanations.

 

At the same time, one has to be careful about sources. No scientist speaks for science. And things are not always what they seem. I can remember when it was beyond any doubt that the expansion of the universe was slowing due to gravity. Then, back in the 80s we started to get better measurements, and something unimaginable began to take form. It began to appear that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, not decelerating. But this was impossible!!! It simply couldn't be because there are no known forces to account for such a thing. The only trouble was that it turned out be true.

 

So did science lie? Was it wrong? Well, not really, but many the scientists never stated the case as it was. It turns out that the measurements that allow us to deduce such things are extremely sensitive and had a fairly large margin of error. All along the margin of error had allowed that the expansion could indeed be accelerating, but we ASSUMED that this was impossible and ignored the evidence. The science was right all along, just not the scientists who reported on it. And now we have this mysterious force thing called Dark Energy [i.e. they gave it a name] that no one understands yet.

 

But this also shows how the scientific process is self correcting. No matter how cherished the view or how embedded the paradigm, when we began to get new evidence that showed that we were wrong, the entire world of physics and astrophysics was electric with excitement! For someone like me, this was almost as good as sex!

Edited June 29, 2013 by Robert Z

[Robert Z]

And don't feel put down. This is how it is for everyone! Remember that famous physicist that I mentioned? Well he is most famous for his work in Quantum Mechanics, and this is what he said about that.

 

Anyone who understands Quantum Mechanics hasn’t yet studied it long enough."

-Richard P. Feynman

[therhythm]

Well, try this. You can't ask how we got from bacteria to frogs because I would imagine that covers about 10,000 Ph.D.s! and multitudes more hours of research. You have to take it one adaptation at a time. Those questions can be answered with perhaps a few Ph.D.s worth of knowledge at a time.

 

I found the bellow and is quite summirized... still DNA is the key substance (remember my analogy with the houses with the same bricks? Still valid)

 

Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.

Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations.

 

 

 

But the question here is, do enough adaptations lead to speciation. Well, I think the dogs are a good example because it demonstrates how dramatically a species can diverge within a staggeringly short period of time. You tell me, Assume that St. Bernards and chihuahuas continue to diverge at the same rate that we have seen since the wolf, 10,000 years ago. What will we have in another 990,000 years? This gets to the root of the problem. Our minds cannot conceive of periods of time this long. It is completely beyond human experience.

 

I don't know how they will look in 990,000 years but I can tell you that they will still be mammals...

 

As for evidence of speciation that you can review, I would only be able to refer you to sites like these

Evolution 101: Speciation

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

A great place to watch lectures is

Khan Academy

 

Thank you I will have a look to it!

 

It started as a math and physics oriented effort but has expanded to cover a great many subjects.

 

My take on science has been that if anyone puts in the time and effort to learn the subject, they will eventually [almost always] agree with what is taught because the weight of the evidence is overwhelming. While there are always renegades and the ever so rare Einsteins and Darwins, the consensus opinion in science is what many brilliant people have agreed to over a long period of time and based on many decades of supporting evidence. So while you might choose to accept or reject the conclusions of science, and while it is also true that long held paradigms can be overturned, I think a person has to take it on faith the science is a proven process that leads to good models and explanations

.

 

I actually think science is a great tool to understand the laws that mark the environment we live in... but I think people have turned science as the only explanation and I do believe that is wrong as science is not perfect .

We don't even know how many of our today's scientific theories will be refuted during the 990,000 next years you were mentioning before... and for all those brilliant people who agree on something I have been told here many times there is something called the add hominem falacy... not because many people believe in something mean that is more correct or true.

 

Anyway... how much of the total knowledge of the Universe do you think we humans have? Lets give it a wild guess and I think I am being generous if I say 1%? Do you really think that in the 99% that we don't know there can't be knowledge that contradict everything we know think true?

 

At the same time, one has to be careful about sources. No scientists speaks for science. And things are not always what they seem. I can remember when it was beyond any doubt that the expansion of the universe was slowing due to gravity. Then, back in the 80s we started to get better measurements, and something unimaginable began to take form. It began to appear that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, not decelerating. But this was impossible!!! It simply couldn't be because there are no known forces to account for such a thing. The only trouble was that it turned out be true.

