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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let me give you an example.So we can observe a single cell accidentally morphing into a man through millions of lucky random mutations? We can chose to believe it of course, model it in computer simulations, fill in the gaps with drawings. But we certainly cannot directly observe, measure, repeat experimentally- quaint old fashioned scientific principles like that!
"It's as if they [fossils] were just planted there, with no evolutionary history" Dawkins
"[science]: such wholesale returns of conjecture, from such a trifling investment of fact" Mark Twain
That's interesting, I has the opposite experience, born and raised atheist and only began to question those beliefs later. I generally assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, we all want to know the truth- whatever we were brought up with, and we'll probably never prove anything to each other!- although since we both changed our minds- I suppose something we can prove here, is that our opinions are entirely unreliable
On varying beliefs, the vast majority of free thinking humanity has deduced a creator of some kind. And the Bible is the most widely read, influential book in the history of humanity, across millennia, cultures and continents. I don't think that is inconsistent with a divine creation.
It is embedded in philosophy. Philosophy cannot be tested with verifiable experiments and has no potential for falsification.
I can only assume you have a less than perfect grasp of what the scientific method is.
No, the scientific method is not a philosophy, it is a method. The key is in the name.
The basis of the Scientific Method is experience not experiment, it is just a proposition and does not cover all the aspects of human life. Right?
The other way around. Experiment, not experience.
No, again, it is a method.
Why wouldn't it?
They have set/proposed different scientific methods for different branches of sciences. That shows that one scientific method does not cover even all the sciences.
There are different fields of scientific study, but they all use the same scientific method. Can you give an example of a branch of science which uses a method other than the scientific method?
It is scientific because it has been confirmed effective through repeated experimentation and observation.
