Science Babble vs Truth

[Aupmanyav]

Does it hurt when you shoot yourself in the foot?

Quite apparently, it does not, because he keeps up doing this again and again. There are others too like him.

For Alan Feduccia article:
"Despite the fact that no evidence of feathers has ever been found associated with a Deinonychus fossil, this model of the dinosaur at Canada's Royal Ontario Museum is covered with feathers in an attempt to emphasize the supposed evolutionary relationship between dinosaurs and birds."
https://blog.drwile.com/riddle-of-the-feathered-dragons/

That is absolutely wrong and unscientific. It is a hoax like the 'Piltdown Man'. It is like adding stones to Taj Mahal or the Acropolis in Athens. But how is science, Paleontology or History is responsible if someone has done it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I am referring to science babble against truth - biblical truth. All science is not babble, and the Bible has truth. Science as well. The truth does not clash.
Scientific truth does not clash with Bible truth. Science babble does.
Did I use the expression "falsely called knowledge or science in this thread. I believe I did.

No one is stopping you from presenting your arguments. If you have something to say, say it... including nonsense and babble.

Sadly almost all of your "biblical truth" is actually "biblical babble". One does not need to be a genius to understand how the Bible fails again and again when one abuses it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ah, the Intelligent Design and the Intelligent Designer.

If there was intelligent designer and intelligent design, there would not have been people opposing Evolution.

 

[viole]

When we don't understand something, we tend to discredit it.
What do you know about the laryngeal nerve?
Perhaps only what you have been misled into believing, I would suggest.

Let me share the facts with you.
Arch of the Aorta
The arch of the aorta is the second major anatomical region of the aorta; it curves above the heart between the ascending and descending aorta. All of the blood delivered from the heart to the systemic tissues of the body passes through the aorta, making it the largest artery in the human body. As the aorta extends from the heart, it begins as the ascending aorta before turning 180 degrees towards the body’s left side in the aortic arch. From the arch the aorta passes posterior to the heart and descends through the thorax and abdomen as the descending aorta.

You are probably saying, 'What does the arch of the aorta have to do with the laryngeal nerve?

This is the organ which the right Laryngeal Nerve loops under, but also -more importantly - the Laryngeal Nerve branches from the vegas nerve at this level.
View attachment 56324

The Laryngeal Nerve does not start at the top of the neck. Rather...
The recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is a branch of the vagus nerve (cranial nerve X) that supplies all the intrinsic muscles of the larynx, with the exception of the cricothyroid muscles. There are two recurrent laryngeal nerves, right and left, in the human body. The right and left nerves are not symmetrical, with the left nerve looping under the aortic arch, and the right nerve looping under the right subclavian artery then traveling upwards.They both travel alongside of the trachea. Additionally, the nerves are one of few nerves that follow a recurrent course, moving in the opposite direction to the nerve they branch from, a fact from which they gain their name.

The recurrent laryngeal nerves supply sensation to the larynx below the vocal cords, gives cardiac branches to the deep cardiac plexus, and branches to the trachea, esophagus and the inferior constrictor muscles. The posterior cricoarytenoid muscles, the only muscles that can open the vocal cords, are innervated by this nerve.

I suggest you read more, on the structure.

I suggest you also stop listening to and watching Richard Dawkins clever use of philosophical, and in some cases psychological lectures.

Need I go into male nipples. Nah. That would take me into mustache, pubic hair, muscles, eyebrow, eyelashes, etc. That boring stuff migh send you to sleep.

That does not look like a giraffe.

Anyway, I was thinking of another easier example, which might simpler for you. And it is less boring.

Namely the "design" of predators. Like a Lion, or a Tiger. It really seems optimised for haunting, killing their prey, with high efficiency. Don't you think that is stupid design?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nimos]

Thanks, So when you said "there might be a tiny amount of faith involved", you had in mind, uncertainty. I see.
I hope you understand it now.

The uncertainty is not a part of faith. Uncertainty exists apart from faith.
To give a few examples.
Are you uncertain the sun will rise each day? No.
However, there is no certainty that it won't for some unknown reason, fail to rise, but you don't put that in your mind.

You can spin the words as much as you like, it is still the same. Im unable to see how your faith is difference from what normal faith is? You just use the words certainty and uncertainty. So if you are 100% certain about something you don't need faith, the word you use doesn't change anything when its meaning is the same or it covers the same meaning.

 

[KWED]

So it is all science (eg Natural Sciences, Physical Sciences or Social Sciences) being babble or only just a selective few?

