Science is Dead to me

[YorkieGal]

Humans breeding with species could be why you're depressed, study says

A gene mutation was passed down to humans when they mated with a now-extinct subspecies in Asia 60,000 years ago, which makes people predisposed to mental health issues.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Science concerning creation as it is used, is anti Biblical and not truthful. I do not care how many believers believe in science, they have to do so at the changing of The Bible creation accounts. To fit sciences statements as to what is God's creation.

The most backwards statement i see christian's making is, God gave us science to better explain God's creation. Like God needed help in giving accounts of what and how He created His creation.

 

[Margaret3110]

They misspelled "breeding" in the title of that article. That tells me all I need to know ...

 

[YorkieGal]

They misspelled "breeding" in the title of that article. That tells me all I need to know ...

Good point lol

 

[Sir Joseph]

Humans breeding with species could be why you're depressed, study says

A gene mutation was passed down to humans when they mated with a now-extinct subspecies in Asia 60,000 years ago, which makes people predisposed to mental health issues.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Looks like I'll offer the lone dissenting opinion here. And after studying scientific evidence for creationism versus evolution for 24 years, I feel qualified to do so. I agree with a dozen of the most brilliant historical founders of the science disciplines - that the study of science leads us closer to God. That was the predominant view up until the 19th century and remains true today even if our modern secular culture, media, and educational institutions reject it.

The problem isn't that science and the Bible conflict. They don't and they can't, since God created the laws of science that hold the universe together. The problem is opposing world views on how the scientific evidence is interpreted. Thus, it's the popular conclusions of man that are wrong, not the reality of scientific evidence we see all around us.

Understand that science includes physics, cosmology, astronomy, geology, archaeology, biology, biochemistry, genetics, informational, mathematics, and other disciplines that all reveal God's power, glory, and super intelligent design. The available evidence from each of these disciplines provide specific support towards the Bible's accuracy and authority.

No Bible believing Christian need accept opposing scientific viewpoints or the dismissal of science completely. What's needed is discernment in seeking truth. Fortunately, such truth is readily available today from several on-line sources that correctly interpret evidence through a Biblical world view.

 

[YorkieGal]

Looks like I'll offer the lone dissenting opinion here. And after studying scientific evidence for creationism versus evolution for 24 years, I feel qualified to do so. I agree with a dozen of the most brilliant historical founders of the science disciplines - that the study of science leads us closer to God. That was the predominant view up until the 19th century and remains true today even if our modern secular culture, media, and educational institutions reject it.

The problem isn't that science and the Bible conflict. They don't and they can't, since God created the laws of science that hold the universe together. The problem is opposing world views on how the scientific evidence is interpreted. Thus, it's the popular conclusions of man that are wrong, not the reality of scientific evidence we see all around us.

Understand that science includes physics, cosmology, astronomy, geology, archaeology, biology, biochemistry, genetics, informational, mathematics, and other disciplines that all reveal God's power, glory, and super intelligent design. The available evidence from each of these disciplines provide specific support towards the Bible's accuracy and authority.

No Bible believing Christian need accept opposing scientific viewpoints or the dismissal of science completely. What's needed is discernment in seeking truth. Fortunately, such truth is readily available today from several on-line sources that correctly interpret evidence through a Biblical world view.

I pursued a neuroscience degree, after studying pharmacy, and just hate the whole fraud of it all so went into a completely different field.

I don't care what the 'truth' is beyond what I can see. Everything else is boring speculation for the sake of self glorification in a professional capacity, IMO, hence the stupid article I've posted here. It just all seems like theatre for the sake of a bored population who is desperate to believe scientific enquiry has merit. Jigsaw puzzles are more interesting to me, at this stage!

 

[Merrill]

Humanzees are unbiblical lol

 

[YorkieGal]

Humanzees are unbiblical lol

haha

Who is that in your profile pic? My brain keeps seeing Freddie Mercury but I know that isn't him!

 

[ViaCrucis]

The thing that needs to be understood about science is that when science corrects past misconceptions by learning more, that isn't a defect, that's science doing what it's supposed to be doing.

Science isn't a set of dogmas, but a methodology that is constantly seeking to make sense of the natural world through observation, study and experimentation. These are all basic things we all learned in elementary school about science. Assuming we were paying attention in class.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[YorkieGal]

The thing that needs to be understood about science is that when science corrects past misconceptions by learning more, that isn't a defect, that's science doing what it's supposed to be doing.

Science isn't a set of dogmas, but a methodology that is constantly seeking to make sense of the natural world through observation, study and experimentation. These are all basic things we all learned in elementary school about science. Assuming we were paying attention in class.

