1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured It is time to revise the Methodology of Science

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by questfortruth, Nov 15, 2018.

?
  1. Yes, the paper has truth in it.

  2. No, I do not like even truth.

  3. No!!!

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,827
    Ratings:
    +444
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    mad right?
     
  2. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    20,101
    Ratings:
    +23,883
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    You asked for an opinion related to your 'paper'. You specifically asked if I would accept it for publication if I were a reviewer. I gave my honest opinion about what you wrote.

    if you wish, you can write it up and send it in to 'Nature' and see what the referee says. My bet is that you will get a form letter saying they don't have room for your paper (a polite way of rejecting it).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    12,259
    Ratings:
    +11,561
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Quod scripsi, scripsi.
     
  4. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,827
    Ratings:
    +444
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    One lies, when says that paper is unclear: if the author
    has defined all terms, and showed relations, then the paper is complicated,
    but clear for those referees, who want to think.
     
  5. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,157
    Ratings:
    +37,806
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    Spare me the fake outrage, Shmogie. Or if you really are outraged over a joke, tell your therapist about your issues with humor, not the whole forum. So far as I know, no one on this forum is qualified to prescribe meds over the internet.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    20,101
    Ratings:
    +23,883
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    It isn't that the paper is unclear. To the extent it is true, it is trivial. And the results simply don't imply what you seem to think they do.

    As they say 'the paper is both true and original. But the true part isn't original and the original part isn't true.'
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    9,033
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Religion:
    Christian
    Nice try. A snide bit of snarkiness isn't a joke, it is a snide bit of snarkiness. Do you feel compelled to make a joke with other posts you respond to ? Is it your trademark ?

    I am not outraged, I am saddened at your tactics.

    You pulled a Trumpism and thought you were cute, and are really ticked you got called out for it.

    Get over it.
     
  8. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,157
    Ratings:
    +37,806
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    Spin it however you like, Shmogie, the bottom line is, you don't like my sense of humor.
     
  9. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    9,033
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well, when you show a sense of humor, Iĺl let you know what I think. You sound like Trump after a tirade ¨I was just joking !¨
     
  10. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,157
    Ratings:
    +37,806
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    Does that mean you'll be uncritically swallowing everything I say as true while denying it wasn't your own idea after all?
     
  11. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,827
    Ratings:
    +444
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Paper has proven the Biblical Adam and Eve using the Theory of Probability, look the file attached.
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    20,101
    Ratings:
    +23,883
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I've looked. My opinion hasn't changed. I still think it completely unworthy of publication in any legitimate journal.

    But, once again, send it in and see what response you get.

    FYI: You talk about a most ancient common ancestor. That would be some single-celled organism (or something even earlier).
     
    #72 Polymath257, Nov 19, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2018
  13. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    20,101
    Ratings:
    +23,883
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    No, for ADA, we have to be able to trace back to *all* those at that time that have any ancestors now. Not all those at the time of ADA have modern descendants.

    Wrong. No direct male line need exist to everyone at the time of ACA. Since lines with both men and women are allowed in the analysis, there is a younger age than when things are more restricted: it is easier to get common ancestors with less restriction.

    No, please don't. Your understanding of this material is poor.
     
  14. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,827
    Ratings:
    +444
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    I am talking about most ancient HUMAN.
     
  15. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,827
    Ratings:
    +444
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Did Y-Chromosomal Adam have parents? And grand-parents? And grand-grand-parents? The Wikipedia says, that ACA point must be more ancient, than MRCA points. Including mt-MRCA and Y-MRCA then. OK. It is subject of debate, so it is not quite clear proof of Bible. But the proof of God is simple: without God, there is no Absolute Truth, so there is God.
     
    #75 questfortruth, Nov 20, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2018
  16. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    20,101
    Ratings:
    +23,883
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Then you get into definitional issues: what defines a HUMAN from those in the generation just before? Species are like languages. They change so slowly that making a strict dividing line is impossible.
     
  17. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    20,101
    Ratings:
    +23,883
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    Yes, of course Y-Adam had ancestors. And it is completely irrelevant to the Bible. This stuff is not even close to meaning what you seem to think it means.
     
  18. Truly Enlightened

    Truly Enlightened Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,299
    Ratings:
    +596

    Using Trump and Truth in the same sentence is oxymoronic.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,694
    Ratings:
    +5,178
    Religion:
    Pi π
    More of your gibberish, similar to that of your other thread, but shorter in this one.

    As to the methodology.

    For your information, any scientific THEORY can be added, replaced current or old ones, modified or corrected. Theories are the ones that can be reviewed. But such reviews and changes are only done, if there are better alternatives (better explanations, better predictions) supported by better verifiable evidences.

    As to the Scientific METHOD, that currently need no revision, because it worked.

    Scientific Method provided objective methodology of testing any hypothesis or scientific theory, where evidences or experiments will either VERIFY or REFUTE theory or hypothesis.

    Scientific method has a mechanism (if used properly) that allows for exposing errors and self-correction.

    The scientific method is what make searching and acquiring knowledge different from the ways religions and philosophies do thing.

    The only people who don’t like scientific method, are creationists and people who are science-illiterate, cheaters, and con-men.
     
Loading...