Science Babble vs Truth

[Dan From Smithville]

See Dan. I value well known people. I honestly do. But I value those who I can interact with personally more. I dont need to know you personally, but see, its an honour to have chatted with you. Cheers.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It wasn’t an argument....Did you see an argument in there?

It was a couple questions.

I did see an argument there. You argued that I was claiming the existence of God. You asked for the evidence I was using for that claim.

I did not make that claim. Your post was a straw man. I said I believe in God. Like you, I have no tangible, objective evidence of God. The belief is based on faith and subjective experience.

Once again, I am astonished that you are maintaining these sorts of tactics.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Question. Would you say something once considered reliable, was indeed reliable even after it was shown to be a mistaken belief?
There are scores of examples I can find, but I will just refer to one I looked at recently. The moon is much older than some scientists believe, a research team now reports. Their precise analysis of zircons bought to Earth by Apollo 14 astronauts reveals the moon is at least 4.51 billion years old and probably formed only about 60 million years after the birth of the solar system -- 40 to 140 million years earlier than recently thought.

You seem to be implying that there is some sort of a problem with revising estimates based on new evidence. That's exactly how science works.

You know, I was reading what scientists were saying about man's involvement in the problems we now face with "extreme whether", diseases, etc. etc., and I commented on the fact that we know - not feel, believe, think, but know, it's going to get worst, as many scientists fear. How do we know? The Bible says it will happen. Can we be sure? Why yes. It never failed in anything it prophesied... Not once. Never So contrary to your claims, the Bible provides useful answers... which, by the way helps, and continue to help millions. It's very useful. They explain why observable phenomena occur.

We must be using different definitions of useful. What I mean by useful information is knowledge that I can use to make life better, whether by being able to make things happen that I prefer or averting the undesirable. It can be trivial knowledge, such as that my bridge partner would be available for online bridge this morning at 9 AM. That knowledge allowed me to play bridge with him. Had I not known he would be there then, I wouldn't have been there either. This knowledge was useful, because it allowed me to predict outcomes and make life a little better. It's that simple - there needs to be a demonstrable benefit from having a given idea to call it useful.

You offered a biblical prophecy as an example of the usefulness of scripture. I can't use that idea to any benefit, so it doesn't meet my criteria for usefulness.

When you say that the Bible helps millions, that all well and good for them, but I can't find any usefulness there, and I suspect that if anybody is getting benefit, it is psychological. I don't need that. I'm comfortable with the idea that there may be no God, that consciousness ends with death, that there may be nobody not on earth looking out for me, and the like. I'm not looking for life advice, nor would I turn to such a source for moral teaching. I can't use the prophecies for anything because they are too vague. My TV listings tell me that tonight at 6:30, Jeopardy will come on, a show I enjoy watching. There's a prophecy I can use. It's specific like the bridge date, so I know just what to do to take advantage of a future condition - turn on the TV at 6:30. That's also an example of useful if in fact, the show comes on as expected.

To recap, what I am saying is that because science is tethered to observations of physical reality, its output allows one to predict outcomes in that reality, and that is useful information, whereas religion, because it is not empirically derived, cannot be used to make such predictions, making it useless to me as I have defined useful. You countered with the claim that the Bible is useful because it predicts that man will have problems. Which of those predictions was useful in affecting life? How did you benefit from knowing such things? Did the Bible tell man anything about climate change that was useful to him? The climate scientists gave us what could have been useful and relatively specific prophecies had their advice been heeded, but the Bible did not. The scientists told us that because of greenhouse gas emission, the earth would warm and calamity would follow in the 21st century, and what that calamity would be like in terms of rising sea levels submerging coastal cities, extreme weather, and major human and animal migrations leading to hardship and death. And today, people are dying from those things.

But it's useful information coming from science anyway. It's plain to see that certain regions are already becoming uninhabitable. The prophecies of climate scientists can be useful for those owning homes in areas like the western US, where drought, heat, and wildfires are taking lives and diminishing property values. Would you buy a home in the wooded areas of northern California today, or on the gulf coast or the eastern seaboard in the US, knowing that the chances of it burning down or being destroyed by a hurricane are already high and rising? The alert homeowners will recognize this sooner than others, and sell and relocate before values fall further, or the home becomes uninsurable and its devastation an even greater financial loss.

