Can we use "Science" to find all the answers?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But would you agree that the scientific method does not necessarily include repetition in the lab? Do you therefore agree that you made strawman?

If it can't be repeated, you are not using the scientific method.
Being able to verify by repeating is part of the scientific method.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Any scenario i can conjure up is equally as valid as yours.

Start conjuring and tell us all about it. We need a good laugh.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But would you agree that the scientific method does not necessarily include repetition in the lab? Do you therefore agree that you made strawman?

No I still maintain that experiments such as the Miller–Urey experiment, which are aimed at providing simulated hypothetical conditions thought to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life need to be done in a lab. Such experiments are not limited to the lab of course you can do them in a cave or in your lav if you want.

Btw: I did make a strawman on the farm when I was a kid, but it was more of a scarecrow. What does that have to do with the price of eggs anyway? 😀

Originally posted by RJHinds
You need a little math education - 1 is equal to 100%.

Now you are just trying to deflect attention from the fact that I have just exposed your false claim of what I said as a lie and deflect attention by making yet another false claim about what I said;
I didn't say/imply, in the context of probability, that “ 1 is equal to 100%. “ is false and you know it.

Originally posted by dj2becker
No I still maintain that experiments such as the Miller–Urey experiment, which are aimed at providing simulated hypothetical conditions thought to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life need to be done in a lab. Such experiments are not limited to the lab of course you can do them in a cave or in your lav if you want.

Well then you are wrong. Although such experiments are important and useful they are not a requirement of science and their lack of results to date does not prove the impossibility of abiogenesis or even indicate it.
I agree that observation is an important part of science, but we can observe the past just as we observe the present.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then you are wrong. Although such experiments are important and useful they are not a requirement of science and their lack of results to date does not prove the impossibility of abiogenesis or even indicate it.
I agree that observation is an important part of science, but we can observe the past just as we observe the present.

Well then you are wrong.
Oh ok. So says the omniscient high priest of science.

Although such experiments are important and useful they are not a requirement of science and their lack of results to date does not prove the impossibility of abiogenesis or even indicate it.

Yes, your imminence. If scientists were able to create life in the lab would that also prove nothing? Why the heck are they wasting their time and money then?

I agree that observation is an important part of science, but we can observe the past just as we observe the present.

Oh that is fantastic! Would your majesty be so kind as to tell me how my great grandfather died? I’ve always been dying to know that.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Assuming a supernatural God exists as the Bible claims. Would we be able to use 'Science' to verify His existence?

No, I don't believe so, because the term "god" cannot be scientifically defined.

Originally posted by Soothfast
No, I don't believe so, because the term "god" cannot be scientifically defined.

No it can't, not with the old, outdated sientific systems.
however quatnum science is well on the way to eliminating that which is NOT "god"

Originally posted by karoly aczel
No it can't, not with the old, outdated sientific systems.
however quatnum science is well on the way to eliminating that which is NOT "god"

You mean "Quantum" physics and "scientific" systems don't you? So tell me how exactly does your quatnum science eliminate that which is not god?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Now you are just trying to deflect attention from the fact that I have just exposed your false claim of what I said as a lie and deflect attention by making yet another false claim about what I said;
I didn't say/imply, in the context of probability, that “ 1 is equal to 100%. “ is false and you know it.

Probability vs. Odds, Explained

Date: 03/21/2002 at 21:22:50
From: Brett
Subject: Odds in favor

There is one coin with heads on one side and tails on the other. We
have to find out the odds in favor of getting heads and the odds
against. I think the odds in favor and against are the same, 1 out of
2 times, but my teacher said the odds in favor are 1 out of 1. I
don't understand. Could you please explain this to me?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: 03/21/2002 at 23:15:56
From: Doctor Twe
Subject: Re: Odds in favor

Hi Brett - thanks for writing to Dr. Math.

Let me clarify the difference between probability and odds. The
probability of an event is defined as:

(Chances for)
P(x) = ---------------
(Total chances)

So, for example, the probability of drawing an ace in a single deck of
52 cards is 4/52 = 1/13 (or about 0.077 = 7.7 % ).

Odds, on the other hand, are given as:

(Chances for) : (Chances against)

Incidentally, odds of 1:1 would be read as "one TO one", not "one OUT
OF one." (The words "out of" seem to imply total chances, which is
probability, not odds.)

Since (Total chances) = (Chances for) + (Chances against), we can
calculate (Chances against) = (Total chances) - (Chances for). The
odds of drawing an ace in a deck of cards is 4 : (52-4) = 4:48 = 1:12.

Notice the difference in the second value; probability uses (Total
chances), but odds use (Chances against). This is why the probability
(if considered as a ratio) and the odds are different.

