Science ... NOT God ...

[ratiocinator]

Man being made from the "dust" of the Earth could also explain these discoveries.

Seriously? How? And what is "dust" in scare quotes supposed to mean?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Valid scientific hypotheses must provided testable predictions (of observations or experimental results) and, as @Polymath257 said, we can disprove or falsify a hypothesis with an observation or experimental result that contradicts it.

However, you can never prove a hypothesis, however many correct predictions it has made. What happens it that each correct prediction is evidence for the hypothesis.

Thanks.
Okay, so what about humans who say that science is about truth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is that?

What?

I don't not believe Adam was a myth.

I believe that there were great ape and other human-like races that existed either on this Earth or upon the planet that our world spawned from, but they were not our ancestors.

Yes, we all know what you believe. It is a pity that you do not try to know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks.
Okay, so what about humans who say that science is about truth?

That appears to be your personal strawman on this forum.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That appears to be your personal strawman on this forum.

Yes, you might be right. I even consider it highly probable, because when I think about it seems to be from another forum.
But one thing I am 99,9..8% confidant of, is that I have come across both logical positivism and empirical falsification on this forum.
Can you explain if there are any differences, and if so how?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, we all know what you believe. It is a pity that you do not try to know.

How is that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, you might be right. I even consider it highly probable, because when I think about it seems to be from another forum.
But one thing I am 99,9..8% confidant of, is that I have come across both logical positivism and empirical falsification on this forum.
Can you explain if there are any differences, and if so how?

Demonstrating that something is wrong does not prove something else to be right. This is an error that creationists make quite often. They seem to think that if they can disprove the dreaded evolution (and they always fail) that would somehow prove creationism. As I showed you earlier science relies on the concept of falsifiability. Or have you forgotten that already?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Demonstrating that something is wrong does not prove something else to be right. This is an error that creationists make quite often. They seem to think that if they can disprove the dreaded evolution (and they always fail) that would somehow prove creationism. As I showed you earlier science relies on the concept of falsifiability. Or have you forgotten that already?

and Godidit is not falsifiable. Sad thing is, theists take that to mean since God is not falsifiable, he is real. Twisted definitions.

 

[Jollybear]

Wow - you have left me no choice now but to come to the conclusion that you do not comprehend what you read very well. I completely get that you are saying that the authors of The Bible didn't believe the Earth was the center of the universe. I get it. I do. And I don't know one way or the other - and I DON'T CARE.

The authors of The Bible may not have believed that the Earth was flat or the center of the universe. I understand exactly what you said, and that is EXACTLY why I responded with what I did. That even if the authors of The Bible didn't believe the Earth was the center of the universe it doesn't change the fact that they were believing in, and promoting other things without evidentiary warrant. For instance, the "god exists." It's the same sort of thinking that leads you to make that claim as leads one to state that the Earth is the center of the universe.

Oh but there is evidence for Gods existence. Youv heard it ad infinitum and still reject it.

Design of the universe. DNA. Near death experiences where people see God. Apparitions. This is evidence. It is whether you like it or not, accept it or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh but there is evidence for Gods existence. Youv heard it ad infinitum and still reject it.

Design of the universe. DNA. Near death experiences where people see God. Apparitions. This is evidence. It is whether you like it or not, accept it or not.

Just claiming that evidence exists does you no good. And the DNA claim has been refuted countless tines. Near death experiences fall apart when investigated. You do not appear to understand what makes evidence reliable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh but there is evidence for Gods existence. Youv heard it ad infinitum and still reject it.

Design of the universe. DNA. Near death experiences where people see God. Apparitions. This is evidence. It is whether you like it or not, accept it or not.

You have had this explained to you many times, but you still reject those rational explanations and cling to your emotional views.

Any design in the universe is apparent and not established as a fact.

What you know about DNA is just what you believe and nothing that science has demonstrated.

There is no evidence that near death experiences are anything but a physiological response to brain chemistry in near death situations. Nothing exists that establishes what you believe NDE's are is what they actually are.

You can use it as evidence, but it is useless evidence and does not demonstrate what you want it to demonstrate. Much of it is what you believe out of your own ignorance of those subjects and not established facts about those subjects.

You like to speak with an expertise in science that you do not even remotely possess.

 

[Jollybear]

Just claiming that evidence exists does you no good. And the DNA claim has been refuted countless tines. Near death experiences fall apart when investigated. You do not appear to understand what makes evidence reliable.