Once again, the Bible simply doesn't give us information we can use to predict outcomes and make our lives better, or in the case of global warming, less bad, which is not useful as I have defined the word, which is not how you seem to define it if you call biblical prophecy useful.

Knowing how something happens when you are powerless against it, either because of greed, selfishness, pride, or plain inability doesn't seem very useful to me.

Agreed. Information becomes useful only when it allows one to make beneficial decisions by accurately predicting outcomes.

the knowledge from the Bible does deal with reality, and though quite old, has much practical value. In fact, it's so practical, the very attitudes we see on display right now, is documented as a factual occurances.

I don't agree, but I can stipulate to that for present purposes. Can you describe the practical value of anticipating "the very attitudes we see on display right now"? How were you able to use that prediction to make your life better? That's what I mean by practical value, which is essentially the same as usefulness. If you can't provide a specific way that the information led to beneficial decisions, the information is neither practical nor useful. Were you able to prepare for these days before others who had to turn to the news for for their information? If so, how? If not, why do you call that information practical knowledge?

I'm sure if you had someone tell you where you would be April 22nd 2022, and you found yourself there, you would think that person was very useful.

Yes, but the Bible doesn't attain that level of specificity, which is what makes biblical prophecy useless. Science does, however, as does the list of TV shows that will be on this evening. It tells me what will happen when and where, and that is why I call it useful prophecy (predictions about future events).

Is anything objective that cannot be proven? Say, science gives an explanation for a phenomenon, after rigorous test, Is that a guarantee that their conclusion is correct?

The validity of a scientific proclamation, always tentative, is determined by its ability to predict future outcomes. Words like guarantee, absolute truth, and proof just aren't relevant in science. Predictive power is. If an idea successfully predicts outcomes better than competing ideas, it's a keeper and can be added to our collection of useful ideas.

Here's an anonymous Internet persona that's saying roughly what I am about what constitutes useful knowledge, and why other kinds of ideas are of little interest if they can't be used to control future outcomes:

"Truth has no meaning divorced from any eventual decision making process. The whole point of belief itself is to inform decisions and drive actions. Actions then influence events in the external world, and those effects lead to objective consequences. Take away any of these elements and truth immediately loses all relevance.

"We should expect similar decisions made under similar circumstances to lead to similar outcomes. Pragmatism says that the ultimate measure of a true or false proposition lies in its capacity to produce expected results. If an idea is true, it can be used in the real world to generate predictable consequences, and different ones if that idea turned out to be false. In other words, the ultimate measure of a true proposition is the capacity to inform decisions under the expectation of desirable consequences.

"All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. Either you agree that truth should be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce results or you don't. If you agree, then we can have a conversation. And if we disagree about some belief, we have a means to decide the issue.

"If this is not how your epistemology works - how you define truth - then we can't have a discussion, and I literally don't care what you think, since it has no effect on anything." - AntiCitizenX​

What’s your take on symbiosis? How would an intangible connection, like between clown fish and anemones, emerge from NS. a tangible process? (Does it produce some unknown frequency?) How did male-and-female sexuality arise from asexual reproduction? Why would it?

Why wouldn't it?

All that is necessary for these things to happen is for a series of steps to arise naturalistically, each of which confers a competitive advantage to a population of living things. The theory doesn't provide specifics about what those would be, just the mechanism: genetic variation subjected to natural selection. The details of the pathways have to be worked out separately.

Usually, questions like these are asked not for scientific information, which you can get on the Internet if you're interested.

Usually, they are not requests for information, but rather, an implied argument that if one cannot explain how it happened, it didn't, therefore God was involved, which you probably know is a logical fallacy. Was that your purpose, or were you really interested in learning about these things? If so, start here if you like: : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

Incidentally, thanks for the kind words before. I also enjoy our discussions.

the lack of evidence supporting evolutionary mechanisms as the builder of novel features. The “explanatory deficits” (Gerd Müller) are everywhere. And many scientists are recognizing its limits.

Is this another form of "If you can't explain it, it didn't happen"? The theory doesn't require one knowing how genetic variation occurs, just that it does, and that nature selects for and against assorted forms. Darwin didn't know about DNA, or genetic drift, or the founder effect. He just knew that offspring can be different from their parents.