-CryptoLutheran

It's folly to assume someones intellect and life experiences based on our own.

As for me, I'm well aware of the definition and fundamental principles of science.

As a result, those of us actually schooled in science and who worked in the discipline understand that theory and intent is not often mirrored in practice.

 

[rambot]

This is a weeeird thread:

1) This article is written by a source most of you guys would love for it's political bias. IT misspelled "breed". So blame the media outlet reporting that.

They misspelled "breeding" in the title of that article. That tells me all I need to know ...

...NOT about the research of course, but about the reporting Source.

2) Science ALWAYS changes. That's the purpose of science. And that is something that is HARD for Christians because we Christians have a whole ethos that is dependent on never changing, certainty that is always dependable. We are "wired" to accept things that are "immutable".

Unfortunately, if we took that same attitude about science, we'd be drilling holes in people's heads to release the demons instead of just giving someone ibuprofen. Science changes how we understand the natural world. As a Christian (and I use the following word loosely) "scientist" having an attitude that Science helps us understand the world God created for us means that we won't necessarily get it right the FIRST time, but that we HAVE to respond to what the evidence (ie...what the WORLD is telling us). As science matures, we get a better understanding of that which also helps us put new knowledge up against an ever improving rubric.

Looks like I'll offer the lone dissenting opinion here. And after studying scientific evidence for creationism versus evolution for 24 years, I feel qualified to do so. I agree with a dozen of the most brilliant historical founders of the science disciplines - that the study of science leads us closer to God. That was the predominant view up until the 19th century and remains true today even if our modern secular culture, media, and educational institutions reject it.

The problem isn't that science and the Bible conflict. They don't and they can't, since God created the laws of science that hold the universe together. The problem is opposing world views on how the scientific evidence is interpreted. Thus, it's the popular conclusions of man that are wrong, not the reality of scientific evidence we see all around us.

Understand that science includes physics, cosmology, astronomy, geology, archaeology, biology, biochemistry, genetics, informational, mathematics, and other disciplines that all reveal God's power, glory, and super intelligent design. The available evidence from each of these disciplines provide specific support towards the Bible's accuracy and authority.

This is only true if you are WILLING to be very, VERY generous with what the Bible is saying and see books like Genesis' creation story as a beautiful allegory (as ancient Israelites likely could have comprehended). If you are a literalist in how you choose to understand the Bible, then this is incorrect.

No Bible believing Christian need accept opposing scientific viewpoints or the dismissal of science completely. What's needed is discernment in seeking truth. Fortunately, such truth is readily available today from several on-line sources that correctly interpret evidence through a Biblical world view.

"Correctly"? Based only on a particular hermeneutical understanding of the Bible?

I pursued a neuroscience degree, after studying pharmacy, and just hate the whole fraud of it all so went into a completely different field.

I don't care what the 'truth' is beyond what I can see.

Are you serious? In a later post you said: " I'm well aware of the definition and fundamental principles of science." So while you may be "aware" of what it is, this understanding of the natural world and science is super immature kind of undermines your credibility in terms of criticism of science.

Everything else is boring speculation for the sake of self glorification in a professional capacity, IMO, hence the stupid article I've posted here.

But that IS ABOUT YOU....not hte article and not the state of Science. I would LOVE to hear what problem you have with their metholodgy if you feel so confident in how stupid this is, I'm sure you can provide a thorough take down.

It just all seems like theatre for the sake of a bored population who is desperate to believe scientific enquiry has merit. Jigsaw puzzles are more interesting to me, at this stage!

But then why bother? Why bother reading and commenting on it? Why bother going to see a doctor when you have a health issue?

 

[Margaret3110]

...NOT about the research of course, but about the reporting Source.

Sure, but the kind of site or news outlet that misspells "breeding" is likely to put an inaccurate spin on the research as well. I am not equipped to speak to the actual research.

 

[rambot]

Sure, but the kind of site or news outlet that misspells "breeding" is likely to put an inaccurate spin on the research as well. I am not equipped to speak to the actual research.

I agree. The Daily Mail, I think, should never ever ever be quoted. They are a terrible low quality news outlet....
And I'm not convinced this isn't a coincidence:
Daily Mail Media Bias Rating

Personally though, I think you're right, if I can extend your point a bit. I don't think news sources are EVER EVER good places to read about scientific discovery and understanding. You gotta find science journals and magazines that use a bit more of the nomenclature and are not as sensationalized.

