Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Evolution and Science 'so called'-

ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 4:05:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My concerns are in which use of the word 'science' is applied.This word is confined to the physicals, some of which may be called specially experimental sciences, such as chemistry, and others exact sciences, such as astronomy.But evidently uses it in that wider sense in which it includes biology, metaphysics, and philosophy.Under cover of this wide sweep of thier net, they assume to speak with the special authority of beyond scientific natures upon questions respecting which no such authority exists either in them or in anyone else.It seems to be on the strength of thier expert assumption that they designate as pseudo-science or theory any opinion, or teaching, or belief, different from thier own.
I will illustrate what I mean by an example.Comparative anatomy is one of the branches of the larger science of Biology in which they are experts; and, like all the other branches which grow out of the one great stem, as a subject of physical investigation, it runs up into ideas and conceptions which belong to, or border on, the region of metaphysics.Who gives the authority beyond our sciences?
Now, if not absolutely in this conclusion, all the physical facts leading up to it, Biology is an authority in the strictest sense of the word.Science is an original investigator, and if any other man were to contest thier facts, or even thier interpretation of them, without thier independent observation, Biology and science in general would be entitled to pronounce the opposition opinions to be ‘pseudo-science.'
Ultimately one day maybe scientific conclusion may become itself the basis of a farther investigation, and in this farther investigation science then maybe will have no authority at all.We are all entitled to ask as a question, not of physical science, but of philosophy and interpretations.
This is a question of the very highest order today in which science and biologist is not necessarily experts.That laboratory in which the analyses is made and operated is a laboratory to us all in which we can all work.And if in this higher sphere of investigation other men are able to reach conclusions which General science disputes, it is at least possible that it is thier contention, and not that of his opponent, which best deserves the ‘pseudo' prefix.They ridicule the opposition.Yet it needs no expert to see that thier own theory at best stands exactly on the same level with a term called ‘realistic figment.'
I have dwelt upon this point because men are very apt to be intimidated by authorities in ‘science,' when in reality no sort of authority exists.They want to talk about 'scientific sins' quite in the language and spirit of religion.I know a good many scientific men of the very highest standing who totally dissent from biology and are by no means inclined to accept evolution expositions, even of physical science, when those expositions travel beyond the particular branch in which science is only an observer.
Evolutionist propounds that these old logical difficulties which we attach to all our beliefs, and still more to all our history, are only the relations between mind and matter.That no outside authority exist and it is ours alone.
In conclusion, let me express that science in general do an important service to man.Though past says, most truly, that the case with all new doctrines, and so with evolution, 'the enthusiasm of advocates has sometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism, and mere speculation has, at times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds.' These words indicate vaguely and tenderly, but significantly, a fact which I stated, and will again state with emphasis.There has been not merely a tendency to degeneration into fanaticism, but a pronounced development of it, and a widespread infection from it in the language of science.They accept this though this is a work which has yet to be finished to be considered facts.They can only work with the materials which are supplied by only physical means.The tendency of new doctrines to degenerate into fanaticism is one of the ‘laws' to be traced in the long history of humans, and all those who help to resist it are among the benefactors of their kind.
TheAsylum
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 5:06:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 4:05:21 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
My concerns are in which use of the word 'science' is applied.This word is confined to the physicals, some of which may be called specially experimental sciences, such as chemistry, and others exact sciences, such as astronomy.But evidently uses it in that wider sense in which it includes biology, metaphysics, and philosophy.Under cover of this wide sweep of thier net, they assume to speak with the special authority of beyond scientific natures upon questions respecting which no such authority exists either in them or in anyone else.It seems to be on the strength of thier expert assumption that they designate as pseudo-science or theory any opinion, or teaching, or belief, different from thier own.

Utter nonsense. Biology is an exact science as well. Metaphysics and philosophy are not.

Just because you group them, doesnt mean they are. Biology is science.

I will illustrate what I mean by an example.Comparative anatomy is one of the branches of the larger science of Biology in which they are experts; and, like all the other branches which grow out of the one great stem, as a subject of physical investigation, it runs up into ideas and conceptions which belong to, or border on, the region of metaphysics.Who gives the authority beyond our sciences?

Please explain how comparative anatomy branches into metaphysics.

Now, if not absolutely in this conclusion, all the physical facts leading up to it, Biology is an authority in the strictest sense of the word.Science is an original investigator, and if any other man were to contest thier facts, or even thier interpretation of them, without thier independent observation, Biology and science in general would be entitled to pronounce the opposition opinions to be ‘pseudo-science.'