Just claiming that evidence does NOT exist does you no good. And the DNA claim has NOT been refuted countless tines. Near death experiences bloom when investigated, particularly the veridical ones.. You do not appear to understand what makes evidence reliable.

You have had this explained to you many times, but you still reject those rational explanations and cling to your emotional views.

Any design in the universe is apparent and not established as a fact.

What you know about DNA is just what you believe and nothing that science has demonstrated.

There is no evidence that near death experiences are anything but a physiological response to brain chemistry in near death situations. Nothing exists that establishes what you believe NDE's are is what they actually are.

You can use it as evidence, but it is useless evidence and does not demonstrate what you want it to demonstrate. Much of it is what you believe out of your own ignorance of those subjects and not established facts about those subjects.

You like to speak with an expertise in science that you do not even remotely possess.

You have had this explained to you many times, but you still reject those rational explanations and cling to your emotional views.

Any design in the universe is apparent and that apparentness IS the evidence.

What you know about DNA is just what you believe and nothing that science has demonstrated.

There is evidence that near death experiences are more then physiological responses to brain chemistry in near death situations. Nothing exists that establishes what you believe NDE's are is what they actually are.

You can say its not evidence, but it is useless to deny it as evidence and it does demonstrate what you dont want it to demonstrate. Much of it is what you believe out of your own ignorance of those subjects and not established facts about those subjects.

You like to speak with an expertise in science that you do not even remotely possess.

Have a good night.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Oh but there is evidence for Gods existence. Youv heard it ad infinitum and still reject it.

Design of the universe. DNA. Near death experiences where people see God. Apparitions. This is evidence. It is whether you like it or not, accept it or not.

None of what you mentioned is intrinsically tied to God. None of it has "God" apparent or demonstrable within/without it. DNA? Where is "God" or "God's signature" in DNA? You can't point to it. You can't demonstrate it. Near death experiences are personal, and had at a time when the brain CANNOT be trusted to be producing accurate perceptions of stimulus of any kind. Apparitions are one thing to one person, something else to another, wholly inconsistent and of a level of ambiguity and uncertainty EVEN FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WITNESS THEM that there is NO WAY you can insist that "God" is involved. I'm sorry... but these claims to evidence are garbage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just claiming that evidence does NOT exist does you no good. And the DNA claim has NOT been refuted countless tines. Near death experiences bloom when investigated, particularly the veridical ones.. You do not appear to understand what makes evidence reliable.

If I remember correctly you do not even understand the concept of evidence and ran away from offers to discuss the concept. And yes, the DNA claims have been refuted. Of course you can't support any of your claims, but if you make a clear claim about DNA I will post a refutation for you.

By the way, you should not lie about others. Let's discuss the concept of scientific evidence. You remember, the one that you do not understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just claiming that evidence does NOT exist does you no good. And the DNA claim has NOT been refuted countless tines. Near death experiences bloom when investigated, particularly the veridical ones.. You do not appear to understand what makes evidence reliable.



You have had this explained to you many times, but you still reject those rational explanations and cling to your emotional views.

Any design in the universe is apparent and that apparentness IS the evidence.

What you know about DNA is just what you believe and nothing that science has demonstrated.

There is evidence that near death experiences are more then physiological responses to brain chemistry in near death situations. Nothing exists that establishes what you believe NDE's are is what they actually are.

You can say its not evidence, but it is useless to deny it as evidence and it does demonstrate what you dont want it to demonstrate. Much of it is what you believe out of your own ignorance of those subjects and not established facts about those subjects.

You like to speak with an expertise in science that you do not even remotely possess.

Have a good night.

Just claiming that evidence exists does you no good. You have never once provided any reason that your so called evidence demonstrates anything except your own self-deception and personal desire to really, really, really find some reason to follow your beliefs.

I suppose all those science degrees and 30 years working in science probably have nothing to do with my expertise. What are your qualifications again? That's what I thought.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just claiming that evidence does NOT exist does you no good. And the DNA claim has NOT been refuted countless tines. Near death experiences bloom when investigated, particularly the veridical ones.. You do not appear to understand what makes evidence reliable.



You have had this explained to you many times, but you still reject those rational explanations and cling to your emotional views.

Any design in the universe is apparent and that apparentness IS the evidence.

What you know about DNA is just what you believe and nothing that science has demonstrated.