 

[mindlight]

Humans breeding with species could be why you're depressed, study says

A gene mutation was passed down to humans when they mated with a now-extinct subspecies in Asia 60,000 years ago, which makes people predisposed to mental health issues.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The scientific method works very well and its application has transformed our world for the better. But origins science is not science in any kind of testable sense. It employs consistent models as probable guesses about our past but can never attribute the kind of certainty that we have about things that science can actually test and verify e.g. that the earth goes around the sun for example.

To accept the claim in this article I have to accept the common ancestry model and then an evaluation method that finds analogies between current human DNA and the DNA from some depressed sub-species from the distant past. Sorry, but I have a different explanation for the analogies between species (The same God created both) and no scientist can prove me wrong using the scientific method. So this is not a scientific conversation at all but rather a clash of world views held to by faith.

 

[rambot]

The scientific method works very well and its application has transformed our world for the better. But origins science is not science in any kind of testable sense. It employs consistent models as probable guesses about our past but can never attribute the kind of certainty that we have about things that science can actually test and verify e.g. that the earth goes around the sun for example.

To accept the claim in this article I have to accept the common ancestry model and then an evaluation method that finds analogies between current human DNA and the DNA from some depressed sub-species from the distant past. Sorry, but I have a different explanation for the analogies between species (The same God created both) and no scientist can prove me wrong using the scientific method. So this is not a scientific conversation at all but rather a clash of world views held to by faith.

I have never heard any rigorous scientific justifications for literal creationists though.


I'd agree that origin science is not testable but you can drawer FAR stronger inferences for an evolutionary origin than otherwise.

 

[Sir Joseph]

I have never heard any rigorous scientific justifications for literal creationists though.


I'd agree that origin science is not testable but you can drawer FAR stronger inferences for an evolutionary origin than otherwise.

I can't take the time and space here to present a solid defense of creationism over evolution, but there certainly is an abundance of scientific evidence supporting the former over the latter. If it doesn't line up with popular secular theology, it's labeled as pseudo-science to be ridiculed and rejected. However, I might briefly demonstrate that some of the greatest minds of science, fathers and founders of the science disciplines we value today, were in fact Bible believing creationists who publicly opposed popular evolutionary theory. Here's a couple quotes to consider:

Isaac Newton, potentially the most influential and respected scientist of all time, published a document later translated as The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy which is considered the greatest scientific work in human history. In it, he detailed the universal law of gravity and 3 laws of motion. He was a serious Bible believing theologian who wrote extensively about the compatibility between God and science, believed in the Genesis creation account and specifically opposed popular evolutionary theory. One of his famous quotes states: "Gravity explains the motion of the planets but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

John Ambrose Fleming, considered the father of modern electronics, argued that "evolution, like all naturalistic theories of origins, has failed to account for life, the mind, and humankind." He reasoned that, for a theory to be true, it must “not fail in critical places,” as does evolution.

I'll add Robert Boyle who made major advances in chemistry and physics; William Thomson who formulized the scientific laws of energy; Blaise Pascal, extraordinary mathematician who developed the calculating machine and theory of probabilities; James Maxwell, famous mathematician who contributed significantly to 20th century physics; Michael Farday, history's most recognized experimentalist with electromagnetism and electrochemistry; and Nicolas Stone, the founder of modern geology.

These men who made the discoveries and laid the foundations of our modern science today were not practicing pseudo-science just because they believed in the Bible's accuracy and authority. Rather, like creation scientists of today, they observed and interpreted science with an objective view that did not automatically exclude any nonmaterial evidence. Understand, the naturalistic restriction that our culture now places upon the term "scientific" is only a recent phenomenon of the late 20th century. It's a sign of the secular times, but it has not changed reality.

So is there rigorous scientific evidence for creationism as literally detailed in the Bible's Genesis account? Of course.

Unlike evolutionary theory, the creation model provides viable answers to the beginning of the universe that adhere to the scientific First Law of Thermodynamics.

Unlike evolutionary theory, the creation model provides viable answers for the fine tuning of the universe that adhere to the scientific Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Unlike evolutionary theory, the creation model provides a viable answer for the origin of life that adheres to the scientific Law of Biogenesis.

Unlike evolutionary theory, the creation model provides viable answers for the DNA coding and complexity of biological and biochemical systems that adhere to informational science realities.

Unlike evolutionary theory that holds onto old earth, uniformitarianism principles that counter actual cataclysmic geological evidence, the creation model offers clear scientific compatibility.