Science isnt an authority. There is no cabal or single scientist who determines what is acceptable and what is rejected in science. All science cares about, is evidence and reasoned arguments.

No matter what the claim, if its backed up with indepedant verifiable evidence, science will accept it. No matter what the claim.

As you asked above, who gives authority beyond our sciences? Is the christian or the Muslim, the authority? This is why science requires independant observation. If only christians can observe their own religion, and Muslims can observe theirs, who is the authority with regards to things beyond science?

Ultimately one day maybe scientific conclusion may become itself the basis of a farther investigation, and in this farther investigation science then maybe will have no authority at all.We are all entitled to ask as a question, not of physical science, but of philosophy and interpretations.

More nonsense. Science isnt an authority.

This is a question of the very highest order today in which science and biologist is not necessarily experts.That laboratory in which the analyses is made and operated is a laboratory to us all in which we can all work.And if in this higher sphere of investigation other men are able to reach conclusions which General science disputes, it is at least possible that it is thier contention, and not that of his opponent, which best deserves the ‘pseudo' prefix.They ridicule the opposition.Yet it needs no expert to see that thier own theory at best stands exactly on the same level with a term called ‘realistic figment.'
I have dwelt upon this point because men are very apt to be intimidated by authorities in ‘science,' when in reality no sort of authority exists.They want to talk about 'scientific sins' quite in the language and spirit of religion.I know a good many scientific men of the very highest standing who totally dissent from biology and are by no means inclined to accept evolution expositions, even of physical science, when those expositions travel beyond the particular branch in which science is only an observer.
Evolutionist propounds that these old logical difficulties which we attach to all our beliefs, and still more to all our history, are only the relations between mind and matter.That no outside authority exist and it is ours alone.
In conclusion, let me express that science in general do an important service to man.Though past says, most truly, that the case with all new doctrines, and so with evolution, 'the enthusiasm of advocates has sometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism, and mere speculation has, at times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds.' These words indicate vaguely and tenderly, but significantly, a fact which I stated, and will again state with emphasis.There has been not merely a tendency to degeneration into fanaticism, but a pronounced development of it, and a widespread infection from it in the language of science.They accept this though this is a work which has yet to be finished to be considered facts.They can only work with the materials which are supplied by only physical means.The tendency of new doctrines to degenerate into fanaticism is one of the ‘laws' to be traced in the long history of humans, and all those who help to resist it are among the benefactors of their kind.

More nonsense, and this has lead me to conclude that you are a poe, because no one could be stupid enough to write this, not even creationists.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 5:36:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 5:06:49 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 4:05:21 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
My concerns are in which use of the word 'science' is applied.This word is confined to the physicals, some of which may be called specially experimental sciences, such as chemistry, and others exact sciences, such as astronomy.But evidently uses it in that wider sense in which it includes biology, metaphysics, and philosophy.Under cover of this wide sweep of thier net, they assume to speak with the special authority of beyond scientific natures upon questions respecting which no such authority exists either in them or in anyone else.It seems to be on the strength of thier expert assumption that they designate as pseudo-science or theory any opinion, or teaching, or belief, different from thier own.

Utter nonsense. Biology is an exact science as well. Metaphysics and philosophy are not.

Just because you group them, doesnt mean they are. Biology is science.

I will illustrate what I mean by an example.Comparative anatomy is one of the branches of the larger science of Biology in which they are experts; and, like all the other branches which grow out of the one great stem, as a subject of physical investigation, it runs up into ideas and conceptions which belong to, or border on, the region of metaphysics.Who gives the authority beyond our sciences?

Please explain how comparative anatomy branches into metaphysics.

Now, if not absolutely in this conclusion, all the physical facts leading up to it, Biology is an authority in the strictest sense of the word.Science is an original investigator, and if any other man were to contest thier facts, or even thier interpretation of them, without thier independent observation, Biology and science in general would be entitled to pronounce the opposition opinions to be ‘pseudo-science.'

Science isnt an authority. There is no cabal or single scientist who determines what is acceptable and what is rejected in science. All science cares about, is evidence and reasoned arguments.

No matter what the claim, if its backed up with indepedant verifiable evidence, science will accept it. No matter what the claim.