I hope this helps! If you have any more questions, write back!

- Doctor TWE, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.com/dr.math/

This is what you said:
"“...As far as they are concern the odds really are "1" ...”

which “odds” are you referring to here? The “odds” of what? The “odds” of evolution merely having happened or the “odds” of evolution having produced EXACTLY the outcome it did?
The probability of evolution having actually happened is 100% because we have overwhelming EVIDENCE (proof in fact) that it has happened.
The probability of evolution of producing EXACTLY whatsoever outcome it did would be one in a zillion -that, of course, has nothing to do with the probability of evolution having actually happened which is STILL 100% ."

Originally posted by dj2becker
Oh that is fantastic! Would your majesty be so kind as to tell me how my great grandfather died? I’ve always been dying to know that.

I'll take your descent into sarcasm as admission to the strawman.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I'll take your descent into sarcasm as admission to the strawman.

No. I was poking fun at you asking me if I MADE a strawman. Humor me. How was my argument a strawman?

Originally posted by dj2becker
No. I was poking fun at you asking me if I MADE a strawman. Humor me. How was my argument a strawman?

Your argument was based on this little claim:
Is Science not based on observations and the reproduction of experiments?
The answer is no. Science is not based purely on observations and the reproduction of experiments. Worse, you then implied that we cannot know anything about anything unless the complete thing can be reproduced in the lab.

Maybe not strictly a strawman, but getting very close. You are essentially misrepresenting science and the scientific method then trying to use that to argue that something is not science.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your argument was based on this little claim:
[b]Is Science not based on observations and the reproduction of experiments?
The answer is no. Science is not based purely on observations and the reproduction of experiments.Worse, you then implied that we cannot know anything about anything unless the complete thing can be reproduced in the lab.

May ...[text shortened]... cience and the scientific method then trying to use that to argue that something is not science.[/b]

The answer is no. Science is not based purely on observations and the reproduction of experiments.

My exact words were "No I'm saying that anything that scientists have to say about origins that lacks scientific observation and demonstrable evidence is purely speculation until it can can be validated by use of the scientific method."

Worse, you then implied that we cannot know anything about anything unless the complete thing can be reproduced in the lab.

So you take "...anything that scientists have to say about origins that lacks scientific observation and demonstrable evidence is purely speculation..." to mean we cannot know anything about anything??????

You are essentially misrepresenting science and the scientific method then trying to use that to argue that something is not science.

Give me the exact words in which I misrepresented science and the scientific method. You are the one who says the scientific method and observation is not necessary in all situations. Ok. Give me one scientific fact that is not based on observation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on what you mean by 'supernatural' and what properties the god in question has.
If he is a tiny 1cm square cube on the far side of Jupiter then science may never verify his existence. If however he interferes with the universe in a significant way (as does the God described in the Bible) then it seems likely that science could, in theory, ve ...[text shortened]... the Bible (ie the Bible describes infinitely many possible gods depending on interpretation).

===============================
In fact, I would say that science long ago verified that the God as described in the Bible does not exist, but then again, that depends on how you choose to interpret the Bible (ie the Bible describes infinitely many possible gods depending on interpretation).
============================================

That is a convenient way to think. God as described in the Bible does not exist as verified by science. But you will never be able to pinpoint exactly what I mean by God because of infinite possible definitions depending on infinite interpretations of the Bible.

Is this some kind of Catch 22, fool proof reasoning to invalidate God's existence ?

Well, let me take a few interpretations. And you can inform me where such a biblical concept of God was verified as non-existent.


1.) A God Who created the heavens and the earth.

Where did science verify such a God does not exist ?

2.) A God Who created man in the image of God.

Where has science verified that such a God is nonexistent ?

3.) A God Who "inhabits eternity".

Specify the scientific fact verifying this God's non-existence.

4.) A God who appeared to Abraham.

The science verifying His non-existence ?

5.) A God who gave ten commandments and led Hebrews out of Egyptian bondage.

The science verifying this God's non-existence.


6.) The God and Father of Jesus Christ.

The science verifying such a God's non-existence ?

7.) The God Who loves man and made provision for man's redemption and salvation.

The science verifying no such God exists ?

8.) The God who forgives my sins for Christ's sake.

The science verifying such a God's non-existence is exactly written up where?

9.) A God who was incarnated in Jesus Christ as a Lord and Savior.

The science disproving this God's existence is put forth where ?

10.) A God Who can come an indwell believers in Christ as the Holy Spirit.

Where is the science proving such a God's non-existence ?

11.) God Who will have a last judgment of all mankind.

The science verifying such a Being does not exist ?

12.) A God who will create all things new in a universe in which righteousness dwells forever and eternal life to the redeemed.

The science verifying that such a One does not exist ?