Science Babble vs Truth

[Jose Fly]

Unfortunately, creationists refused to learn science, refused to recognise that sciences aren’t fixed dogma, like Christian religion with their bible.

One of the main reasons I rarely participate in these debates anymore is because of the mind-numbing repetitiveness of it all. And telling creationists "that's how science works" and/or "that's not how science works" is probably the top item on the repetitiveness list.

But no matter how many times, or how many ways, countless people try and explain it to them, they never get it. This thread is testament to that.

 

[gnostic]

Let's say some of science is correct. do we just ignore where science has gotten practically everything wrong.
Even if they got it right in some areas, and we ignore where they got it wrong, how do we know what they get are not guesses?
Do you say we look at the methods, or the results?
Do we look at other evidence? Yes. I think looking at all the evidence is important. Not picking at what we want, in order to dismiss what we don't want.
However, it's clear form this and previous conversations with you, that you are not interested in the former.

Wow, you the one to talk.

Sciences do recognize errors in some theories, but they also allowed for corrections, modifications and updated.

Scientific theories can be challenged m but any challenge must be tested too, before it can be accepted.

In my reply to @Nimos, I gave example of weakness in Darwin’s Natural Selection, namely Darwin’s description on genetics wasn’t good (eg pangenesis), but that was rectified when biologists from 1930s to 1950s, developed the updated Natural Selection, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (or just Modern Synthesis), by combining it with Mendelian Inheritance law.

Darwin didn’t know about genetic paper written by Gregor Mendel, who were actually contemporaries. Darwin wrote On Origin Of Species in 1859, and Mendel wrote Experiments on Plant Hybridization in 1865 (published in 1866).

The Mendelian Genetics formed the foundation basis of modern genetics, but during his lifetime, no biologists understood the importance of heredity mechanisms until 1900, where it was rediscovered by Correns and de Vries.

There is nothing wrong with Natural Selection as it is now, now as in today. The problems are only with creationists such as yourself, who refused to learn even basic biology.

And you have demonstrated that ignorance m when you don’t allow science to correct itself and to progress forward.

The theory of Evolution have even expanded to include multiple mechanisms (eg Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking), as well as developing explanations on RNA & DNA.

Both Mendel & Darwin knew nothing about nucleic acids, such as DNA & RNA, in the mid-1800s, and both genetics and Evolution have been consolidated with these new information about inheritable gene information.

And biology isn’t the only areas that expanded through corrections and updates.

This silly claims of your that sciences only demonstrated your ignorance.

To give you some nonbiological examples:

1. Theory of gravity, which actually started with Galileo’s experiments at Pisa, to Newton’s law on universal gravitation, to the modern theory of gravity - General Relativity (1917) - by Albert Einstein. Current theoretical physicists are working on “quantum gravity” with Quantum Field Theory that meant to combine General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.
2. Maxwell’s Electromagnetism have gone beyond Maxwell’s original research.
3. Theory on atoms, are normally part of chemistry, but have gone beyond chemistry chemistry that with Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model (Particle Physics).

Updating existing theory, or expanding beyond the existing scopes of a theory, are allowed in sciences. You would know this if you ever bother to pull your head from the sand.

 

[rational experiences]

No not humans, the universe and apparently its more like 13.8 from what I can see.

Science humans theory big bang blast. Light instant. Instant human.

Other science says that theory is fake inference as the universe is billions of years old. No one human is any older than the age science said a living human is.

 

[KWED]

It appear as though you are saying we need to see something being done, in order to know.
Hopefully that's not what you are saying, because then there would be no evidence of most claims of science, since most of what they think, hasn't been seen.

It's clearly not what I'm saying.
If you thought it was, we have more wore to do than I originally suspected.

That's funny. The tests and simulations still have not made them true in many many cases. They are believed to be true.
In fact, many have been declared false.

Early "science" was sometimes based on belief rather than evidence. Some scientists believe strange things. No mystery or controversy there.

More like I know exactly what I am talking about, but it's not things you like hearing.
The things you believe, and want others to believe, are not demonstrated to be true. They are believed to be true. Not so? Then prove me wrong.
I am more convinced of the evidence for God, than I think you are for the things you believe. Especially in light of the abundance of evidence that is coming to light year after year.

Opinion acknowledged. I hope you acknowledge that as well... That's all it is... an opinion.
You likely would tell a scientist that as well.

All I am hearing from the other guy is "You... You... You... You this. You that."
At least you made some effort to say something I could respond to.

This is getting boring now.
You have repeatedly been presented with evidence and rational explanations, yet you just keep saying "T'isn't!"

As Dr Gregory House famously observed...
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people".

 

[KWED]

The fact that God is real, is backed by loads of evidence, which you guys ignore, wave your hand at, and back out, where you can't move forward.

You haven't presented any evidence that any god exists, never mind the specific version you just happen to have (probably) been born into.
There is nothing to ignore. Ironically, it is you who ignores all the evidence that your god is a human invention.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You haven't presented any evidence that any god exists, never mind the specific version you just happen to have (probably) been born into.
There is nothing to ignore. Ironically, it is you who ignores all the evidence that your god is a human invention.

Creationists as a rule do not understand the nature of evidence. They cannot afford to. If they understood what evidence is they would have to admit not having any reliable evidence for their claims.