 

So did science lie? Was it wrong? Well, not really, but many the scientists never stated the case as it was. It turns out that the measurements that allow us to deduce such things are extremely sensitive and had a fairly large margin of error. All along the margin of error had allowed that the expansion could indeed be accelerating, but we ASSUMED that this was impossible and ignored the evidence. The science was right all along, just not the scientists who reported on it. And how we have this mysterious force thing called Dark Energy that no one understands yet.

 

And this is key, my learning about science is that depending the area it can become very exact (mathematics) or very theoretical (theory of the origins, evolution, etc)... Not all science should be considered as a fact!

 

But this also shows how the scientific process is self correcting. No matter how cherished the view or how embedded the paradigm, when we began to get new evidence that showed that we were wrong, the entire world of physics and astrophysics was electric with excitement! For someone like me, this was almost as good as sex!

 

Yes, I can understand that, it is a challenge! I am always up for a challenge and I am always hungry for new knowledge...

Many times I have retreated that I stopped studding!

 

Thank you for your post anyway!

Edited June 29, 2013 by therhythm

[Nik1]

I think some people just have trouble comprehending oblivion; that some day they won't have a conscious, ceasing to exist in an eternal blackness. So they cling to religion that promises them everlasting life and refuse to believe otherwise, no matter how much proof is there. It's understandable, but I just don't get Christianity (being it the only religion I know a good deal about). There's so much contradiction and it just seems like people pick and choose what to believe from it. For instance, why are homosexuals such a big concern? The Bible only mentions homosexuality as a sin a couple of times in Leviticus (I think)... Jesus doesn't have an opinion about it, the Ten Commandments don't mention it. Yet, no one hate mongers against people who wear polyester, when mixing fabrics is given just as much weight as a sinful practice. And don't get me started on Catholics, what a joke.

 

I'm sure all the religions of the world contain these sorts of contradictions but I've never cared to study up on them.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Nik1

[therhythm]

I think some people just have trouble comprehending oblivion; that some day they won't have a conscious, ceasing to exist in an eternal blackness. So they cling to religion that promises them everlasting life and refuse to believe otherwise, no matter how much proof is there. It's understandable, but I just don't get Christianity (being it the only religion I know a good deal about). There's so much contradiction and it just seems like people pick and choose what to believe from it. For instance, why are homosexuals such a big concern? The Bible only mentions homosexuality as a sin a couple of times in Leviticus (I think)... Jesus doesn't have an opinion about it, the Ten Commandments don't mention it. Yet, no one hate mongers against people who wear polyester, when mixing fabrics is given just as much weight as a sinful practice. And don't get me started on Catholics, what a joke.

 

I'm sure all the religions of the world contain these sorts of contradictions but I've never cared to study up on them.

 

I don't know if you have realized about it but this thread is not about any religion in concrete, actually not about religion at all...This thread is about the existence of God and the scientific evidences to back his existence (or non existence).

 

Thanks for sharing anyway.

[Nik1]

I do not understand how anyone can blindly follow religion of any kind, not just christianity.

I was just going by this.

 

actually not about religion at all...This thread is about the existence of God and the scientific evidences to back his existence (or non existence).

O...kay, then.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Nik1

[Robert Z]

I found the bellow and is quite summirized... still DNA is the key substance (remember my analogy with the houses with the same bricks? Still valid)

 

Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.

Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations.

 

Firstly, keep in mind that DNA testing is a fairly recent innovation. It provides evidence in addition to the evidence that already existed through bone and fossil evidence. Darwin certainly didn't have DNA evidence in hand! Beyond that, I see nothing that says these are random building blocks.

 

Secondly, I would emphasize this point from your post

 

Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes

 

I don't see how you are making a case for your position here. Science requires that theories make predictions that can be tested. That is how we support or falsify hypotheses. It isn't just a matter of explaining what we see, a theory must also predict things that we cannot otherwise anticipate.

 

I don't know how they will look in 990,000 years but I can tell you that they will still be mammals...

 

You appear to be using circular logic. You are assuming your premise in order to support your premise.

 

I actually think science is a great tool to understand the laws that mark the environment we live in... but I think people have turned science as the only explanation and I do believe that is wrong as science is not perfect .

 

I don't know what you mean by perfect. Science is self correcting. It doesn't have all the answers. And I do think many people have made a religion out of science. This entire notion of Science being against "God" is a great example. The fact is that "science" doesn't even address the question.