As you asked above, who gives authority beyond our sciences? Is the christian or the Muslim, the authority? This is why science requires independant observation. If only christians can observe their own religion, and Muslims can observe theirs, who is the authority with regards to things beyond science?

Ultimately one day maybe scientific conclusion may become itself the basis of a farther investigation, and in this farther investigation science then maybe will have no authority at all.We are all entitled to ask as a question, not of physical science, but of philosophy and interpretations.

More nonsense. Science isnt an authority.

This is a question of the very highest order today in which science and biologist is not necessarily experts.That laboratory in which the analyses is made and operated is a laboratory to us all in which we can all work.And if in this higher sphere of investigation other men are able to reach conclusions which General science disputes, it is at least possible that it is thier contention, and not that of his opponent, which best deserves the ‘pseudo' prefix.They ridicule the opposition.Yet it needs no expert to see that thier own theory at best stands exactly on the same level with a term called ‘realistic figment.'
I have dwelt upon this point because men are very apt to be intimidated by authorities in ‘science,' when in reality no sort of authority exists.They want to talk about 'scientific sins' quite in the language and spirit of religion.I know a good many scientific men of the very highest standing who totally dissent from biology and are by no means inclined to accept evolution expositions, even of physical science, when those expositions travel beyond the particular branch in which science is only an observer.
Evolutionist propounds that these old logical difficulties which we attach to all our beliefs, and still more to all our history, are only the relations between mind and matter.That no outside authority exist and it is ours alone.
In conclusion, let me express that science in general do an important service to man.Though past says, most truly, that the case with all new doctrines, and so with evolution, 'the enthusiasm of advocates has sometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism, and mere speculation has, at times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds.' These words indicate vaguely and tenderly, but significantly, a fact which I stated, and will again state with emphasis.There has been not merely a tendency to degeneration into fanaticism, but a pronounced development of it, and a widespread infection from it in the language of science.They accept this though this is a work which has yet to be finished to be considered facts.They can only work with the materials which are supplied by only physical means.The tendency of new doctrines to degenerate into fanaticism is one of the ‘laws' to be traced in the long history of humans, and all those who help to resist it are among the benefactors of their kind.

More nonsense, and this has lead me to conclude that you are a poe, because no one could be stupid enough to write this, not even creationists.

'the enthusiasm of advocates has sometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism, and mere speculation has, at times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds.'
"Since the beginning all men have been without excuse if they have not acknowledged the Creator, for evidence is all around them in the created world"(romans 1:19-20).
"Keep which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and opposition of science falsely so called."(1 Tim 6:20)
People can believe whatever they like, it is a choice, but that doesn't make them or thier belief right.
It is called Zombie science and is nothing more than propaganda.It is used to persuade mass opinion inside public,management,realtions,and marketing arenas.Most of the time this type of science seems more plausible than actual science.
TheAsylum
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 7:06:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 5:36:56 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/11/2012 5:06:49 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 4:05:21 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
My concerns are in which use of the word 'science' is applied.This word is confined to the physicals, some of which may be called specially experimental sciences, such as chemistry, and others exact sciences, such as astronomy.But evidently uses it in that wider sense in which it includes biology, metaphysics, and philosophy.Under cover of this wide sweep of thier net, they assume to speak with the special authority of beyond scientific natures upon questions respecting which no such authority exists either in them or in anyone else.It seems to be on the strength of thier expert assumption that they designate as pseudo-science or theory any opinion, or teaching, or belief, different from thier own.

Utter nonsense. Biology is an exact science as well. Metaphysics and philosophy are not.

Just because you group them, doesnt mean they are. Biology is science.

I will illustrate what I mean by an example.Comparative anatomy is one of the branches of the larger science of Biology in which they are experts; and, like all the other branches which grow out of the one great stem, as a subject of physical investigation, it runs up into ideas and conceptions which belong to, or border on, the region of metaphysics.Who gives the authority beyond our sciences?

Please explain how comparative anatomy branches into metaphysics.

Now, if not absolutely in this conclusion, all the physical facts leading up to it, Biology is an authority in the strictest sense of the word.Science is an original investigator, and if any other man were to contest thier facts, or even thier interpretation of them, without thier independent observation, Biology and science in general would be entitled to pronounce the opposition opinions to be ‘pseudo-science.'

Science isnt an authority. There is no cabal or single scientist who determines what is acceptable and what is rejected in science. All science cares about, is evidence and reasoned arguments.

