Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Polymath257]

Okay then, you still need to substantiate your accusation that the authors of the paper were dishonest and irresponsible.

As opposed to doing *exactly* what they needed to do to be honest and responsible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False.

That would not be possible for me because it would be dishonest for me to say that.

No. What’s preventing from doing that is that it isn’t what I think.

Then why do you persist in this behavior of making false accusations against others that are not here to defend themselves. Surely this must violate some principle of Baha'i.

 

[YoursTrue]

You didn't answer the question. Are ideas deserving of respect after they've been shown to be wrong?

It depends, doesn't it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Polymath257 @Jose Fly @Dan From Smithville I’m not a person who could have any influence on any decision making or policy making even if I wanted to, and I won’t be trying. The way it looks to me could be all wrong, but all you’re doing is confirming it for me. I’ll consider what could possibly change my mind about it, and look for that.

I see it differently. I have not seen anyone here confirm desperation and dishonesty in their actions nor have I seen references where that is going on. Perhaps you are seeing what you want to see, even it if is not there?

 

[YoursTrue]

Pluto was reclassified. That does not change any of what is known about it. And spontaneous generation never was a scientific theory. Science has improved its methodology over the years. In fact it was application of the scientific method that refuted spontaneous generation.

Quite often those that deny science do not have a very good grasp of the concept. The scientific method is rather simple. One observes a phenomenon, asks questions about it, and then tries to answer them. That is done by constructing testable models and trying to disprove them. It is not enough to find correlation. One must think of a reasonable test that could show one's idea to be wrong and test it with that in mind. Passing such a test does not"prove" the theory,but it does give one more confidence that it is correct.

I am not denying science. Science has done many worthwhile things.

 

[Jose Fly]

It depends, doesn't it?

It depends on what?

 

[YoursTrue]

It depends on what?

What you consider as scientific premise.

 

[YoursTrue]

It depends on what?

Here are some examples of misleading evidence that scientists believed for decades --The misleading evidence that fooled scientists for decades

 

[Jose Fly]

What you consider as scientific premise.

Here are some examples of misleading evidence that scientists believed for decades --The misleading evidence that fooled scientists for decades

Okay, so let's be a little more specific. Do you think the belief that the earth is flat, doesn't move, and is orbited by the rest of the universe is deserving of respect?

 

[YoursTrue]

If we rely on revelation, then no actual science can be done. We want testable ideas, not ones that can be use to explain *anything*.

Ultimately, that is because if an idea is so flexible that it is consistent with *everything*, then it has no explanatory ability whatsoever.

It may be intriguing to try to figure out how things are (scientifically, of course) and analyze them, such as light rays, but I am convinced that mankind will never figure out God's way from the start to duplicate them. For instance, as far as I understand, as a song lyric goes, nothing comes from nothing. While the terminology I use can be refuted, I don't think any scientist has tested the beginning of the universe, have they? Odd the way things turn out sometimes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here are some examples of misleading evidence that scientists believed for decades --The misleading evidence that fooled scientists for decades

There seems to be the development of a theme here. If views held in science 200 or 100 years ago were wrong or not completely accurate than views held today could be wrong and therefore, ones favorite belief view is true by default. At least that is a common argument that I have seen start off this way many, many times.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It may be intriguing to try to figure out how things are (scientifically, of course) and analyze them, such as light rays, but I am convinced that mankind will never figure out God's way from the start to duplicate them. For instance, as far as I understand, as a song lyric goes, nothing comes from nothing. While the terminology I use can be refuted, I don't think any scientist has tested the beginning of the universe, have they? Odd the way things turn out sometimes.

I am not a cosmologist, but I do not recall reading that the universe was created from nothing. What I have heard so far, is that we do not know what came before. Not knowing does not equal nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not denying science. Science has done many worthwhile things.

Oh good. Nice to hear that you accept the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not a cosmologist, but I do not recall reading that the universe was created from nothing. What I have heard so far, is that we do not know what came before. Not knowing does not equal nothing.

It all depends upon how one defines "nothing". From my understanding the total energy of the universe is zero. So at least as far as where energy and mass came from and universe from nothing does not violate any laws of physics.

 

[YoursTrue]

There seems to be the development of a theme here. If views held in science 200 or 100 years ago were wrong or not completely accurate than views held today could be wrong and therefore, ones favorite belief view is true by default. At least that is a common argument that I have seen start off this way many, many times.

Some views were not held 100 years ago and were proven by experience or more research to be wrong. Regardless, based on the replies here, I can see we obviously do not agree that just because science says something, it does not make it true. Anyway, have a nice day-evening. Wherever you are. What time zone, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

It all depends upon how one defines "nothing". From my understanding the total energy of the universe is zero. So at least as far as where energy and mass came from and universe from nothing does not violate any laws of physics.

OK, not having studied physics, words can be wrong, so are you saying that energy comes from nothing?

 

[YoursTrue]

It all depends upon how one defines "nothing". From my understanding the total energy of the universe is zero. So at least as far as where energy and mass came from and universe from nothing does not violate any laws of physics.

Which reminds me -- is there really nothing?

 

[Jim]

I am not denying science.

I am.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, not having studied physics, words can be wrong, so are you saying that energy comes from nothing?

No, I am saying that astronomers have measured the total energy of the universe. It is as close to zero as they can measure. There is both positive and negative energy in the universe and they appear to be balanced. There is no energy that needs to be created.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which reminds me -- is there really nothing?

Probably not.