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. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,896
    Ratings:
    +3,581
    Religion:
    atheist
    No dude, I'm not making an equivalency, I'm making an analogy. A creator being claim and a cosmic pixie claim are BOTH unfalsifiable claims, neither of which are the preview of the scientific method.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  2. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,196
    Ratings:
    +4,948
    Religion:
    Christian
    Here are Dr. Feduccia’s own words during an interview. The question was asked:
    “How did you get involved in the debate in the first place?”
    His reply:
    “ I really was not interested in the origin of birds until I wrote a book called The Age of Birds back in 1980, for which I had to write a chapter on bird origins. I tried to be as fair as possible, but when I did not come down firmly on the side of the dinosaurian origin of birds, I was viewed as a heretic. The vitriolic response I got was a big red flag to me. If these researchers were so convinced that they were right, why did it make a difference what I thought? Why did they get so enraged? As the years progressed, I started looking into the problem of the origin of birds in great detail, and everywhere I looked, it was as if we were being asked to put a square peg in a round hole.”

    Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia—Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds

    Kudo’s to him!

    But he didn’t jump too far out of the pot.
     
  3. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,196
    Ratings:
    +4,948
    Religion:
    Christian
    Are you for real? Your pixie farter is not analogous to a super intellect!
     
  4. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,196
    Ratings:
    +4,948
    Religion:
    Christian
    Why? Since you and these scientists make facts of premier importance, which you should…what facts are there supporting your claim that there is a God? There must be something. Is it just “a feeling” y’all have?
     
  5. Moonjuice

    Moonjuice In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2021
    Messages:
    337
    Ratings:
    +320
    Religion:
    Skeptic
    Never?

    What is the fastest way to delivered a message from NY to London?

    In 1845? The answer would be by boat of course. That was an undisputed fact.

    Until the 40's when we started flying planes across the Atlantic. At that point, it was a fact that if you wanted to deliver a letter from NY to London, airplane was the fastest way.

    Now, you can deliver a message nearly instantaneously. Some facts can change.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,196
    Ratings:
    +4,948
    Religion:
    Christian
    Sorry, but it takes faith to believe that evolutionary mechanisms produced the first bacterial flagellum. Or the first protein. Or even the first cellular membrane.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Regiomontanus

    Regiomontanus retired astronomer

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,923
    Ratings:
    +1,847
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox
    One vivid memory is when a fellow graduate student (female) said that she was there because she was moved by the holy spirit. I get that now but she was mocked then.
     
  8. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    16,484
    Ratings:
    +4,355
    Religion:
    Islam
    She was mocked in academia because she had a basis of the Holy Spirit? Okay okay. I understand what you say.

    Err. Thanks Regiomontanus. I really appreciate your response. You didnt have to. So my gratitude.

    Peace.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  9. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,503
    Ratings:
    +2,101
    How would you go about studying and unseen, immaterial reality though?

    Does it have instrumental significance in the physical world? How would you distinguish the physical from the non physical?
     
  10. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,196
    Ratings:
    +4,948
    Religion:
    Christian
    Huh?

    They are still facts.

    The times have changed, not the established facts from those times.

    Rome was a world power. Saying it isn’t now, does not change the fact it was. That is a fact.

    :rolleyes:
     
  11. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,634
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Faith is evidence based.

    Faith in God and living by divine standards and guidance works.

    All the people living by Bible standards - for example... being honest in all thing, is based on Godly devotion, or a God trained conscience, at least.

    So is Biblical truths.

    The fact that we can sit on our soft buttocks while using our computer, is evidence our body was designed with purpose... At least one evidence. ;)

    A theory in science is called a theory, not because it is reliable, but because it explains the facts well.
    If it were reliable, there would be no need to change it, or make it obsolete if it were reliable.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
    Would you get rid of your antivirus software if it were reliable?

    It seems to me you are using the wrong word here. The word reliable would better be replaced by acceptable.
    In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world

    Evidence can support a claim, but it does not have to.
    Evidence is a collection of facts, which need to be evaluate, investigated, to determine if they support the claims.

    So weak evidence cannot be measured?
    Evidence can be weak - not because it is not measured, but because there is not enough evidence to support it.
    As said in the OP... 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.

    Oh? So you don't think using the argument for genetics is a good one then?
    Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences to infer common descent is a hypothesis.
    Homology among proteins or DNA is inferred from their sequence similarity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics
    In biology, phylogenetics is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among individuals or groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations). These relationships are discovered through phylogenetic inference methods that evaluate observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences or morphology under a model of evolution of these traits. The result of these analyses is a phylogeny (also known as a phylogenetic tree) - a diagrammatic hypothesis about the history of the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms

    Population genetic models are used both for statistical inference from DNA sequence data and for proof/disproof of concept.

