Originally posted by twhiteheadLike I said, I have no problem with science as long as it is done right.
Well, since some of the same scientists involved are involved in the Theory of Relativity (that you dispute), astronomy, geology, biology and various other science, you should have no problem with them either.
Can you trust science?
Science brought us modern medicine
Science brought us the light bulb
Science brought us the Phone
Science brought us refrigeration
Science brought us computers
Science brought us electricity
science brought us ........................................
Sure human bias will always be there but pure science you can trust it
Manny
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsMeteorolgists are not scientists!?
I think you are talking about the weatherman. I don't consider
them scientist because all their predictions are educated guesses.
It may be classified a science, but it is not an exact science because
they got much to learn from God.
They make educated guesses!?
Are you serious or really SO ignorant?
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI'm still waiting for them to do that with the theory of evolution
science works on the premise that you can't trust it. something must be falsifiable, otherwise it's not good science. every theory must be cross-examined and proven and it doesn't stop there.
instead of just declaring it proven fact.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI am not a scientist to do scientific experiments on it. That is what I
you're welcome to falsify it, instead of declaring it false.
am waiting for real scientist to do. But instead all I see is junk science
and those that want to declare something fact before it is proven. Even
I can do that. However, I have decided to counter those by declaring
it false.
Originally posted by twhiteheadScientist that have a bias and an agenda against God are not going to
No, you didn't. You said:We can get good results from science as long as we don't have scientist that have a bias and agenda against God.
which is not the same thing at all.
do good science because they will munipulate the result against God.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo how do you account for the scientists who believe in God who also accept the evidence for evolution?
Scientist that have a bias and an agenda against God are not going to
do good science because they will munipulate the result against God.
How does that compute in your brain?!
Originally posted by RJHindsWhich contradicts some of your previous statements. You are inconsistent.
Scientist that have a bias and an agenda against God are not going to
do good science because they will munipulate the result against God.
In reality, you accept science when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't. This has nothing to do with the scientists in question, but rather whether or not you personally like the results.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsScientists, or people following the basics of scientific method before it
Scientist that have a bias and an agenda against God are not going to
do good science because they will munipulate the result against God.
had been codified and the name coined, have been exploring the universe
and trying to explain it long before most of them were atheists.
It was in fact due to what these (largely Christian) theistic scientists discovered
that most today are now non-religious.
Plus whether you believe in religion or not.
No explanation, true or false, that includes god or the supernatural AS the
explanation for how or why something happens can ever be scientific.
When we want to explain something we have to do it in terms of other things
we already understand. Otherwise if you explain something in terms of something
we don't understand you then have to explain the new thing you don't understand
that supposedly explains the first thing you don't understand, which in reality means
you haven't got any closer to an actual explanation of how or why this thing you are
trying to explain worked/happened.
If your explanation of how or why something happened is some variant on god did it,
then you are basically saying it happened by magic, ie we don't know why it happened
and so we will just give up and say something supernatural did it.
This explains nothing, and dose not have any predictive value.
It is not science.
If you put your god into the gaps in our understanding and say 'here is something we don't
understand so god must have done it' and then someone explains the gap without god,
your god just got smaller and squeezed out.
Evolution is NOT a gap in our understanding, currently the creation of the first self replicating
entity that we might term a life form has not been fully explained, but this is not a problem with
evolution as evolution only describes the diversity not the origin of life.
That said their is no particular reason to suppose that science won't close this particular gap, and
probably in the relatively near future.
You have said repeatedly for years that science has no proof for evolution, and other such nonsense.
If you are prepared to debate with an open mind, I am prepared to demonstrate that not only is
evolution a viable explanation, with mountains of evidence, not one fact in dispute with it, but that
it is the ONLY viable solution, and that evolution is a logical inevitability for any system with self
replication and mutation.
When I am done, and you have been through all of the arguments and evidence,
you will be forced to admit publicly that evolution is correct.
Are you prepared to accept this challenge? (to be held in science forum)
EDIT: Note this would not be a debate of the legitimacy of religion or the existence of god.
Simply a discussion of the scientific legitimacy of evolution by natural selection.