I could go on, but my point should be clear in answering the charge. There's a preponderance of solid, scientific evidence supporting the existence of God and the Bible's Genesis creation account - in addition to the historical, archaeological, scientific insight, prophetic, and manuscript authority evidence for believing what the Bible says. Admittedly, I've only listed points here and not defended them, but for anyone wanting to study the matter honestly, such details are well presented on various creation websites. The truth of creationism is no doubt overshadowed by the volumes of evolutionary material, but that doesn't dictate truth. Several examples of that point could be made from past history.

Sadly, evolutionary theory is accepted by the masses today that have been indoctrinated by the secular educational system, government, media, museums, parks, and culture. I was there myself until I studied the topic later in life from different sources - sources that don't automatically exclude the supernatural from all reality. In summary:

For the Bible sceptic, there's massive secular material and cultural pressure today to justify an evolutionary world view. A close look though will reveal that the teachings and conclusions do not accurately reflect the underlying science claims. In fact, several known false teachings are still being printed in school textbooks today, perpetrating what I believe is the biggest, most influential lie in modern history. For those that reject God and want to justify their world view, evidence and truth don't matter, particularly when it's the popular point of view.

For the Christian though that respects the Bible's authority as Divinely inspired and the foundation of their faith, there is no room for popular evolutionary thinking. To embrace both a naturalistic unordered process of chance with a supernatural ordered process of purpose is irrational. The two opposing views cannot be reconciled, though misguided seminaries, churches, Christians, and Catholics have been trying to do so for decades. We'd all do better to pursue science with the same intent of previous great scientists, understanding it's a discovery of how God created and runs the world, not a mandate to explain the world without God's existence.

 

[rambot]

I can't take the time and space here to present a solid defense of creationism over evolution, but there certainly is an abundance of scientific evidence supporting the former over the latter. If it doesn't line up with popular secular theology, it's labeled as pseudo-science to be ridiculed and rejected. However, I might briefly demonstrate that some of the greatest minds of science, fathers and founders of the science disciplines we value today, were in fact Bible believing creationists who publicly opposed popular evolutionary theory. Here's a couple quotes to consider:

Isaac Newton, potentially the most influential and respected scientist of all time, published a document later translated as The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy which is considered the greatest scientific work in human history. In it, he detailed the universal law of gravity and 3 laws of motion. He was a serious Bible believing theologian who wrote extensively about the compatibility between God and science, believed in the Genesis creation account and specifically opposed popular evolutionary theory. One of his famous quotes states: "Gravity explains the motion of the planets but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

John Ambrose Fleming, considered the father of modern electronics, argued that "evolution, like all naturalistic theories of origins, has failed to account for life, the mind, and humankind." He reasoned that, for a theory to be true, it must “not fail in critical places,” as does evolution.

I'll add Robert Boyle who made major advances in chemistry and physics; William Thomson who formulized the scientific laws of energy; Blaise Pascal, extraordinary mathematician who developed the calculating machine and theory of probabilities; James Maxwell, famous mathematician who contributed significantly to 20th century physics; Michael Farday, history's most recognized experimentalist with electromagnetism and electrochemistry; and Nicolas Stone, the founder of modern geology.

These men who made the discoveries and laid the foundations of our modern science today were not practicing pseudo-science just because they believed in the Bible's accuracy and authority. Rather, like creation scientists of today, they observed and interpreted science with an objective view that did not automatically exclude any nonmaterial evidence. Understand, the naturalistic restriction that our culture now places upon the term "scientific" is only a recent phenomenon of the late 20th century. It's a sign of the secular times, but it has not changed reality.

I know there are great christian scientists. But quoting people feom over a 100 years ago and valuing their opinion on a scientific theory that has since had a preponderance of evidence to support it, seems misguided. There are MANY Christian scientists today who do believe in evolution because of rhe evidence theyvhave been preaented with. Are we to not trust them?

So is there rigorous scientific evidence for creationism as literally detailed in the Bible's Genesis account? Of course.

Unlike evolutionary theory, the creation model provides viable answers to the beginning of the universe that adhere to the scientific First Law of Thermodynamics.

But that's not accurate. I mean, how can the creation of the universe and ALL matter and energy be in congruency with the idea that energy can't be created or destroyed?

Unlike evolutionary theory, the creation model provides viable answers for the fine tuning of the universe that adhere to the scientific Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Not unlike. Increases in entropy do not disprove evolution...in fact...at all. It's a misapplication of the Law. The Earth isn't anywhere close to a closed system.

Unlike evolutionary theory, the creation model provides a viable answer for the origin of life that adheres to the scientific Law of Biogenesis.