All of it, obviously. You can't cherry-pick.
That's why cars, planes, computers, phones, medicines, satellites, etc don't work.
Oh...

 

[KWED]

When we don't understand something, we tend to discredit it.

You religionists might. Us scientists (and other rational people) try to understand it by observation, experimentation, testing, prediction, etc.

What do you know about the laryngeal nerve?
Let me share the facts with you.

Did you just use the "You can't trust science. Here's some science you need to trust" argument?

BTW, can you explain why the info you posted refutes the claim that the route of the laryngeal nerve is evidence for evolution and against ID?
(BTW, don't know if you realised but the source you quoted also states that it is evidence for evolution and against ID
"The extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes,[27]: 74–75  is cited as evidence of evolution, as opposed to Intelligent Design. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.")

Need I go into male nipples. Nah.

Yah. You need to explain why an "intelligent designer" would give men nipples, and why the biological explanation is wrong.

That would take me into mustache, pubic hair, muscles, eyebrow, eyelashes, etc. That boring stuff migh send you to sleep.

I have drunk several strong coffees so no need to worry. Please explain how all those things are evidence of intelligent design.

 

[KWED]

By keeping oneself ignorant one can say "truthfully" that they see little evidence for something. But that is not a valid reason to keep oneself ignorant.

It's the classic "I see no ships!" said by Nelson when he held his telescope to his blind eye. (He actually said that he did not see a signal to withdraw from his commanding officer, but the "ships" version has stuck in folklore).

 

[KWED]

No. I am referring to science babble against truth - biblical truth. All science is not babble, and the Bible has truth. Science as well. The truth does not clash.
Scientific truth does not clash with Bible truth. Science babble does.
Did I use the expression "falsely called knowledge or science in this thread. I believe I did.

No one is stopping you from presenting your arguments. If you have something to say, say it... including nonsense and babble.

So you are saying that you are happy to trust science - until it appears to contradict a version of Bronze Age Middle Eastern mythology, then science suddenly becomes babble.

Seems reasonable.

 

[gnostic]

No. I am referring to science babble against truth - biblical truth. All science is not babble, and the Bible has truth. Science as well. The truth does not clash.
Scientific truth does not clash with Bible truth. Science babble does.
Did I use the expression "falsely called knowledge or science in this thread. I believe I did.

No one is stopping you from presenting your arguments. If you have something to say, say it... including nonsense and babble.

What you call “scientific truth” are knowledge (scientific theory) supported by observable evidence.

The truth is in the evidence. BUT the evidence can either verify or refute any model (eg theory, hypothesis); that what evidence used for, to test the model.

So basically when you test a model, you determine

1. which model is verified and probable, and
2. which model is refuted and improbable,

...and only evidence can determine that. Only evidence can elevate a hypothesis to accepted scientific theory.

Scientific theory is a former hypothesis that passed all the necessary requirements:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

Failing even the 1st requirement, would means the hypothesis would be highly unlike to proceed to the next stage (2. Scientific Method).

In fact, failing the Falsifiability means the concept is unfalsifiable and untestable, that it would disqualify concept from even be called “hypothesis”.

Examples of unfalsifiable models, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Electric Universe cosmology, etc.

You brought up Evolution in the OP, and the dinosaur vs bird classification of archaeopteryx. But archaeopteryx was only the earliest evidence discovered and examined, by Thomas Henry Huxley, who first proposed the dinosaur and bird connection. But since then, there have been other species of dinosaur fossils, better evidence than the archaeopteryx that supported Huxley’s prediction.

I am not saying the birds evolved directly from the archaeopteryx, because there are other candidates.

It is not merely interpretation of the evidence. It is the bone structures that supported the connection.

So, the only ones rejecting the paleontology of dinosaurs and birds, are creationists, who are babbling.

What biblical truth does the Bible offered? What evidence does the Bible offered that counter paleontology?

If the Bible have nothing to say, then all you are doing is babbling.

 

[nPeace]

That does not look like a giraffe.

Of course it doesn't. You don't look like an ape either.
Here ... Try this one then.

Anyway, I was thinking of another easier example, which might simpler for you. And it is less boring.

What could be easier than talking about nipples.

Namely the "design" of predators. Like a Lion, or a Tiger. It really seems optimised for haunting, killing their prey, with high efficiency. Don't you think that is stupid design?

Ciao

- viole

Ah. The design of predators.
Easy enough. First three paragraphs here, and first portion here.
You are looking at the rusted car right now, and thinking it was designed that way. Not according to Genesis. Isaiah 11:6-9, and Isaiah 65:25 makes that clear.