No matter what the claim, if its backed up with indepedant verifiable evidence, science will accept it. No matter what the claim.

As you asked above, who gives authority beyond our sciences? Is the christian or the Muslim, the authority? This is why science requires independant observation. If only christians can observe their own religion, and Muslims can observe theirs, who is the authority with regards to things beyond science?

Ultimately one day maybe scientific conclusion may become itself the basis of a farther investigation, and in this farther investigation science then maybe will have no authority at all.We are all entitled to ask as a question, not of physical science, but of philosophy and interpretations.

More nonsense. Science isnt an authority.

This is a question of the very highest order today in which science and biologist is not necessarily experts.That laboratory in which the analyses is made and operated is a laboratory to us all in which we can all work.And if in this higher sphere of investigation other men are able to reach conclusions which General science disputes, it is at least possible that it is thier contention, and not that of his opponent, which best deserves the ‘pseudo' prefix.They ridicule the opposition.Yet it needs no expert to see that thier own theory at best stands exactly on the same level with a term called ‘realistic figment.'
I have dwelt upon this point because men are very apt to be intimidated by authorities in ‘science,' when in reality no sort of authority exists.They want to talk about 'scientific sins' quite in the language and spirit of religion.I know a good many scientific men of the very highest standing who totally dissent from biology and are by no means inclined to accept evolution expositions, even of physical science, when those expositions travel beyond the particular branch in which science is only an observer.
Evolutionist propounds that these old logical difficulties which we attach to all our beliefs, and still more to all our history, are only the relations between mind and matter.That no outside authority exist and it is ours alone.
In conclusion, let me express that science in general do an important service to man.Though past says, most truly, that the case with all new doctrines, and so with evolution, 'the enthusiasm of advocates has sometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism, and mere speculation has, at times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds.' These words indicate vaguely and tenderly, but significantly, a fact which I stated, and will again state with emphasis.There has been not merely a tendency to degeneration into fanaticism, but a pronounced development of it, and a widespread infection from it in the language of science.They accept this though this is a work which has yet to be finished to be considered facts.They can only work with the materials which are supplied by only physical means.The tendency of new doctrines to degenerate into fanaticism is one of the ‘laws' to be traced in the long history of humans, and all those who help to resist it are among the benefactors of their kind.

More nonsense, and this has lead me to conclude that you are a poe, because no one could be stupid enough to write this, not even creationists.

'the enthusiasm of advocates has sometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism, and mere speculation has, at times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds.'
"Since the beginning all men have been without excuse if they have not acknowledged the Creator, for evidence is all around them in the created world"(romans 1:19-20).
"Keep which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and opposition of science falsely so called."(1 Tim 6:20)
People can believe whatever they like, it is a choice, but that doesn't make them or thier belief right.

Sure. The only thing that makes their belief right is whether they have evidence and sufficient reason to justify their beliefs.

It is called Zombie science and is nothing more than propaganda.It is used to persuade mass opinion inside public,management,realtions,and marketing arenas.Most of the time this type of science seems more plausible than actual science.

More nonsense. All that matters in science is evidence and reasoned arguments. That is all.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 7:12:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 5:36:56 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/11/2012 5:06:49 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 4:05:21 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
My concerns are in which use of the word 'science' is applied.This word is confined to the physicals, some of which may be called specially experimental sciences, such as chemistry, and others exact sciences, such as astronomy.But evidently uses it in that wider sense in which it includes biology, metaphysics, and philosophy.Under cover of this wide sweep of thier net, they assume to speak with the special authority of beyond scientific natures upon questions respecting which no such authority exists either in them or in anyone else.It seems to be on the strength of thier expert assumption that they designate as pseudo-science or theory any opinion, or teaching, or belief, different from thier own.

Utter nonsense. Biology is an exact science as well. Metaphysics and philosophy are not.

Just because you group them, doesnt mean they are. Biology is science.

I will illustrate what I mean by an example.Comparative anatomy is one of the branches of the larger science of Biology in which they are experts; and, like all the other branches which grow out of the one great stem, as a subject of physical investigation, it runs up into ideas and conceptions which belong to, or border on, the region of metaphysics.Who gives the authority beyond our sciences?

Please explain how comparative anatomy branches into metaphysics.