 

[nPeace]

Not a 100% sure what you mean with evidence for faith?

You aren't? I'll see if I can help.
The tight rope walker has evidence that he can make it across the 30 meter length of rope 30 feet above ground.
The gardener has evidence that his seeds will grow.
Does that help?

As I wrote, to me, evidence are evidence, they are not subcategorized such as religious evidence or scientific evidence etc. And depending on what field or area you are working in we make use of different types of evidence and methods for trying to get as close to the truth as possible.

I agree with that. Scientists may not agree though, since many words in scientific jargon are used diferent to regular usage. Fact, theory, etc.

Faith is something personal and something you would want to remove as much as possible when it comes to evidence. Lets say, im trying to make a case that Jesus lived and was the son of God, and I want to convince others that this is the truth, then I wouldn't start out by saying that "I will now present a lot of evidence which I have faith in being true", anyone should or would reject them instantly, because it wouldn't be evidence. So if that is what you mean with evidence for faith, then I disagree with you.

How can one have faith in evidence? That's messed up.
One has faith in something for which there is evidence. Not faith in the evidence.
That Jesus lived and is the son of God, is supported by evidence, The person has faith that Jesus is the son of God, but he does so, not by blindly believing, but based on the evidence he has, that this is true.

But if by faith you mean like a detective solving a crime scene, it is not exactly like faith, because certain clues as you said, like the person having rope marks on their neck and these matching the rope found on the scene, is not based on faith, but on the fact that there is a match between these two things, does it 100% prove that it was that exact rope that was used? No, but given the crime scene, it does seem like it is the most likely explanation. Which is not that much different than what archaeologists would do when they look at some ancient finds, if they find some old pottery and some old bones next to each other and the dating seem to match etc. its reasonable to assume that there is a connection between the pottery and the bones. But again, its not based on faith because it is a fact that the pottery and the bones were found there next to each other.

The detective does not require faith to solve the crime. He has the evidence. It's his job to investigate what conclusion the evidence leads to.
If the evidence points to the invisible man, then the detective may require faith, to believe that the invisible man is responsible, but his evidence has led him to that conclusion.

Yup. It's him alright.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah yes, the magical mystery barrier that prevents evolution from occurring beyond the arbitrary selection of family to mean kind.

Imagine even 100 years ago, creationists considered all living things to have been created as is. Then it was adaptations. Now some creationists have found a gap to accept evolution up to the family level. Just a little while longer and creationists can go the entire distance.

There is no reason to limit the discussion of evolution only to fossils.

Consilience is one of the strongest forms of evidence for evolution. For those that do not know, consilience occurs when unrelated sciences all point to the same answer. it is extremely strong evidence. that a model is correct. Compare a spherical Earth to a Flat one. There is one model that describes, Day and night, the rotation of stars around the two poles, the Coriolis effect, why ships disappear from the bottom up as they go over the horizon. The list goes on and on. All of these explained by one testable model. Meanwhile for every observation the Flat Earthers have to construct a different model and they tend to contradict each other. The first is consilience. The second the opposite of it. Self contradicting models tell us that an idea is almost certainly wrong. Creationists gave up on making models because it made their ideas to easy to refute.

Or one could think of a court of law. If teh DNA evidence, the eyewitness evidence (the weakest of the lot) the video evidence, fingerprint evidence etc. points to only one person he is probably going to lose. That too is consilience.

 

[nPeace]

But those angels are invisible, so we wouldn't see them.

Uh... Columbus. What's the point of your statement?

That's why it is a combination of the force AND the dynamic laws of motion (given a force, what motion is produced). The combination is very testable (look to see if the planet is where it was predicted to be based on the force and laws of motion).

Oh. you missed the point.
Angels, force... What difference does it make?

What evidence do you suggest would test the hypothesis of invisible angels?

If someone suggested angels as a hypothesis, i would want to know if it just flew off the top of their head, or if they were building on any evidence for angels being in the scenario.
If the idea is based on evidence of angels, then I would start there.
So you would need to let me know where the idea came from. then I can make a suggestion.

Do you believe the multiverse idea is one that flew off the top of someone's head, or do you think they were building on evidence for a multiverse?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I think so, the design in natural systems, and the balance that is maintained. Naturalism can’t accomplish such a feat. Attraction of molecules may be claimed, but attraction is a far cry from complex arrangement!