 

[nPeace]

You can spin the words as much as you like, it is still the same. Im unable to see how your faith is difference from what normal faith is? You just use the words certainty and uncertainty. So if you are 100% certain about something you don't need faith, the word you use doesn't change anything when its meaning is the same or it covers the same meaning.

Lol. I'm sorry Nimos, but you don't get to decide word usage. The Bible was written centuries before you even saw daylight.
Yes. You guys and gals get to decide who can lie down with whom - whether man woman child or beast, because that's your choice.
However when it comes to foundations, you can't knock them down.
So wheel and come again.
In other words, when you get your facts straight about the word usage of faith, return.

Oh.... and you don't get to tell others to use your alternative ideas, views, etc. Sorry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it doesn't. You don't look like an ape either.
Here ... Try this one then.

What could be easier than talking about nipples.


Ah. The design of predators.
Easy enough. First three paragraphs here, and first portion here.
You are looking at the rusted car right now, and thinking it was designed that way. Not according to Genesis. Isaiah 11:6-9, and Isaiah 65:25 makes that clear.

That could be construed as an insult since you do look like an ape. As does every other human that posts here since they are human.

Creationists are sooooo confused at times.

And what does that image have to do with your failed attempt to defend creationism?

 

[nPeace]

You religionists might. Us scientists (and other rational people) try to understand it by observation, experimentation, testing, prediction, etc.

Did you just use the "You can't trust science. Here's some science you need to trust" argument?

No. I did not. Now all you need to do is point out where I did. You're Atheist right? I don't find them to be very honest.

BTW, can you explain why the info you posted refutes the claim that the route of the laryngeal nerve is evidence for evolution and against ID?

No. Can you?

(BTW, don't know if you realised but the source you quoted also states that it is evidence for evolution and against ID
"The extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes,[27]: 74–75  is cited as evidence of evolution, as opposed to Intelligent Design. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.")

Sounds like a theological argument to me.
I thought you guys were supposed t stick to science. You know, the scientific method and all. Or are you here admitting how scientists do get religious and philosophical?

Yah. You need to explain why an "intelligent designer" would give men nipples, and why the biological explanation is wrong.
Biological explanation?

What's the biological explanation for why men have nipples?
This? During the first several weeks, male and female embryos follow the same blueprint, which includes the development of nipples.
How does that explain why, different to what believers say?
You guys do get me laughing. Honestly.
Wrong? Who says that's wrong?

How does that explain why the blueprint says males should have nipples?
It doesn't. However, we know why this house has roofs intercepting.

The blueprint says it should, because the designer planned it that way.
You believe in a blueprint that had no designer. Ouch. That must hurt.

I have drunk several strong coffees so no need to worry. Please explain how all those things are evidence of intelligent design.

How all these things are evidence of design?
We just read it. During the first several weeks, male and female embryos follow the same blueprint, which includes the development of nipples.
Whether we use blueprint in a literal or figurative way, the blueprint has a plan, with specific instruction, intended to reach a particular goal, or goals.

Spoiler

Definitions
More formally design has been defined as follows:

(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints; (verb, transitive) to create a design, in an environment (where the designer operates)

Another definition for design is "a roadmap or a strategic approach for someone to achieve a unique expectation. It defines the specifications, plans, parameters, costs, activities, processes and how and what to do within legal, political, social, environmental, safety and economic constraints in achieving that objective."

Here, a "specification" can be manifested as either a plan or a finished product, and "primitives" are the elements from which the design object is composed.

The person designing is called a designer, which is also a term used for people who work professionally in one of the various design areas usually specifying which area is being dealt with (such as a textile designer, fashion designer, product designer, concept designer, web designer or interior designer). A designer's sequence of activities is called a design process while the scientific study of design is called design science.

Another definition of design is planning to manufacture an object, system, component or structure. Thus the word "design" can be used as a noun or a verb. In a broader sense, design is an applied art and engineering that integrates with technology.

While the definition of design is fairly broad, design has a myriad of specifications that professionals utilize in their fields.

Major examples of design are architectural blueprints, engineering drawings, business processes, circuit diagrams, and sewing patterns.

I went through this before though. It's in this thread if you are interested in the answer to your questions.
I would not recommend you drink more coffee, considering its length. Too much of anything can be bad for us.

It seems to me, Atheist and unbelievers would deny what is common knowledge, in exchange for make belief or fantasy, by saying that things just happened to be organized, ordered, purposeful, designed.... by blind processes.
That's as absurd as saying, the furnished house in the middle of the desert assembled itself by elements acting on it. How ridiculous!
Where there is design, there is always a designer.

