• 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!

Science Babble vs Truth

nPeace

Veteran Member
No, not exactly. I will agree that the definitions is a bit vague in my opinion, but I do think they cover it fine enough.

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

But the reason is that, even though I might have complete trust or confidence in someone or something, doesn't mean that it is true or correct. I can be completely confident in me being able to walk a rope 30 feet above the ground without falling. However that doesn't mean that I can actually do it, simply that I believe I can.
So?

That is not really how science works, for it to be true, using the same example, despite being a bit weird. we would say that its true if I actually did walk the rope and could keep repeat doing it. Meaning that I can demonstrate my ability to do it.
This makes no sense.
What you seem to be saying is that every scientific study is directly demonstrated to be true, and that's totally false.
Hence why nothing is proven

We don't simply trust science, they have to demonstrate that it is actually true.
You don't. :smirk:
You don't trust science. :grin: Say it again.
Try worming your way out of it, and see where you end up. :)

2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

I don't think this is wrong as this part obviously covers the religious aspect of faith. And its difficult to deny that we simply do not have proof of God and the supernatural.
What do you mean by we don't have proof, and give me an example of proof say for example, in evolution theory, so that I get you clearly.

In regards to the bible and the demons as you quoted:
The Bible says the demons believe, but they do not have faith.

I don't see anything wrong with this in regards to the definition, obviously the demons believe that God exist, but have no trust/confident (faith) in God.

So im sorry, I still don't see what that other faith is suppose to be?
I'll stay the course.
Awaiting your response. ;)
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I saw a similar definition.
I thought you might use it, but I was not sure.
I was thinking the one they had before, was the one persons refered to happily - belief without evidence..

Looking at both those definitions, it's so easy to see the difference between them and faith mentioned in the Bible.
Firstly, number 1 has no flesh. It's bare bones and broad in scope.
For example, many people, including you, have conference in science. So according to that definition, all of you have faith in science.
You also have faith in the explanations given for what you believe about scientific theories.

Secondly, number 2 has been so cleverly twisted to degrade the true meaning, I am always amused at how twisted this worlds thinking is.
Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Spiritual conviction? What's that?
One dictionary says spiritual apprehension (anxiety or fear that something bad or unpleasant will happen).

As far as I can tell, conviction means the same thing that they described faith to mean. So that's messed up.

The Bible's definition of faith, can literally be read... Faith is the title deed of what is hoped for.
It's having the assurance.... a firm foundation or support - having evidence that demonstrates a reality.
So faith - as described in the Bible, is not a mere belief in something without warrant.
The Bible says the demons believe, but they do not have faith. James 2.

Are you still seeing no difference? Please surprise me and say yes. ;)
I do not see any difference between what you claim is evidence-based faith and isn't and faith being belief without evidence. You talk it up, but you say nothing.

Assurance = confidence.

Where is this evidence you keep babbling about?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Therefore you admit that sophisticated traits of "design", like efficient teeth and digestive systems, a new powerful muscular structure allowing to crush victims bones, together with speed and concealment, and all that makes predators so efficient, could in fact have been undesigned?

Same thing with preys, I suppose. Like the stick insect for instance, which would not need any camouflage in a Garden where even T-Rexes eat only lettuce. Or the Chameleon, with its amazing polychromic characteristics that cannot possibly have been designed by God, since it is a mere survival device, totally useless in a place without death.

How do you differentiate then between something that has been designed vs. something that it was not? Do you use the Bible as sole epistemological tool to determine that?

Ciao

- viole
So let me get what you are saying. The car was not designed because it was made of metals that corroded. Right?
Because the car rusted, it was undesigned. Makes sense?
:facepalm:

Even despite the rust you can tell the car was designed. How? I hope you know, and you see the answer to your question. It not hard.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
So?


This makes no sense.
What you seem to be saying is that every scientific study is directly demonstrated to be true, and that's totally false.
Hence why nothing is proven


You don't. :smirk:
You don't trust science. :grin: Say it again.
Try worming your way out of it, and see where you end up. :)


What do you mean by we don't have proof, and give me an example of proof say for example, in evolution theory, so that I get you clearly.


I'll stay the course.
Awaiting your response. ;)
You keep pretending that every claim you make about religion is demonstrably true and has been demonstrated to be true. That isn't true.

You evade answering about proof for your religious faith by demanding proof from science. Good. Good. Got the old double standard tactic down.

Can you post evidence for your faith? If you have evidence, why do you need faith?

