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 Science Babble vs Truth

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by nPeace, Oct 5, 2021.

  1. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,576
    Ratings:
    +2,857
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    [​IMG]

    When babble comes up against truth, babble will remain babble, and never will it become truth.
    Allow me to babble for a while in this thread. ;)

    Is there any truth to the claim that science has gives us answers based on evidence, whereas religion does not?

    Trying to be as brief as possible, i'm taking a few quotes from here.
    ******************************************************************************************
    Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak.
    Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
    On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another.
    Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences.
    When we make an inference, we draw a conclusion based on the evidence that we have available.

    inferred evidence
    to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.

    How Scientists Make Inferences
    Some scientists investigate things that they cannot observe directly.
    Once scientists have gathered evidence, they use it to make inferences about the things they are investigating.
    Scientists answer questions by gathering and evaluating evidence. One way scientists gather evidence is through firsthand observation; however, sometimes scientists ask questions about things that are not immediately observable.
    ...scientists use inferential reasoning to figure out answers to their questions based on evidence gathered through observations and from information that they or other scientists have already discovered about the topic. Scientists understand that inferences are always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available or new ways of thinking emerge.

    ******************************************************************************************

    @Polymath257 asked How do you know that the source you experience is actually God? What evidence do you have of that?
    In other words, how do you know that your perceptions about this are reliable?

    I will answer these questions, and at the same time I want to ask the same of you. How do you know that the scientists perception about the things they infer, are reliable?
    This thread will also explain why no amount of science babble will trump truth - Biblical truth first and foremost.

    Before I start, I want to be sure we have the same understanding of evidence, since it seems apparent to me that skeptics here, want to equate evidence to conclusions.
    Three Ways to Date the Destruction at Jericho
    Carbon-14 is normally accurate to within 15 years, but the older the sample, the more necessary it is to calibrate and corroborate dates using other means. Indeed, there is a current debate in the field of archaeology concerning how accurate Carbon-14 dating is in the Levant9, as well as whether there is a need to recalibrate the curve used in radiocarbon calculations.

    Over the years several samples of charcoal and grain seeds from the final Canaanite city at Jericho have been tested for C-14 levels. The current Italian-Palestinian excavation team, directed by Lorenzo Nigro, tested two samples from the final destruction of the city in 2000; one sample dated to 1347 BC (+/- 85 years) and the other dated to 1597 (+/- 91 years).11 Archaeologist, Dr. Titus Kennedy, has summarized: “The first of these dates fits roughly around the proposed 1400 BC destruction, while the other is closer to the proposed 1550 BC destruction…these dates are so broad that they are useless in contributing to solving the problem for the date of destruction. Overall, the C-14 dates from the destruction of the Bronze Age city of Jericho range from as high as 1883 BC to as low as 1262 BC - a range of over 600 years.” Clearly we will need to look to other methods to determine when Jericho was destroyed.

    Regarding the second, the article says that Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon's earlier interpretation that Jericho was abandoned at the time of the Conquest of Canaan in 1406 BC is incorrect, when considering all the evidence demonstrating that Jericho was still in existence through 1500 BCE.

    On the third, one archaeologist - Dr. Bryant Wood, considered to be an expert in Canaanite pottery noted that another Archaeologist - Kathleen Kenyon, had based her dating of the destruction of Jericho solely on "the absence of imported pottery". Her conclusions that Jericho was unoccupied at the time Joshua is said to have conquered and destroyed Jericho was based on... The author of the article put in his bit... (She would have done well to follow esteemed Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen’s maxim, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”)

    What's the point?
    Both Garstang and Kenyon conducted significant excavations at Jericho. Both were excellent field archaeologists Garstang meticulously analyzed the pottery he excavated and Kenyon carefully improved excavation methodology in general. Yet both differed on their interpretation of the data.

    Evidence is not conclusion. Evidence requires interpreting. Different interpretations lead to different conclusions. Those conclusions may be wrong.
    This is why scientists will disagree with each other, because interpretations don't mean the same thing.

    So to be sure, is there anything you disagree with in this OP? Please specify or add anything you would like to... related to th OP, please. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    45,871
    Ratings:
    +27,805
    Religion:
    Atheist
    When did paleontologists try to do that? Is archaeopteryx a bird? Maybe, probably not. Is it a dinosaur? No doubt. There are countless flying dinosaurs. We still see them today.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 3
  3. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,141
    Ratings:
    +1,932
    What would religious evidence look like compared to scientific evidence? Can you give an example of some religious evidence?
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    21,452
    Ratings:
    +14,373
    Religion:
    atheist
    Well...I like the distinction you draw between evidence, inference, and conclusion.
    I was less fond of this 'This thread will also explain why no amount of science babble will trump truth - Biblical truth first and foremost.'