What’s your take on symbiosis? How would an intangible connection, like between clown fish and anemones, emerge from NS. a tangible process? (Does it produce some unknown frequency?)
How did male-and-female sexuality arise from asexual reproduction? Why would it?

Suppositions like “probably“ & “more than likely” don’t cut it. That’s philosophy... and faith.

As someone who believes in God, I don’t understand why you want to put faith in a system that’s dedicated to naturalism, I.e., excluding God. I’m not talking about about individual scientists, I’m talking about the system.

Yes, evolution occurs; God has endowed the genome with a remarkable morphological ability. But it has its limits. The *first* complex features, probably the unique features found within each Family taxa, were designed and created by God. That’s still a lot of evolving! And I applaud it!

(But here is a point I’ve been meaning to bring up to you for a long time.... Why would our Creator design life this way? I’ll tell you. Because we were *supposed* to be His children, ‘made in His image’. And as part of His family, humans weren’t originally created to die. We were designed to live forever. Now, ever hear that phrase, “variety is the spice of life”? Jehovah God gave us “spice,” you could say. He loves us (John 3:16). Living forever as humans will never get boring, as some claim; there will always be new species emerging somewhere, waiting for us to find them! If God’s purpose for mankind was not to live forever, such diversity would have no purpose. We can discuss any aspect of this further, if you’d like.)


But evolutionary processes have no foresight to “create” these novel features and still maintain the balance we see within and between natural systems. ‘Selfish genes’ wouldn’t result in the balance and harmony that we observe.


Take care.

Sorry, but your argument here is based upon a logical fallacy. You are saying in effect "we don't know, therefore God". It is as invalid as "we don't know, therefore not God". And once again what makes you think that there are not answers for this? You seem to be projecting again since creationists have no answers for any of these questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Looks stupid but works... you mean?
That would mean the beholder is just ignorant, of the purpose, because they are looking at the object to have particular features for the purpose of entertaining them... missing the purpose of the design.

Some look at entropy and complain about the design too.
For example, someone may look at a rusty car, and ask the question, why did the designer make this stupid object... without giving consideration to the fact of cause and effect. The effect has a cause yes, but the designer is not the cause.

So if you give some examples, I might be able to show you that what you at focusing on, is the end product or result of interference with the design. Rather than it being the original design.

Try me.

No, there are clear examples of bad design that work. The bad design does make sense with evolution. It does not make sense with creationism. Your excuse "well it works" doesn't let you off of the hook.

 

[Nimos]

You aren't? I'll see if I can help.
The tight rope walker has evidence that he can make it across the 30 meter length of rope 30 feet above ground.
The gardener has evidence that his seeds will grow.
Does that help?

Ok, maybe its just how we use the words then.

To me what you are describing here is not based on faith. The line walker probably have years of experience learning these skills. So the reason they do it, is because they know how to do it, there might be a tiny amount of faith involved. But same with the gardener, he knows how plants work, so why should he have faith in the seed growing?

Exactly like im not having faith about whether or not the next time I get on my bike that I will instantly fall and hurt myself, I have been riding bikes all my life, so no need for faith in that.

So when im talking about faith evidence or why I asked about it, it is because, if I decided to go 30 feet above ground and try to line walk having absolutely no clue how to do it or any experience, but thought I could do it, that it would be based on faith. But even then I would have no evidence, since I have never done it. So even calling it evidence makes little sense, rather than just calling it faith.

I agree with that. Scientists may not agree though, since many words in scientific jargon are used diferent to regular usage. Fact, theory, etc.

Yes, but I don't think scientists gets confused when talk to each other knowing the jargon. Exactly like you telling me that you have a car theory test, I wouldn't confuse that with you having a scientific theory about car theory tests or something. So im pretty sure that two scientists debating a topic and one of them uses the word fact, that the other knows what he/she is talking about.

How can one have faith in evidence? That's messed up.
One has faith in something for which there is evidence. Not faith in the evidence.
That Jesus lived and is the son of God, is supported by evidence, The person has faith that Jesus is the son of God, but he does so, not by blindly believing, but based on the evidence he has, that this is true.

I agree, but you were the one saying that you saw no difference between evidence in faith and scientific evidence. Which is why I asked what you meant with evidence for faith, because I still don't know what is meant by that. What you described doesn't seem to have a lot or anything to do with faith.