    Why DNA Evidence Can Be Unreliable

    The hardest job for investigators is to differentiate DNA that belongs to the criminal and DNA that randomly finds its way to the crime scene.

    "There's something called 'accidental transfer' or 'secondary transfer,'" says Phillips. "The DNA on a weapon might come from the person who actually touched the object or the person who shook hands with the person who touched the object."


    Phillips says that judges and prosecutors have learned from examples like the Scott case that DNA evidence alone is not enough to convict. With even a chance of contamination or secondary transfer, there must be other forms of corroborating evidence — like fiber samples, eyewitness accounts or fingerprints — that put the DNA results into context.

    I was looking for one more, but can't find it right now. Will look later.

    That's not correct.
    We are not discussing direct evidence alone.
    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.

    Did you read the OP? No. It happens among scientists. They have different theories for the same phenomenon.

    Depends on what you call science, and who is doing the science.

    There is no such thing as a proven theory.

    Done making incorrect statements. Whew Well that's a relief. :D
    However, I'd be happy to hear you when you have your facts straight. :)
     
    #111 nPeace, Oct 6, 2021
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2021
  12. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    21,695
    Ratings:
    +26,404
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Scientists are very cautious in their conclusions. Often that is taken as a sign of weakness and uncertainty. Instead, it is a natural way to present a hypothesis for further testing. usually, the amount of confidence is actually pretty high simply because the researcher has tried the obvious tests.

    Proof in the strong sense you are talking about only happens in mathematics.

    That 'house of cards' from science is far, far stronger than a brick wall in most cases.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,634
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    People disagree for multiple reasons. Scientists disagree, as well.
    How is it scientists in the same field, disagree?
    Which of them posses the truth?
    What tests do they use to derive the answer?
    We all use the same. There are methods of investigation in every field on earth.
     
  14. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    47,980
    Ratings:
    +29,458
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Nope. Only knowledge. The bacterial flagellum was an epic fail by Behe. How it evolved was already largely explained by the time his book was published. Perhaps even when he was writing it. By the way, the first protein would have been during abiogenesis. As would be the cellular membrane, and the first cellular membrane is also well understood. It is on e of the problems of abiogenesis that has been answered.

    For you it would be faith because you insist on keeping yourself in the dark about these discoveries. But for scientists they are not that hard to understand.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    47,980
    Ratings:
    +29,458
    Religion:
    Atheist
    No. It isn't. There is a rather poor claim in the Bible, but it falls flat on its face. Faith is what people rely on when there is no evidence.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  16. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    47,980
    Ratings:
    +29,458
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That is a actually a good question. And it is determined by who's hypothesis is best supported by the evidence. It is why there is a consensus about birds being dinosaurs. It is not due to popularity, but due to the endless new discoveries that keep supporting that hypothesis. As to what tests you would have to read the scientific literature. Each paper written usually has its own tests. A person must present his idea as a hypothesis and explain how he tested that. Now those are not the only tests than can be done on that hypothesis. A well defined hypothesis lends itself to testing. Other scientists can also test the idea based upon the hypothesis and see if they can refute or support it.

    Meanwhile the BAND group are almost as bad as creationists at times. There are some that hold that appear to hold that belief as an ideology and not as an evidence supported hypothesis.
     
  17. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,196
    Ratings:
    +4,948
    Religion:
    Christian
    There’s only one article you posted here that has some bearing.

    The others, either deal with genetics (which can’t be deciphered from fossils), or basically just support evolution within Family taxa (which I have no problem with).

    Gotta go.
     
  18. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    47,980
    Ratings:
    +29,458
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Why focus on fossils? Fossils are far from the only evidence for evolution. Fossils are not even the strongest evidence for evolution. Not be a longshot. Fossils are the easiest evidence for an amateur to understand. But if you do not at least have a grasp of the basics of the other kinds of evidence for evolution you will never have an idea of how well supported it is.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,300
    Ratings:
    +2,093
    Not a 100% sure what you mean with evidence for faith?

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,634
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    This is an ad hominem. Sad to say, it's one of Atheist's most used "tools", and one of their weakest areas.


    How has this changed or differed from the definition in the OP? :shrug:


    Did the definition say direct evidence must be inferred? Where?


    Really? Where did you infer that from... which statement?

    :So you think something is reliable, based on attempts to show it wrong failing. Thanks.
    I'll keep that in mind.

    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.
     
Loading...