Now, if not absolutely in this conclusion, all the physical facts leading up to it, Biology is an authority in the strictest sense of the word.Science is an original investigator, and if any other man were to contest thier facts, or even thier interpretation of them, without thier independent observation, Biology and science in general would be entitled to pronounce the opposition opinions to be ‘pseudo-science.'

Science isnt an authority. There is no cabal or single scientist who determines what is acceptable and what is rejected in science. All science cares about, is evidence and reasoned arguments.

No matter what the claim, if its backed up with indepedant verifiable evidence, science will accept it. No matter what the claim.

As you asked above, who gives authority beyond our sciences? Is the christian or the Muslim, the authority? This is why science requires independant observation. If only christians can observe their own religion, and Muslims can observe theirs, who is the authority with regards to things beyond science?

Ultimately one day maybe scientific conclusion may become itself the basis of a farther investigation, and in this farther investigation science then maybe will have no authority at all.We are all entitled to ask as a question, not of physical science, but of philosophy and interpretations.

More nonsense. Science isnt an authority.

This is a question of the very highest order today in which science and biologist is not necessarily experts.That laboratory in which the analyses is made and operated is a laboratory to us all in which we can all work.And if in this higher sphere of investigation other men are able to reach conclusions which General science disputes, it is at least possible that it is thier contention, and not that of his opponent, which best deserves the ‘pseudo' prefix.They ridicule the opposition.Yet it needs no expert to see that thier own theory at best stands exactly on the same level with a term called ‘realistic figment.'
I have dwelt upon this point because men are very apt to be intimidated by authorities in ‘science,' when in reality no sort of authority exists.They want to talk about 'scientific sins' quite in the language and spirit of religion.I know a good many scientific men of the very highest standing who totally dissent from biology and are by no means inclined to accept evolution expositions, even of physical science, when those expositions travel beyond the particular branch in which science is only an observer.
Evolutionist propounds that these old logical difficulties which we attach to all our beliefs, and still more to all our history, are only the relations between mind and matter.That no outside authority exist and it is ours alone.
In conclusion, let me express that science in general do an important service to man.Though past says, most truly, that the case with all new doctrines, and so with evolution, 'the enthusiasm of advocates has sometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism, and mere speculation has, at times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds.' These words indicate vaguely and tenderly, but significantly, a fact which I stated, and will again state with emphasis.There has been not merely a tendency to degeneration into fanaticism, but a pronounced development of it, and a widespread infection from it in the language of science.They accept this though this is a work which has yet to be finished to be considered facts.They can only work with the materials which are supplied by only physical means.The tendency of new doctrines to degenerate into fanaticism is one of the ‘laws' to be traced in the long history of humans, and all those who help to resist it are among the benefactors of their kind.

More nonsense, and this has lead me to conclude that you are a poe, because no one could be stupid enough to write this, not even creationists.

'the enthusiasm of advocates has sometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism, and mere speculation has, at times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds.'
"Since the beginning all men have been without excuse if they have not acknowledged the Creator, for evidence is all around them in the created world"(romans 1:19-20).
"Keep which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and opposition of science falsely so called."(1 Tim 6:20)
People can believe whatever they like, it is a choice, but that doesn't make them or thier belief right.
It is called Zombie science and is nothing more than propaganda.It is used to persuade mass opinion inside public,management,realtions,and marketing arenas.Most of the time this type of science seems more plausible than actual science.