 

[Polymath257]

Uh... Columbus. What's the point of your statement?

That angels are untestable.

Oh. you missed the point.
Angels, force... What difference does it make?

The force gives a precise statement of how the planet is predicted to move. It applies to *all* planets in a systematic way. It even applies to stars that orbit each other.

Furthermore, it shows how to perform calculations to determine where a planet will be and when.

There is nothing equivalent when postulating the existence of angels.

If someone suggested angels as a hypothesis, i would want to know if it just flew off the top of their head, or if they were building on any evidence for angels being in the scenario.
If the idea is based on evidence of angels, then I would start there.
So you would need to let me know where the idea came from. then I can make a suggestion.

They claim that the evidence of angels is seen by the fact that planets orbit the sun. Since angels are what push the planets, that is evidence, right?

Do you believe the multiverse idea is one that flew off the top of someone's head, or do you think they were building on evidence for a multiverse?

Neither. The hypothesis of a multiverse comes from the mathematics of, for example, quantum mechanics. And, as a general theory, quantum mechanics gives multiple ways of testing a wide variety of its ideas. That it naturally leads to the notion of a multiverse is the *only* reason a multiverse scenario is taken seriously by scientists.

 

[nPeace]

Nope, that is NOT an ad hominem. it is an observation that creationist literature tends to have a LOT of quotes taken out of context in such a way that they mislead.

"creationist literature tends to have a LOT of quotes taken out of context" Therefore nPeace's quotes are all taken out of context, because he is a creationist.

Ad hominem
Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

nPeace :

]

​

Polymath257 :

This is known as a 'quote mine'. It is a quote taken out of context in such a way that it appears that the person is claiming something very different than what they were actually meaning. Quote mines are very common in creationist literature. For that reason, it is always a good idea to find the original source of the quote to see what was actually being said. others have given the correct context for this quote.

Quote mines are one form of creationist dishonesty.​

This is clearly an Ad hominem Polymath257.
You are basically saying I don't have the facts for what I quoted, and that I am dishonest for quoting someone... because i don't have the facts surrounding the quote.
In other words, I quoted someone without knowing what the i am quoting.
In other words, i'm an idiot for quoting someone, because i don't understand what i quoted.
In other words, i should grow a brain before opening my mouth.

Since you don't think it is ad hominem, please explain why you think 1) I need to find the original source, and 2) how I have taken the quote out of context.

By the emphasis that the evidence needs to change the likelihood.

Doesn't change anything.
There is nothing wrong with the definition. I submit you just want to find fault, where there is none. Or were you just adding something that wasn't necessary to add?

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.

Evidence can be anything I may present to support my claim. It may be strong or weak. It does not have to be what you think it ought to be.
Can you please provide a definition from a credible souce which supports your objection. Or is it not an objection?

No, I specifically said that there is no such thing as direct evidence by your definition. ALL evidence requires some amount of inference.

No. That is not true.
If someone plunges a knife into someone's stomach in the presence of witnesses. It is direct evidence. It - direct evidence - does not require inference.
Direct evidence is defined as evidence that directly proves a key fact at issue. Indirect evidence, also sometimes referred to as circumstantial evidence, is a fact or set of facts that, if true, allow a person can infer the fact at issue.
Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.

Can you please provide a definition from a credible souce which supports your claims.

Well, it is an inference because you need to *assume* that the instrument is accurate. You need to assume it is in working order. You need to assume that the previous adjustments to it continue to hold. Hence, it is an *inference* that the instrument gives a correct reading.

I think you are confusing evidence with investigation. They are two different things.
The evidence is evaluated. The instrument you choose to use is up to you. it is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the evidence.

And not just one attempt. Many attempts to show it wrong covering a variety of different aspects of the hypothesis, using precise observations.

ALL observations have a certain amount of uncertainty in them. Usually, as science progresses, the uncertainty decreases.

So about 3% off? That doesn't sound like a lot to me. Well within the range where such dates can be debated. What are the new error bars? What error bars did the previous estimate have?

So, in answer to your question, the claim that the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years seems to be reliable either way, doesn't it?

Or are you thinking that there is *ever* perfect accuracy in any measurement? if so, you need to learn a bit about how things work.