    I'm not sure what 'Biblical truth' means, honestly. Isn't it just...plain old truth?
    And isn't science a means of investigating and testing hypothesis, allowing the gathering of evidence, and the drawing of inferences?
     
    • Like Like x 4
  5. sun rise

    sun rise "This is the Hour of God"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    62,653
    Ratings:
    +30,528
    Religion:
    Love
    Science is the lens through which we learn about the wonder of God's world. To deny science is to reject that God-given lens.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 4
  6. AlexanderG

    AlexanderG Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2021
    Messages:
    391
    Ratings:
    +849
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I mean, a five-second google search will confirm that Archaeopteryx was dated to a time period between dinosaurs fossils and bird fossils, and it has some unique traits of dinosaurs as well as some unique traits of birds. And its discovery was predicted by scientific models of evolution, paleontology, geology, and physics, which are themselves supported by mountains of other confirmed predictions and evidence.

    Or is that clear line of reasoning and evidence just "paleobabble?" Are you holding up a cute derogatory word as some kind of flimsy shield against clear, repeatable observations of reality? And your counter is what, your particular interpretation of an ambiguously worded anonymous record of tribal legend? Ok?

    If you can go out into reality and point at some observable part of reality, and use your biblical model to make repeated accurate predictions about supernatural claims, then that's useful as evidence. I've never seen that happen, though. There is currently no evidence that anything supernatural exists or is possible. There are handfulls of poorly-sourced anecdotes, sure, but formal studies with large sample sizes always show that any claimed supernatural intervention happens at the same rate as random chance. And evidence that the bible mentions some people and places that were real isn't evidence of any supernatural claims. For the same reason, the existence of New York City is not evidence that Spiderman is real, nor is the historical record of Prince Gautama (the Buddha) evidence that his birth was heralded by every flowering plant in the world blooming and all sick people being healed as he emerged from his mother, as Buddhist scriptures state.

    Can you see why interpretations of wild stories will always be superseded by observable reality that either fails to support or directly contradicts such claims?
     
    • Winner Winner x 9
    • Like Like x 5
  7. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    38,089
    Ratings:
    +16,313
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    Yes. Cladistics and the genome is hardly reminiscent of babble.

    Especially when you consider the dormant genealogy in one's very own body that is more than sufficient to establish any evolutionary history of that organism.

     
  8. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,136
    Ratings:
    +12,216
    Religion:
    Christian
    Are you aware who Alan Feduccia is? Do you think he is advocating against the theory of evolution?

    Is your post just an example of a scientific controversy, therefore JW's are right?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    45,871
    Ratings:
    +27,805
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The JW's are a very strange sect. They think that controversy is an indication that everyone is wrong. The problem is that they do not apply that to their own beliefs. The beliefs of JW's are often highly disputed by other sects of Christianity so you his own standards his beliefs are wrong since there is controversy about them.:rolleyes:
     
    • Winner Winner x 7
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    13,025
    Ratings:
    +11,086
    Religion:
    Humanist
    I am always very doubtful and untrusting of people who claim to know the 'truth'.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    45,871
    Ratings:
    +27,805
    Religion:
    Atheist
    upload_2021-10-6_0-32-20.png

    upload_2021-10-6_0-33-11.png
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  12. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,087
    Ratings:
    +4,889
    Religion:
    Christian
    • Like Like x 1
  13. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    13,195
    Ratings:
    +12,858
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    YES!

    Me too. :rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    45,871
    Ratings:
    +27,805
    Religion:
    Atheist
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,087
    Ratings:
    +4,889
    Religion:
    Christian
    What does science — mainstream, anyways — reject?

    Unfortunately, now (it wasn’t always this way), scientists are required to begin, continue, and end their research on the premise that a First cause, an Intelligent Mind, doesn’t exist.
    That’s the flaw.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    13,195
    Ratings:
    +12,858
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    • Like Like x 3
  17. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,348
    Ratings:
    +3,165
    Religion:
    none
    False. And first cause is a very, very, very silly argument for an intelligent mind or god, anyway.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  18. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,087
    Ratings:
    +4,889
    Religion:
    Christian
    So, Dr. Feduccia isn’t denying facts. What he’s denying, is their interpretation.


    To take a contrary position that is unpopular, to the point of being ridiculed as he is, damaging a reputation that took years to build.... I’d be more inclined to listen to him than to those that just toe the line.

    His position on BAND is not arbitrary, it’s based on evidence!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,087
    Ratings:
    +4,889
    Religion:
    Christian
    “False.” Wow, I’ve just been debunked!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,348
    Ratings:
    +3,165
    Religion:
    none
    You made an assertion without evidence, so it can be dismissed without evidence (especially if it's obviously made up nonsense).
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...