Furthermore, why are you quoting the bible. This is the science forums, not the religion forums.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 9:11:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 4:05:21 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
My concerns are in which use of the word 'science' is applied.This word is confined to the physicals, some of which may be called specially experimental sciences, such as chemistry, and others exact sciences, such as astronomy.But evidently uses it in that wider sense in which it includes biology, metaphysics, and philosophy.Under cover of this wide sweep of thier net, they assume to speak with the special authority of beyond scientific natures upon questions respecting which no such authority exists either in them or in anyone else.It seems to be on the strength of thier expert assumption that they designate as pseudo-science or theory any opinion, or teaching, or belief, different from thier own.
I will illustrate what I mean by an example.Comparative anatomy is one of the branches of the larger science of Biology in which they are experts; and, like all the other branches which grow out of the one great stem, as a subject of physical investigation, it runs up into ideas and conceptions which belong to, or border on, the region of metaphysics.Who gives the authority beyond our sciences?
Now, if not absolutely in this conclusion, all the physical facts leading up to it, Biology is an authority in the strictest sense of the word.Science is an original investigator, and if any other man were to contest thier facts, or even thier interpretation of them, without thier independent observation, Biology and science in general would be entitled to pronounce the opposition opinions to be ‘pseudo-science.'
Ultimately one day maybe scientific conclusion may become itself the basis of a farther investigation, and in this farther investigation science then maybe will have no authority at all.We are all entitled to ask as a question, not of physical science, but of philosophy and interpretations.
This is a question of the very highest order today in which science and biologist is not necessarily experts.That laboratory in which the analyses is made and operated is a laboratory to us all in which we can all work.And if in this higher sphere of investigation other men are able to reach conclusions which General science disputes, it is at least possible that it is thier contention, and not that of his opponent, which best deserves the ‘pseudo' prefix.They ridicule the opposition.Yet it needs no expert to see that thier own theory at best stands exactly on the same level with a term called ‘realistic figment.'
I have dwelt upon this point because men are very apt to be intimidated by authorities in ‘science,' when in reality no sort of authority exists.They want to talk about 'scientific sins' quite in the language and spirit of religion.I know a good many scientific men of the very highest standing who totally dissent from biology and are by no means inclined to accept evolution expositions, even of physical science, when those expositions travel beyond the particular branch in which science is only an observer.
Evolutionist propounds that these old logical difficulties which we attach to all our beliefs, and still more to all our history, are only the relations between mind and matter.That no outside authority exist and it is ours alone.
In conclusion, let me express that science in general do an important service to man.Though past says, most truly, that the case with all new doctrines, and so with evolution, 'the enthusiasm of advocates has sometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism, and mere speculation has, at times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds.' These words indicate vaguely and tenderly, but significantly, a fact which I stated, and will again state with emphasis.There has been not merely a tendency to degeneration into fanaticism, but a pronounced development of it, and a widespread infection from it in the language of science.They accept this though this is a work which has yet to be finished to be considered facts.They can only work with the materials which are supplied by only physical means.The tendency of new doctrines to degenerate into fanaticism is one of the ‘laws' to be traced in the long history of humans, and all those who help to resist it are among the benefactors of their kind.

So, since your problems only relate to the findings of biologists, and not also to the findings of physics, astronomy, and other such sciences, I have just two questions.

1. Do you agree with 99.999% of astronomers who claim from earth we can detect the light from stars that are over 1 million light years away?

2. Do you agree with 99.999% of physicists that say the speed of light is constant (or that if variation exists, it is a minute fraction)

If your answer was "no" to either than your problem is with all the sciences, not just biology.

If you answered "yes" to both, then you must conclude that at least 1 million years have passed between the moment the star was created and the moment the star's light first hit earth.

It is impossible for the universe to be less than a million years old unless you disagree with one of the above two statements.

So, do you reject what conclusions of every major scientific field you cited as trustworthy in your OP, or do you concede that, at bare minimum, the universe has been around for a million years?
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 10:19:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 4:05:21 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
My concerns are in which use of the word 'science' is applied.This word is confined to the physicals, some of which may be called specially experimental sciences, such as chemistry, and others exact sciences, such as astronomy.But evidently uses it in that wider sense in which it includes biology, metaphysics, and philosophy.

Wait a tick you're trying to say Biology isn't science? You have to understand that anything that uses the scientific method(and correctly so) is in fact science. Science is a way of thinking; creating a series of theories. It's a way of skeptically intriguing the universe; proposing hypotheses that make predictions that can be shown to be supported or unsupported. Scientific theories have to be falsifiable. (As well as hypotheses) Biology easily fits this bill.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:59:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/15/2012 10:19:02 PM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 5/11/2012 4:05:21 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
My concerns are in which use of the word 'science' is applied.This word is confined to the physicals, some of which may be called specially experimental sciences, such as chemistry, and others exact sciences, such as astronomy.But evidently uses it in that wider sense in which it includes biology, metaphysics, and philosophy.

Wait a tick you're trying to say Biology isn't science? You have to understand that anything that uses the scientific method(and correctly so) is in fact science. Science is a way of thinking; creating a series of theories. It's a way of skeptically intriguing the universe; proposing hypotheses that make predictions that can be shown to be supported or unsupported. Scientific theories have to be falsifiable. (As well as hypotheses) Biology easily fits this bill.

includes biology, metaphysics, and philosophy.
I miss wrote. Biology suppose to be evolution. I am sorry.
TheAsylum