Please define reliable. I'm not following what you are trying to say at this point.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh. you missed the point.
Angels, force... What difference does it make?

I want to address this some more, because it is at the heart of the issue, I think.

If *all* I did was claim there was a 'force' that makes the planets go in their orbits, that would be just like postulating angles.

But that is NOT what happens.

Newton, for example, gave a very precise mathematical description of the force between two masses

F=GMm/r^2

So, the force is proportional to the mass of the two objects and inversely propertional to the square of the distance between them.

That, in combination with the law of motion F=ma, allows for the computation of where the planets will be into the future based on what masses there are around them (the sun, other planets, etc).

This is what makes it testable: if the mathematics predicts that the planet will be in a specific location, we can look there and see whether or not the planet is really there. if it is not, then something is wrong. We might have neglected some mass, for example, or the equation F=ma might be wrong. Or the force law for gravity F=GMm/r^2 might be wrong. But we can test our ideas because the theory itself makes incredibly specific predictions about what will happen and when.

This is what it takes to be testable.

Furthermore, we don't just test this system of ideas on just one planet. It applies to ALL of them. And to all star systems. It applies to things orbiting the Earth or Mars, or Jupiter. ALL of those systems are tests to see if the theory works or not. Also, F=ma applies to ALL cases of forces, not just gravity, but electromagnetism, friction, etc. Again, the variety of cases allows us to test the ideas to see when and if they fail.

This is what gives us confidence in the theory. When it passes ALL the tests, even in cases we would be surprised by, then we get confidence in our description.

But, what if we find a case where it fails? it is *always* possible that this can happen.

So here are two actual, historical cases.

In the first, the planet Uranus was found to NOT be where the theory of gravity predicted it to be. Some people suggested that the law of gravity was imply wrong that far away from the sun. Others proposed that we had missed a planet. These people used the math of the theory of gravity to say that an extra planet would explain why Uranus wasn't where it was expected. Furthermore, they were able to use that math to say where the *new* planet would be found. When people looked, they discovered the planet Neptune.

Now, think about this. The theory of gravity had done pretty well describing the motion of things up to that point, but it was getting the position of Uranus wrong. But, using that theory, it was proposed that there was *another*, undiscovered planet out there and that new planet was actually found.

That makes for some pretty substantial confidence in the theory, doesn't it?

In the second, the motion of the planet Mercury was similarly found to not be quite what was predicted. It was off by about 1/80th of a degree in its orbit over the course of a century. now, I want you to think about that. We are talking about enough precision that a test for our ideas amounted to a very, very small angle over the course of a century in an orbit.

Once again, people proposed that a new planet could be responsible (not unreasonable given what happened with Uranus and Neptune). But no such planet was ever found.

Instead, Einstein realized that he could adjust the 'force law' very slightly and explain the discrepancies in the motion of Mercury. This lead to his theory of General Relativity.

Now, were Newton's ideas thrown out entirely? No. Why not? because they worked well enough for the vast majority of situations. In fact, they are used today to guide probes to Mars and other planets. They are that good.

But, in some situations, and to high degrees of precision, Newton's laws don't work. In those cases, Einstein's laws are used instead. In the case where Newton's ideas are 'good enough', Einstein's agree to that level of precision. At this point, we don't know of any case where Einstein's laws are violated.

So, in reference to our discussion, are Newton's laws 'unreliable'? Are Einstein's laws 'reliable'? is it possible Einstein's description will be found wrong and a new theory will have to replace it? Absolutely, it is possible.

But we can still have an incredible level of confidence in them. They have been tested in all sorts of situations, from black holes, to neutron stars, to the sun, to gravity on the Earth. At this point,we don't know of *any* violations of them.

So, I ask you, how much confidence should we have in Einstein's description? In Newton's?

I can give you many other cases where the laws scientists have discovered have as much support and should be trusted at least as much.

 

[nPeace]

That angels are untestable.

Why do you say this?

The force gives a precise statement of how the planet is predicted to move. It applies to *all* planets in a systematic way. It even applies to stars that orbit each other.

Furthermore, it shows how to perform calculations to determine where a planet will be and when.

There is nothing equivalent when postulating the existence of angels.

What force are you speaking of?
Does Dark Matter and Dark Energy affect objects in the universe as predicted?