I will stay the course too.

Awaiting a valid response.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
So let me get what you are saying. The car was not designed because it was made of metals that corroded. Right?
Because the car rusted, it was undesigned. Makes sense?
:facepalm:

Even despite the rust you can tell the car was designed. How? I hope you know, and you see the answer to your question. It not hard.
Yeah, yeah. Cars were designed by people. We can see people design cars. We can see the cars being made by people. We can drive the cars. We can read about the history of cars with actual evidence sited that we can review for ourselves. We can work on the cars ourselves. We can see the hardware on cars that we know from all the evidence was designed to be worked with tools that were also designed.

We see nothing like that in nature. You cannot point to one thing and demonstrate to everyone that it is designed. You cannot show a designer. You cannot show the designer designing. No has ever done this and many have tried.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
What do you mean so?

This makes no sense.
What you seem to be saying is that every scientific study is directly demonstrated to be true, and that's totally false.
Hence why nothing is proven
No, my point is that when you say that science is based on faith as well, that is not true. Because it is not considered valid or useful until demonstrated, as long as that is not the case it is just a theory or an idea. But once it is demonstrated it is backed up by evidence, tests etc.

You don't. :smirk:
You don't trust science. :grin: Say it again.
Try worming your way out of it, and see where you end up. :)
What are you talking about? Do you honestly think that if a random "scientist" have an idea and write it on a paper that everyone just nod their head and add it to the school books without making sure that it is actually true?

What do you mean by we don't have proof, and give me an example of proof say for example, in evolution theory, so that I get you clearly.
Because it has been demonstrated, we have bred animals for years now, made medicine, altered food etc. Do you honestly think that all these things were just lucky guesses?

I'll stay the course.
Awaiting your response. ;)
Im not sure it will help, because you seem to not really get any of it. Your replies are all over the place. :)

I really think this will help you understand the difference im talking about:
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
What do you mean so?
So. You trusting the explanation scientists give does not make them true.

No, my point is that when you say that science is based on faith as well, that is not true. Because it is not considered valid or useful until demonstrated, as long as that is not the case it is just a theory or an idea. But once it is demonstrated it is backed up by evidence, tests etc.
I did not say science is based on faith. Say what? o_O
I know you weren't getting it. The science babble is based on faith. Aka the conjecture, suppositions, and interpretations debated by scientists, and based on very little evidence if any.
The LUCA for example and the other ideas, some of which do not meet the test of the scientific method. :eek:

What are you talking about? Do you honestly think that if a random "scientist" have an idea and write it on a paper that everyone just nod their head and add it to the school books without making sure that it is actually true?
No. I do not think that, honestly. Thank God. Where did you come up with such a notion?

Because it has been demonstrated, we have bred animals for years now, made medicine, altered food etc. Do you honestly think that all these things were just lucky guesses?
What does breeding animal have to do with anything we are discussing here. Animals have been breeding before man even saw the light of day. What are you talking about?

Im not sure it will help, because you seem to not really get any of it. Your replies are all over the place. :)

I really think this will help you understand the difference im talking about:
I don't need lessons on science.
We tend to end up like this all the time, and I mentioned why before. I know you don't like to hear it, so I would not repeat. Blame me. I am the one "all over the place". Yes ma'am :)
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
@Nimos Isolating "backed up by evidence".
Please explain what that means, and how it differs from what people like me believe.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
@Nimos another thing. How does one go about "making sure that it is actually true", when there is no certainly it is actually true?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If a human says I must only be truthful. The applied human reasoning says truth hence exists.

Basic observation anything whole.

As whole form is natural. Is observed first.

First basic human observation any body seen as a whole form. Not seeking.

Question why does a human seek information?

Basic advice everything you need already exists. Is equal in its availability.

Who in life imposed unavailability?

Human groups did by human group choice.

The human his story says bullies. Groups. Behaviour not truthful.

Practical human advice is as basic as it is.

Convoluted advice was imposed for group contrivance.

So humans know if we don't face the truth groups will destroy life again as we know they did before and it was human chosen.

The group status was science.

Science tried to coerce you that just a human thinking knows every intricacy why a human exists.

Yet today every human living came from sperm and an ovary only. Sex by choice.

The group science then tries to state but I know why and how the first ever two humans owned human form.

The truth human is the subject self presence as they discuss human presence.

Never did they say not a human.

Now if science says when a human never existed the next form I personally as a human studied was an ape or monkey. So how did you study it,?