There is evidence that near death experiences are more then physiological responses to brain chemistry in near death situations. Nothing exists that establishes what you believe NDE's are is what they actually are.

You can say its not evidence, but it is useless to deny it as evidence and it does demonstrate what you dont want it to demonstrate. Much of it is what you believe out of your own ignorance of those subjects and not established facts about those subjects.

You like to speak with an expertise in science that you do not even remotely possess.

Have a good night.

Do you not have your own words to defend your position or is this some deeper understanding that you are afraid to admit and you know that your claims are BS. I use my own words to defend my position. Apparently, they are very good words. After all, you copied them.

 

[Polymath257]

Let us start here:


Then there is this:

So here it is as a testable idea: Can you observe in the natural world, that there are religious humans? Yes, that is a fact. Then it can't be wrong with science, that there are religious humans or that they have religious behavior.
Start there - then do: Aims to explain the natural world. Describe and explain how religion works in the natural world!

And science *does* study religion *as an aspect of sociology*. We can, and do, study the range of beliefs people have.

But that is a different study than the study of which beliefs are true.

So, for example, it is a fact that there are people that believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. It is also a fact that it is about 5 billion years old in reality.

The point is that people often have beliefs that are false.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks.
Okay, so what about humans who say that science is about truth?

it is about the *search* for truth. The way we search is by eliminating all the wrong answers.

While that seem inefficient at first, the requirement that any answer be testable is actually eliminates a lot of 'non-answers'. The next requirement that any new explanation has to fit *all* of the data previously obtained is a HUGE restriction on possible explanations.

So, in practice, by testing and showing some ideas are false, and by requiring our ideas to be testable, we mange to eliminate a lot of bad lines of thinking early.

And then, those ideas that survive and have passed numerous tests are the active scientific theories being investigated right now.

So, yes, it is a search for truth, but with the acknowledgement that we cannot ever prove any ideas about the real world true. But we can prove ideas false and eliminate them.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.--Doyle

 

[Jollybear]

None of what you mentioned is intrinsically tied to God. None of it has "God" apparent or demonstrable within/without it. DNA? Where is "God" or "God's signature" in DNA? You can't point to it. You can't demonstrate it. Near death experiences are personal, and had at a time when the brain CANNOT be trusted to be producing accurate perceptions of stimulus of any kind. Apparitions are one thing to one person, something else to another, wholly inconsistent and of a level of ambiguity and uncertainty EVEN FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WITNESS THEM that there is NO WAY you can insist that "God" is involved. I'm sorry... but these claims to evidence are garbage.

Like i said, youl always come on here asking for evidence, youl get the same evidence from any religious person, and then youl deny it. You wont convince me or other religious folk we are wrong and we wont convince you.

I could go alot deeper into this evidence with details, but it will be a waste of time, unless we make it about the audiance and the subject and not about eachother.

If I remember correctly you do not even understand the concept of evidence and ran away from offers to discuss the concept. And yes, the DNA claims have been refuted. Of course you can't support any of your claims, but if you make a clear claim about DNA I will post a refutation for you.

By the way, you should not lie about others. Let's discuss the concept of scientific evidence. You remember, the one that you do not understand.

If I remember correctly you do not even understand the concept of evidence and ran away from offers to discuss the concept. And yes, the DNA claims have been substanciated. Of course you can't support any of your claims, but if you make a clear claim about DNA I will post a refutation for you.

By the way, you should not lie about others. Let's discuss the concept of scientific evidence. You remember, the one that you do not understand.

 

[Jollybear]

Just claiming that evidence exists does you no good. You have never once provided any reason that your so called evidence demonstrates anything except your own self-deception and personal desire to really, really, really find some reason to follow your beliefs.

I suppose all those science degrees and 30 years working in science probably have nothing to do with my expertise. What are your qualifications again? That's what I thought.

Just claiming that evidence does not exists does you no good. You have never once provided any reason that your so called none evidence demonstrates anything except your own self-deception and personal desire to really, really, really find some reason to follow your beliefs.

I suppose all those science degrees and 30 years working in science probably have not helped you much.

Do you not have your own words to defend your position or is this some deeper understanding that you are afraid to admit and you know that your claims are BS. I use my own words to defend my position. Apparently, they are very good words. After all, you copied them.

Saves me time and if the shoe fits, wear it. Your words are best applied to you.