They claim that the evidence of angels is seen by the fact that planets orbit the sun. Since angels are what push the planets, that is evidence, right?

No. They? Who are they?

Neither. The hypothesis of a multiverse comes from the mathematics of, for example, quantum mechanics. And, as a general theory, quantum mechanics gives multiple ways of testing a wide variety of its ideas. That it naturally leads to the notion of a multiverse is the *only* reason a multiverse scenario is taken seriously by scientists.

Okay.

 

[Polymath257]

"creationist literature tends to have a LOT of quotes taken out of context" Therefore nPeace's quotes are all taken out of context, because he is a creationist.

Polymath257 :

This is known as a 'quote mine'. It is a quote taken out of context in such a way that it appears that the person is claiming something very different than what they were actually meaning. Quote mines are very common in creationist literature. For that reason, it is always a good idea to find the original source of the quote to see what was actually being said. others have given the correct context for this quote.

Quote mines are one form of creationist dishonesty.​

This is clearly an Ad hominem Polymath257.

No, it is a fact that creationist sources often use the s=dishonest tactic of quote mining. My guess is that you were unaware of this.

You are basically saying I don't have the facts for what I quoted, and that I am dishonest for quoting someone... because i don't have the facts surrounding the quote.

I made no assertion. I was trying to *inform* you about the common creationist tactic so you would be more careful in the future.

In other words, I quoted someone without knowing what the i am quoting.
In other words, i'm an idiot for quoting someone, because i don't understand what i quoted.
In other words, i should grow a brain before opening my mouth.

Not quite what I am claiming. But I *am* saying you should check your quotes if you get them from creationist sources because such sources tend to do a lot of quote mining.

And, as others have pointed out, this is the case in this specific instance.

Since you don't think it is ad hominem, please explain why you think 1) I need to find the original source, and 2) how I have taken the quote out of context.

You should find the original source because you likely got this quote (and meme) from a creationist site and such sites are generally unreliable and use the dishonest technique of quote mining. others have pointed out why it is out of context.

Doesn't change anything.
There is nothing wrong with the definition. I submit you just want to find fault, where there is none. Or were you just adding something that wasn't necessary to add?

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.

Evidence can be anything I may present to support my claim. It may be strong or weak. It does not have to be what you think it ought to be.
Can you please provide a definition from a credible souce which supports your objection. Or is it not an objection?

Once again, the issue is one of relevance. You may want to say a fact is evidence for your claim when it is actually irrelevant. So, I might claim that the fact that my house is red is evidence that oxygen is in the air. If I use the red house as support for my statement, it is irrelevant and NOT evidence. To be evidence, it has to not just be consistent, but it has to actually change the likelihood.

No. That is not true.
If someone plunges a knife into someone's stomach in the presence of witnesses. It is direct evidence. It - direct evidence - does not require inference.

And that is incorrect. It is an inference that what the witness saw is actually what happened. Maybe the person using the knife was an illusionist and made it *appear* the knife when into the stomach when it actually did not.

The inference might be justified in most cases, but it is not an example of direct evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you say this?

You have a point. Though I am probably on ignore since I used some of your techniques on you. What he should have demanded is that you demonstrate that you can do a similar test to the tests that he can do with gravity. Who knows? You could be the first believer that could properly test his beliefs.

So what test of angels can you think of that would show them to not exist? By the way, if you claim that they cannot be tested that way you just admitted that @Polymath257 was right.

What force are you speaking of?
Does Dark Matter and Dark Energy affect objects in the universe as predicted?

Yes, they do. That is why physicists are pretty sure that they exist.

 

[nPeace]

Ok, maybe its just how we use the words then.

Or how we understand how they are used, I think.

To me what you are describing here is not based on faith. The line walker probably have years of experience learning these skills. So the reason they do it, is because they know how to do it, there might be a tiny amount of faith involved. But same with the gardener, he knows how plants work, so why should he have faith in the seed growing?

I did not say based on faith. See what I mean?
Please explain what you mean by "a tiny amount of faith".

Exactly like im not having faith about whether or not the next time I get on my bike that I will instantly fall and hurt myself, I have been riding bikes all my life, so no need for faith in that.

Do you require any faith at all? Do you know that when you get into your vehicle, or get on your bike, it will take you where you want to go?