 

We don't even know how many of our today's scientific theories will be refuted during the 990,000 next years you were mentioning before... and for all those brilliant people who agree on something I have been told here many times there is something called the add hominem falacy... not because many people believe in something mean that is more correct or true.

 

Nor do we have any reason to believe that well established theories will ever fail. In fact science has proven to be additive, not exclusionary.

 

I have to default to physics because that is what I know best. Newton said:

 

If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants

 

Newton built on the work of the many great minds that came before him. This allowed him to invent Calculus and the first proper treatment of Mechanics. This in turn results in Newton's Laws of Motion. But they are not really laws because they fail. We didn't know they fail, but Einstein came along and realized that Newton's Laws were only valid where the speeds involved are much less than the speed of light and where gravity fields are not exceedingly strong. But those conditions were beyond anything that we humans normally experience, so it was only through pure science that we were able to discover deeper laws. These deeper laws were anticipated purely mathematically, and very accurate predictions were made that defied all common sense - clocks run slow at high speeds and in strong gravity fields, mass increases with velocity, space curves due to energy... The trouble was that they turned out to be true. Einstein's predictions have been tested innumerable times since his theories were published in 1905 and 1915.

 

So here is the point. There is no reason to believe that existing theories will all one day be invalidated. It doesn't normally work that way. Science has proven to be more a process of refinement.

 

Anyway... how much of the total knowledge of the Universe do you think we humans have? Lets give it a wild guess and I think I am being generous if I say 1%? Do you really think that in the 99% that we don't know there can't be knowledge that contradict everything we know think true?

 

Do you mean knowledge of the universe, or knowledge of how the universe works? In physics, we can go back to about the first few billionths of a second or so of creation, then we go blind. Given that the universe is around 12 billion years old, that ain't bad! That would suggest that we understand all but a billionth of a trillionth of a percent of what has happened since time began. We have two theories than together can explain almost everything that we observe in terms of existence itself - General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Neither theory has ever made a false prediction - EVER! They have been correct 100% of the time over the last 80 years or so of experimentation and observations. The big problem that we have is that physicists should be able to merge these two theories into a single Grand Unified Theory, or as it is often called, a Theory of Everything. This is what String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, and a number of other efforts hope to be. So we may nearly be done. Or, we might find some big holes and have a lot to do yet. So in short, we don't know how much we know as a percentage of the whole, but it might be, most of it!

 

And this does relate to DNA and biology because ultimately, everything boils down to Quantum Mechanics. Biology depends heavily on physics these days.

 

And this is key, my learning about science is that depending the area it can become very exact (mathematics) or very theoretical (theory of the origins, evolution, etc)... Not all science should be considered as a fact!

 

Yep. But don't for a second think that any scientific claim can easily be dismissed either. By the time something gets labeled a theory, there are mountains and mountains of hard evidence to support it, and it has been tested many thousands of times.

 

Built into science is the assumption that it no theory is beyond question. That's why it is self correcting. No amount of consensus can carry more weight than hard evidence.

[Robert Z]

I couldn't help but throw in this adder

 

I said,"So here is the point. There is no reason to believe that existing theories will all one day be invalidated. It doesn't normally work that way. Science has proven to be more a process of refinement.".

 

Given another 990,000 years, one can imagine that the existing theories of science will evolve to the point where they would be unrecognizable and arguably an entirely different family of theories... just as animals do.

 

If I had to bet which will evolve more in the next 1 million years, the theories of science, or nature, I'd put all of my money on nature.

[therhythm]

Just to be clear from the beginning... I do think Evolution is a proper theory.. and I don't want to imply that God exists... I am just defending that there is a good possibility that He exists as there is a good possibility that he doesn't exist.

 

I have a couple of questions for you. How long is the Universe? Do the scientific laws (thermodynamics, quantum, relativity, etc) apply to all the universe or only to our galaxy? How much Gravity there is in a planet of a different solar system? How fast travel the light in another solar system? How many solar systems exist? There is life in other solar systems?

If you can answer (with evidences) even only one of the above questions then I would agree with you about the amount of knowledge we have of the Universe and how it works... If you can't i will keep my theory were we know no where close to the 1% of everything that can be known of the Universe and based on that information there is a 99% that can change totally the concepts of what we think true right now

 

Regarding Scientific theories that have not evolved but have been proven wrong through history please see attached link... there are too many to write them here.. Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited June 30, 2013 by therhythm