With machines of my design is the group answer. Oh so your machines identify what is not a human?

I only have to look observe their bodies naturally to know they are not a human.

I want to know says science how a bio life changed its baby life into a human life. Then I will own the creator advice.

So the subject is not science comparisons it is looking for a creator?

Yes.

What for as natural already exists?

Real answer I want it for a machine inventive resource thesis.

Why? We are bio living life forms we are not a creator identity.

The difference between a human using human truth. Compared to group human coercive babbling lying about the want to destroy natural life.

A personality disorder in thinking conditions. A human truth observed by humans as humans on behalf of humans.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
So let me get what you are saying. The car was not designed because it was made of metals that corroded. Right?
Because the car rusted, it was undesigned. Makes sense?
:facepalm:

Even despite the rust you can tell the car was designed. How? I hope you know, and you see the answer to your question. It not hard.
We know cars are designed because we design them. We can watch them being designed. We can plan, observe and predict designing cars. They look like they were designed. There is incontrovertible evidence that cars are designed and that humans exist. There is no better explanation for cars than they were designed by humans.

However, the human body does not look like it was designed. We have never observed anyone designing the human body. The concept of design rather than evolution would mean that many other known processes would not make sense. Evolution is a better explanation than design by someone for whom there is zero evidence that they even exist in the first place.

Also, your argument has two fatal flaws.
1. Flaws in design aren't evidence of no design, they are evidence of an incompetent designer. (The flaws in the human body are better explained by evolution than by an incompetent god)
1. A rusting car is not a sign of bad design, it is a sign of bad maintenance.
 
Last edited:

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
So. You trusting the explanation scientists give does not make them true.
No. But the fact that we can replicate and test the work that led to that explanation does.
It really isn't rocket science (unless that work involves rockets).

I know you weren't getting it. The science babble is based on faith. Aka the conjecture, suppositions, and interpretations debated by scientists, and based on very little evidence if any.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? :tearsofjoy:

I don't need lessons on science.
Sorry, but you absolutely do!
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I did not say science is based on faith. Say what? o_O
I know you weren't getting it. The science babble is based on faith. Aka the conjecture, suppositions, and interpretations debated by scientists, and based on very little evidence if any.
The LUCA for example and the other ideas, some of which do not meet the test of the scientific method. :eek:

Do you realize when you make claims like these, the less everyone believe you?

No one here believe you understand science, and I am not just talking about biology - i am talking about all sciences, because you have repeatedly demonstrated just how ignorance your statements are like the above.

You don’t even understand the difference between evidence and faith, as you confuse one for the other. Because what I have highlighted, you are incompetent. You certainly don’t understand science to what is evidence and what is conjecture.

Or is this just misdirection, a deliberate attempt to cause confusion/distraction? Well, good luck with that.
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
So. You trusting the explanation scientists give does not make them true.
That is done through them having demonstrated it.

I did not say science is based on faith. Say what? o_O
For example, many people, including you, have conference in science. So according to that definition, all of you have faith in science.
You also have faith in the explanations given for what you believe about scientific theories.


If that is not what you mean or believe, then why would you spend time writing this? When I have never said anything that remotely would indicate that I thought science was based on faith.

No. I do not think that, honestly. Thank God. Where did you come up with such a notion?
Im sorry can be bothered to keep reposting old replies.

What does breeding animal have to do with anything we are discussing here. Animals have been breeding before man even saw the light of day. What are you talking about?
You asked for proof of evolution, breeding animals is such thing including a lot of others. If you are not interested in these why do ask about it then?

Honestly it like talking into a well, you ask questions and I reply, for you to then reply back having no clue why you asked about it in the first place. And me having to find the older replies again.

Can't you just answer the question of how these types of faith you are talking about differ? I don't care about any of the other things and clearly you don't either. And if there is no difference then fine, no problem.

@Nimos So you cannot give me an explanation of proof then?
I have no clue what you are talking about? I answer you and you reply as if you never asked it. If you have a question make it precise please or I won't bother with it.

@Nimos Isolating "backed up by evidence".
Please explain what that means, and how it differs from what people like me believe.
Meaning that it is not merely guesses or beliefs.

Such as "God is real", that is not backed up by evidence. "Gravity exist" is backed up by evidence.

@Nimos another thing. How does one go about "making sure that it is actually true", when there is no certainly it is actually true?
You do that by demonstrating things.