That only addresses the origin of life. Evolution primarily is a theory that deals the variety of life. It is extrapolated to explain origins but it is not required as part of the theory.

Unlike evolutionary theory, the creation model provides viable answers for the DNA coding and complexity of biological and biochemical systems that adhere to informational science realities.

It provides simple answers (and i doubt they are that great) but evolution theory provides answers as well that are viable.

Unlike evolutionary theory that holds onto old earth, uniformitarianism principles that counter actual cataclysmic geological evidence, the creation model offers clear scientific compatibility.

No it doesnt offer clear "scientific compatibility" at all. Again if offers a simple explanation.

I could go on, but my point should be clear in answering the charge. There's a preponderance of solid, scientific evidence supporting the existence of God and the Bible's Genesis creation account - in addition to the historical, archaeological, scientific insight, prophetic, and manuscript authority evidence for believing what the Bible says. Admittedly, I've only listed points here and not defended them, but for anyone wanting to study the matter honestly, such details are well presented on various creation websites.

I've been reading them and I find them less than compelling. 20years ago when I first drifted into these discussions I read answers in Genesis. For giggles I went back to revisit it. It actually seems more misguided than I remember.

The truth of creationism is no doubt overshadowed by the volumes of evolutionary material, but that doesn't dictate truth. Several examples of that point could be made from past history.

Sadly, evolutionary theory is accepted by the masses today that have been indoctrinated by the secular educational system, government, media, museums, parks, and culture. I was there myself until I studied the topic later in life from different sources - sources that don't automatically exclude the supernatural from all reality. In summary:

For the Bible sceptic, there's massive secular material and cultural pressure today to justify an evolutionary world view. A close look though will reveal that the teachings and conclusions do not accurately reflect the underlying science claims. In fact, several known false teachings are still being printed in school textbooks today, perpetrating what I believe is the biggest, most influential lie in modern history. For those that reject God and want to justify their world view, evidence and truth don't matter, particularly when it's the popular point of view.

It's not at all that we reject God. I went to a CHRISTIAN university. I had 8 science profs and they all ascribed to evolution. They were devote and humble Christians.

The fact is that a real scientist will be swayed by strong evidence and creation does not have that. It simply does not.
If it did more scientists would be willing to humor it. If the extent of evidence is that God made it that way, well that's just not scientific evidence. The Bible is not a scientific document and was NEVER intended to be used and understood like one. It is folly.
And arguments using laws of Thermodynamics are used with some fundamental misapplications and assumptions.

For the Christian though that respects the Bible's authority as Divinely inspired and the foundation of their faith, there is no room for popular evolutionary thinking. To embrace both a naturalistic unordered process of chance with a supernatural ordered process of purpose is irrational. The two opposing views cannot be reconciled, though misguided seminaries, churches, Christians, and Catholics have been trying to do so for decades. We'd all do better to pursue science with the same intent of previous great scientists, understanding it's a discovery of how God created and runs the world, not a mandate to explain the world without God's existence.

There absolutely IS room for that belief and your reasons for dismissing it are childish and convenient and not based on logic which is what scientists should be pursuing as they try to come to a precise understanding of the universe. So you will believe what you will but the sanctimonious comments seem silly when they are supporting a view that clearly misunderstands science.

 

[expos4ever]

I am right there with you, science keeps changing its past so called science truths and coming up with more outrageous gobbledygook.

This is profoundly misleading.

Unlike more dogmatic approaches to acquiring knowledge, science is appropriately open to the possibility of revision and change. It should come as no surprise that our knowledge of the world needs to be updated and revised in the light of new data. One of the silliest critiques of science is that it changes, as if change itself were inherently a bad thing.

 

[expos4ever]

It's folly to assume someones intellect and life experiences based on our own.

Strawman - no one is saying this.

As a result, those of us actually schooled in science and who worked in the discipline understand that theory and intent is not often mirrored in practice.

Are you seriously suggesting that science, in general, has not been a very effective "tool" at understanding how the world works and improving the human condition. The list of the benefits conferred by scientific enquiry and application is endless - vaccines, spaceflight, communications technology, batteries, robotic surgery, transportation, antibiotics, and on and on. Yes, scientific knowledge can and is abused at times. But I suggest an evenhanded evaluation of the facts shows that the merits of science substantively outweigh the downsides.

 

[expos4ever]

The scientific method works very well and its application has transformed our world for the better. But origins science is not science in any kind of testable sense.

Based on what I think you are saying, I disagree. From Scientific American (15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense):

CLAIM: Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.