So when im talking about faith evidence or why I asked about it, it is because, if I decided to go 30 feet above ground and try to line walk having absolutely no clue how to do it or any experience, but thought I could do it, that it would be based on faith. But even then I would have no evidence, since I have never done it. So even calling it evidence makes little sense, rather than just calling it faith.

You are speaking about the kind of faith, some confuse with real faith. Faith is not blind or gullible. That kind of "blind faith", is different to what I am talking about.

Yes, but I don't think scientists gets confused when talk to each other knowing the jargon. Exactly like you telling me that you have a car theory test, I wouldn't confuse that with you having a scientific theory about car theory tests or something. So im pretty sure that two scientists debating a topic and one of them uses the word fact, that the other knows what he/she is talking about.

I agree, but you were the one saying that you saw no difference between evidence in faith and scientific evidence. Which is why I asked what you meant with evidence for faith, because I still don't know what is meant by that. What you described doesn't seem to have a lot or anything to do with faith.

I think it's because some people do not understand what faith is, as described in the Bible, as opposed to "faith" some "Christians" and other unbelievers talk about.

 

[nPeace]

No, it is a fact that creationist sources often use the s=dishonest tactic of quote mining. My guess is that you were unaware of this.



I made no assertion. I was trying to *inform* you about the common creationist tactic so you would be more careful in the future.



Not quite what I am claiming. But I *am* saying you should check your quotes if you get them from creationist sources because such sources tend to do a lot of quote mining.

And, as others have pointed out, this is the case in this specific instance.



You should find the original source because you likely got this quote (and meme) from a creationist site and such sites are generally unreliable and use the dishonest technique of quote mining. others have pointed out why it is out of context.



Once again, the issue is one of relevance. You may want to say a fact is evidence for your claim when it is actually irrelevant. So, I might claim that the fact that my house is red is evidence that oxygen is in the air. If I use the red house as support for my statement, it is irrelevant and NOT evidence. To be evidence, it has to not just be consistent, but it has to actually change the likelihood.



And that is incorrect. It is an inference that what the witness saw is actually what happened. Maybe the person using the knife was an illusionist and made it *appear* the knife when into the stomach when it actually did not.

The inference might be justified in most cases, but it is not an example of direct evidence.

No sources. No explanation for your attack. No definition. This post says nothing, and does not contribute to the discussion in any way. Moving on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No sources. No explanation for your attack. No definition. This post says nothing, and does not contribute to the discussion in any way. Moving on.

Oh my! Such a failure. A quote taken out of context is obvious. If there is no link to the ultimate source then you make it very difficult if not impossible for others to check that particular quote. That lone is improper. Here is an example that you I can all but guarantee that you will not be able to refute.

The Bible itself denies that there is a God:

"There is no God" quoted form the Bible.

Please refute my claim. I doubt if you will be able to do so. I doubt if any Christian will be able to do so. I will even put my response to the vast majority of answers in a spoiler if you want to cheat you can take a peak at it:

Spoiler

That was not the verse that I was quoting.

There it is. An open challenge to all Christians. This could be interesting, though it iwill be rather boring eventually.

 

[Polymath257]

Why do you say this?

What test do you propose?

What force are you speaking of?

Well, I was talking about gravity.

Does Dark Matter and Dark Energy affect objects in the universe as predicted?

Dark energy is essentially the same as a cosmological constant, which was part of Einstein's original equations for General Relativity.

Dark matter has been tested in a number of ways and yes, it affects things as predicted. We still don't know exactly what it is, so the predictions are limited.

No. They? Who are they?

The angels, of course. I am trying to show that certain forms of circular reasoning common among religious people arguing for a God are not valid. In particular, a circular argument (claiming angels push planets, so planets moving is evidence for angels) is a very common way that religious people argue for their positions.

Okay.

 

[Polymath257]

No sources. No explanation for your attack. No definition. This post says nothing, and does not contribute to the discussion in any way. Moving on.

Like I pointed out, others have explained what the *actual* context is for the quote. And the result of that is showing that the quote is actually a quote mine, taking things out of context.

Are you wanting a source showing that this is a common creationist tactic? I can give a number of creationist books and articles that quote people as saying *precisely* the opposite of what they were actually saying.

I gave a definition of quote mining. You can also look up what it means: it is a standard tactic.