 

[KWED]

Creationists as a rule do not understand the nature of evidence. They cannot afford to. If they understood what evidence is they would have to admit not having any reliable evidence for their claims.

Indeed. If I had a fiver for every time a religionist claimed that things like "the world around us" or "my personal experience with god" is evidence, I would be a rich man.

 

[KWED]

One of the main reasons I rarely participate in these debates anymore is because of the mind-numbing repetitiveness of it all. And telling creationists "that's how science works" and/or "that's not how science works" is probably the top item on the repetitiveness list.

But no matter how many times, or how many ways, countless people try and explain it to them, they never get it. This thread is testament to that.

If religionists ever understood the nature of evidence (and rational argument), they would see the massive holes in their arguments.
I do not mind the repetitiveness too much. It passes the time and you never know, there might be a wavering religionist reading.

 

[tas8831]

Creationists as a rule do not understand the nature of evidence. They cannot afford to. If they understood what evidence is they would have to admit not having any reliable evidence for their claims.

Indeed - I have encountered a creationist that actually believes - and I have documented this - that if he writes something, just his unsupported opinion, in a forum post, he is "citing evidence." He then later, when asked to present evidence for a claim, he says that he has 'cited evidence dozens of times' and the only 'dozens' of anything were his old non-evidence filled posts. These people are in wayyy over their heads and are too ..... something.. to grasp that.

 

[tas8831]

Indeed. If I had a fiver for every time a religionist claimed that things like "the world around us" or "my personal experience with god" is evidence, I would be a rich man.

I suspect that is the sort of evidence nPeace is referring to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed. If I had a fiver for every time a religionist claimed that things like "the world around us" or "my personal experience with god" is evidence, I would be a rich man.

The "look at the trees!!" argument. The best that they can often do is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[Jose Fly]

If religionists ever understood the nature of evidence (and rational argument), they would see the massive holes in their arguments.

I've felt for a long time that it really boils down to basic psychology. Some folks just aren't inclined to think objectively or critically, and tend more towards things like black/white thinking and favoring emotional comfort/safety over accuracy. So trying to get them to change that is effectively expecting them to change their fundamental psychological makeup, which is probably very, very unlikely.

I do not mind the repetitiveness too much. It passes the time and you never know, there might be a wavering religionist reading.

I've done it for over 20 years, so I tend to have less tolerance for seeing the same things repeated ad nauseum. But that's just me being a grumpy old man.

I don't deny that debating creationists can be quite entertaining, especially if you're a student of human behavior. It's one of the main reasons I started doing it, and still pop in now and then. So yeah....press on my good man!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Indeed - I have encountered a creationist that actually believes - and I have documented this - that if he writes something, just his unsupported opinion, in a forum post, he is "citing evidence." He then later, when asked to present evidence for a claim, he says that he has 'cited evidence dozens of times' and the only 'dozens' of anything were his old non-evidence filled posts. These people are in wayyy over their heads and are too ..... something.. to grasp that.

I have seen that too. I suspect, and this just my opinion mind you, that the symptoms you are describing are from a person that is clinically delusional and not just simply a believer. The manufacture of evidence to support the delusion is an ancient problem.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The "look at the trees!!" argument. The best that they can often do is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

What about the huge tracts of land or these curtains?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Indeed. If I had a fiver for every time a religionist claimed that things like "the world around us" or "my personal experience with god" is evidence, I would be a rich man.

It is also how belief is employed. Christian creationists appear to believe they fully understand the Bible and dictate the mind of God, demanding that we ignore what we can see and come to understand in favor of their interpretation of belief.

I do not understand the paradigm of God creating a world and giving humans the abilities we have to look and reason and then demanding we ignore all we see. It does not make sense.

 

[tas8831]

I have seen that too. I suspect, and this just my opinion mind you, that the symptoms you are describing are from a person that is clinically delusional and not just simply a believer. The manufacture of evidence to support the delusion is an ancient problem.

Indeed. It is hard to tell the truly disturbed from the truly mental... if you know what I mean...

 

[tas8831]

The "look at the trees!!" argument. The best that they can often do is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

I literally had a grandmother say that to me when I took a creative writing class when I was a young tad (it was at a community college, there were all kinds of people in there) - I had written a poem about my lack of faith and during the discussion part of the class, she challenged me by bringing up the beauty of trees....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I literally had a grandmother say that to me when I took a creative writing class when I was a young tad (it was at a community college, there were all kinds of people in there) - I had written a poem about my lack of faith and during the discussion part of the class, she challenged me by bringing up the beauty of trees....

Trees are beautiful. At least the ones that don't fall on your house or you. Not so beautiful then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trees are beautiful. At least the ones that don't fall on your house or you. Not so beautiful then.

I am not too fond of the one big leafy one in my front yard at this time of year. It is only about thirty years old. I have a neighbor with a giant oak. So I guess that I am lucky. And couple of years ago the other giant oak decided to partially fall. The owner was VERY lucky. His ginormous oak failed in such a way that the roads that his corner lot is on both were blocked. His house was fine. But what was left of the tree was saying "You're next!" He had to have what was left cut down.

 

[Alex22]

Science has cured smallpox and polio, Christianity has burnt witches and has been the enemy of logic and reason from the beginning. Hmm I wonder which I should trust in.