Land Bridge

[moot]

Faith that there is more to know is necessary for learning to take place.  

No.  So long as I (an exemplary specimen) can't predict everything that happens, there's still something missing from the puzzle and I want to know.  Choice is what sets off motion, not faith.  Faith is no good for anything concrete.

Again, scientific work is merely the study of what God created.

The rational study, which excludes any irrational cog in the cogwheel modeling of hypothesies and testing of them until they boil down to tolerably accurate theories.  Whether God made it so or not has no consequence on anything in that process.

I'm going now, my shorts are on and I'm running out!

[MORAY37]

And my son is almost finished with his science test, so I'm off as well.

That singular statement is more scary to me, than any other you have ever made.  I have a feeling that it might be the easiest test ever... every answer being "God said so".

[AKIron]

No.  So long as I (an exemplary specimen) can't predict everything that happens, there's still something missing from the puzzle and I want to know.  Choice is what sets off motion, not faith.  Faith is no good for anything concrete.
The rational study, which excludes any irrational cog in the cogwheel modeling of hypothesies and testing of them until they boil down to tolerably accurate theories.  Whether God made it so or not has no consequence on anything in that process.

I'm going now, my shorts are on and I'm running out!

Predict? I think your scope is too limited. So long as you can't control everything that happens you should realize there is more to know. However, when you gain complete mastery over your universe will you rest in knowledge complete without imagining other universes which may exist beyond your own physical realm?

[texasmom]

*smile* I know Moray, that's why I put it in there.   

His science studies are entirely secular material. 

I just make sure to tell him that God is the creator of what we're learning about.

[alskahawk]

The bible clearly states that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters.  So, Cain's wife was most likely one of his sisters.  Therefore, there is no "error" as you put it.

You have proven a point that basing an opinion on limited knowledge can lead you to wrong conclusions.  This is a lesson everyone should be mindful of whether studying science or the Bible.

 Ok Prove it Chapter and verse.

[VERTEX]

That was exactly the point I was making when I said you could preface any scientific theory with the phrase:
"Absent of God, how could this have happened?"

Science entirely rejects the possibility of a divine creator, to the point where it's not even considered.

Actually, no, science is based on open minded skepticism. Conclusions are drawn from the study of evidence.
We go where the evidence takes us. Science does not completely discount the existence of a creator, but rather seeks to explain natural phenomena based on evidence collected. Because the existence of a creator cannot be disproven, it cant be discounted completely. However, the evidence to support the existence of a creator is scant.

It is most unfortunate that a lot of lay people find science easy to discount. It simply shows that many are not familiar with just how rigorous the scientific method is.

I have also noticed that religious types are very prevalent at discounting the validity of science. I think it is because when you are used to a faith based belief system it is difficult to recognize that science works on a completely different mindset. Science is not a faith based system, religion is. Science is based on evidence, religion is not.

Science are mutually exclusive systems, neither one requires the existence of the other.

[AKIron]

Because the existence of a creator cannot be disproven, it cant be discounted completely. However, the evidence to support the existence of a creator is scant.

I believe your choice of the word "completely" reveals a bias. I will still argue that for evidence of a creator we have everything in existence. The question is was everything created or not? If it was created then everything itself is evidence of a creator. 

[Xargos]

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." - Albert Einstein

[VERTEX]

I believe your choice of the word "completely" reveals a bias. I will still argue that for evidence of a creator we have everything in existence. The question is was everything created or not? If it was created then everything itself is evidence of a creator. 

Are you open to the possibility that a creator might not exist, and if conclusive evidence were to ever reveal that, would you acknowledge the conclusion?

[AKIron]

Are you open to the possibility that a creator might not exist, and if conclusive evidence were to ever reveal that, would you acknowledge the conclusion?

I consider that possibility almost every day. Certainly I know that I derive comfort in believing that when our universe fades into non existence my life will not have been completely pointless. My faith is by choice and I continually examine my beliefs.

[VERTEX]

Fair enough.

[moot]

Predict? I think your scope is too limited. So long as you can't control everything that happens you should realize there is more to know. However, when you gain complete mastery over your universe will you rest in knowledge complete without imagining other universes which may exist beyond your own physical realm?

I'll worry about those when there's evidence for them.  In the mean time they're just fancies of the mind.

His science studies are entirely secular material. 

I just make sure to tell him that God is the creator of what we're learning about.

And I'm telling you that whether that's true or not is inconsequential.  

Iron:

The question is was everything created or not? If it was created then everything itself is evidence of a creator.

You're on a wild goose chase.  You're asking if we'll ever find evidence of supernatural stuff while looking thru a natural, empirical lens.
You will never find any proof or disproof of something that's outside the scope of your inquiry.  You'll never know enough to pretend to see God or his visions or whatever.  You can have faith that you do, but you can't show any supporting evidence for it, and so, those effective fancies of the mind have no sovereignty anywhere outside of anyone's mind.
If I had any faith about anything, this last notion would warrant never admiting it, or doing anything that'd be justified only by that faith.  Just like you can't kill people and then testify that God told you so, or (less polemic) that you had some divine inspiration that took over your conscience, you can't assert anything of faith as true, except in the sense that you believe in it.

[texasmom]

And I'm telling you that whether that's true or not is inconsequential.  

*shrugs* okay.  That was in response to Moray's comment about my son's science test. 
And why would my saying his studies being entirely secular be up for question on whether or not that's truth?

[moot]

I know.  It's not a negligible part of the picture, though, in what we're discussing.
Sorry for the derail.

It's up for question because God being pulling the strings backstage, or not, is inconsequential to the science he's being tested on, or to what he'll retain from studying it.  It's analogous to other arguments in the thread.
I'm off to bed..

[ROX]

You guys done hijacking yet?

I'd like to see it get back to sensable discussion about early man's arrival in North America on the land bridge.

It's cool that we're finding out that some of the speculative history taught in the past can be "fixed" by recent finds & research.

There is now also DNA tracking that science can use to track a living human back to an ancestral source.  $100 bucks for your moms side, $100 bucks for your dad's side.

Please keep those on-topic posts & research links coming in.


ROX