The reason there is no such thing as absolute certainty, is because we can't know for certain that for instance gravity for whatever reason might not change tomorrow. We have no reason to believe it will and therefore we can refer to it as being a certainty. But we can't be a 100% sure. But the amount of evidence suggest that gravity will stay the same and therefore we don't really concern ourselves with it, but if we have to be honest then we can simply say that nothing is absolute certain.





 

Yazata

Active Member
When babble comes up against truth, babble will remain babble, and never will it become truth.

I assume that "babble" refers to the meanings of words. And "truth" refers to some sort of correspondence relationship between the meaning of the words and objective reality. (There are lots of unsolved philosophical questions there, such as what are meanings and how do they connect to things. We can skip over most of that.)

Allow me to babble for a while in this thread. ;)

This is a good opening post. Hopefully discussion can penetrate deeper into the underlying epistemological issues underlying both science and religion than most atheist vs theist rhetoric normally does.

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

My answer is a strong definite 'yes and no'. ;)

There is lots of evidence for the truth of religion. Religious experience and all that. But most (all?) of the evidence for the truth of religious answers is exceedingly subjective, based either on personal experience or on one's personal interpretations of more objective events.

Of course science isn't immune from those kind of objections either, so I think that I'd say that science and religion are more similar than either one might want to acknowledge. That comes from their both being human cognitive activities I guess.

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.

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

I don't really have any objection to any of that. It's actually a good summary. It does raise lots of philosophical questions though, but that's the nature of philosophy and we can skip over them unless they become relevant later.

@Polymath257 asked How do you know that the source you experience is actually God? What evidence do you have of that?

I disagree with Polymath quite often, but agree that this question of his is a crucial one.

In other words, how do you know that your perceptions about this are reliable?

Or that you are interpreting them correctly.

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?

I don't give science total and absolute credence. (I'm a bit of, if not a stereotypical "denier", certainly a "skeptic".)

This thread will also explain why no amount of science babble will trump truth - Biblical truth first and foremost.

I was with you pretty much, up until that point. That's where we part company I guess.
 
Last edited:

Yazata

Active Member
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!

My understanding is that Dr. Feduccia (who is a very competent paleontologist) argues that birds aren't descended from theropod dinosaurs. His alternative hypothesis is that the bird lineage separated from the dinosaur lineage much earlier than most paleontologists think (much as our mammal lineage did).

I'm not qualified to judge which hypothesis is right.

And my belief is that Dr. Feduccia's views are controversial among paleontologists.

His quote in the OP is over-aggressive dismissing his opponents' views as "paleobabble". (They aren't.) But I'd guess that this quote was taken out of context and was said in reply to something equally insulting said about him by one of his critics. (Scientists behaving badly.)
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Huh. Funny.....I could swear @nPeace told me earlier that he doesn't argue against evolution. This thread seems to indicate otherwise, doesn't it?

Also, as others have noted several times, Feduccia is an advocate of a different evolutionary history for birds than other paleontologists (he argues that birds and dinos evolved from a common ancestor, rather than birds evolving from dinos). So can you explain what your point is in quoting him? Whether he, or the other paleontologists are right, your belief is still wrong.

Finally, I have to ask.....do you believe you are sufficiently qualified to understand and evaluate the science of evolutionary biology?

EDIT: In your OP, you asked "Is there any truth to the claim that science has gives us answers based on evidence, whereas religion does not?"

Doesn't the fact that you used a computer to pose that question over the internet and have it read and responded to by people all over the world answer the first part? As far as religion, can you give an example of an "answer based on evidence" that it's provided?
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
We know cars are designed because we design them. We can watch them being designed. We can plan, observe and predict designing cars. They look like they were designed. There is incontrovertible evidence that cars are designed and that humans exist. There is no better explanation for cars than they were designed by humans.

However, the human body does not look like it was designed. We have never observed anyone designing the human body. The concept of design rather than evolution would mean that many other known processes would not make sense. Evolution is a better explanation than design by someone for whom there is zero evidence that they even exist in the first place.

Also, your argument has two fatal flaws.
1. Flaws in design aren't evidence of no design, they are evidence of an incompetent designer. (The flaws in the human body are better explained by evolution than by an incompetent god)
1. A rusting car is not a sign of bad design, it is a sign of bad maintenance.
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.

No. But the fact that we can replicate and test the work that led to that explanation does.
It really isn't rocket science (unless that work involves rockets).
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.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? :tearsofjoy:
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.

Sorry, but you absolutely do!
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. :)
 
Top