Here is what you guys would have people believe. Just throw black paint, or different colors of paint from an airplane, and the more often you do it, after a few billion years, you will get this.

Talk about absurd!
One living cell - so tiny as to not be seen by the naked eye, is intricately designed.
We praise engineers - intelligent designers - who design really complex mechanisms, like our watches, our phones, computer chips, but we attribute far more intricately designed objects to blind processes.
You think that's reasonable?

 

[nPeace]

So you are saying that you are happy to trust science - until it appears to contradict a version of Bronze Age Middle Eastern mythology, then science suddenly becomes babble.

Seems reasonable.

No. Even scientists say that the ideas supporting the evolution theory do not meet the requirements of the scientific method.
If scientists can say that, what does it matter who else does.
There is science, and then there is "science".
Some try to pass philosophy off as science.
That's science babble. Not science.

You must admit that scientists go at each other's throat over these philosophical proposals.

 

[nPeace]

What you call “scientific truth” are knowledge (scientific theory) supported by observable evidence.

The truth is in the evidence. BUT the evidence can either verify or refute any model (eg theory, hypothesis); that what evidence used for, to test the model.

So basically when you test a model, you determine

1. which model is verified and probable, and
2. which model is refuted and improbable,

...and only evidence can determine that. Only evidence can elevate a hypothesis to accepted scientific theory.

Scientific theory is a former hypothesis that passed all the necessary requirements:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

Failing even the 1st requirement, would means the hypothesis would be highly unlike to proceed to the next stage (2. Scientific Method).

In fact, failing the Falsifiability means the concept is unfalsifiable and untestable, that it would disqualify concept from even be called “hypothesis”.

Examples of unfalsifiable models, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Electric Universe cosmology, etc.

You brought up Evolution in the OP, and the dinosaur vs bird classification of archaeopteryx. But archaeopteryx was only the earliest evidence discovered and examined, by Thomas Henry Huxley, who first proposed the dinosaur and bird connection. But since then, there have been other species of dinosaur fossils, better evidence than the archaeopteryx that supported Huxley’s prediction.

I am not saying the birds evolved directly from the archaeopteryx, because there are other candidates.

It is not merely interpretation of the evidence. It is the bone structures that supported the connection.

So, the only ones rejecting the paleontology of dinosaurs and birds, are creationists, who are babbling.

What biblical truth does the Bible offered? What evidence does the Bible offered that counter paleontology?

If the Bible have nothing to say, then all you are doing is babbling.

So tell me something. If the evidence supports the idea, why does that change later? Because it never supported it in the first place.
It was just a belief.
So when you say the Bible does not counter these - beliefs... that's what they are, it's simply babbling about your beliefs, without knowing that the evidence supports it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Are you for real? Your pixie farter is not analogous to a super intellect!

Are you for real? Your pixie farter is not analogous to a super intellect!

The fact that they are BOTH unfalsifiable claims makes them analogous in that respect. Do you not comprehend what an analogy is?

 

[Nimos]

Lol. I'm sorry Nimos, but you don't get to decide word usage. The Bible was written centuries before you even saw daylight.
Yes. You guys and gals get to decide who can lie down with whom - whether man woman child or beast, because that's your choice.
However when it comes to foundations, you can't knock them down.
So wheel and come again.
In other words, when you get your facts straight about the word usage of faith, return.

Oh.... and you don't get to tell others to use your alternative ideas, views, etc. Sorry.

Its not about telling others anything, I simply asked you what you meant by it. And so forth you have simply given a standard explanation of faith. Which is fine, absolutely no problem.
I just don't see why you have to make it try to mean something else then when it isn't, it simply create confusion. Again, its not about deciding anything, its about what a word means, so people understand each other.

And I don't believe, I at any point have told you anything other than what I meant by the word or simply asked you to explain the difference between the two types of faith that you are talking about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. Even scientists say that the ideas supporting the evolution theory do not meet the requirements of the scientific method.
If scientists can say that, what does it matter who else does.
There is science, and then there is "science".
Some try to pass philosophy off as science.
That's science babble. Not science.

You must admit that scientists go at each other's throat over these philosophical proposals.

But scientists do not say that.

Some religious people try to pass babble off as science or religion or both. I see a good example of that.

Scientists argue and discuss matters of science. They offer counter arguments using evidence. Some religious people just bbbbbaaaabbbbllleee on.

 

[KWED]

Here ... Try this one then.

You do realise that the route of the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe suggests evolution rather than design. If it was designed, the designer was incompetent.