Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[firedragon]

You weren't quite clear on the important part of what you've said above: WHY science doesn't respond to supernatural claims

Simple. Its because science does not deal with anyone proposing anything supernatural anything.

Maybe you wish to redefine science. Thats alright with me but them you have to redefine it. So its not within my paradigm.

 

[KWED]

I’ve never found proof of its accuracy. What’s to discuss? The lack of proof?

***MOD EDIT***

He is wise enough to respond in return that science has its limitations.

Of course it does. The problem you have is that you use the idea that there are gaps in our knowledge to reject some things that are well established, while being happy to accept other scientific knowledge when it suits you. This selective hypocrisy betrays your true motives.

He isn’t trying to force the thought that science is infallible.

Straw man. No one claims that science is infallible. However, that doesn't mean that you can decide which bits are right or wrong. That is decided by the evidence.

 

[KWED]

See, science does not respond to any supernatural claims. If you ask this question a 100 times, the answer will be the same.

Try and understand. Yet I am confident you know this already.

I have already explained to you how science addresses supernatural claims.
What's the matter? Not talking to me? Tired of having your pants pulled down?

 

[KWED]

Simple. Its because science does not deal with anyone proposing anything supernatural anything.

You are, as usual, talking nonsense. Perhaps you should stick to "irrelevant!" Less chance of getting it wrong.

There have been many documented examples of scientific examination of supernatural claims. In every instance the outcome has either been a known natural cause or no evidence for the claim itself.

So its not within my paradigm.

lol! What did you think this means?

 

[blü 2]

Simple. Its because science does not deal with anyone proposing anything supernatural anything.

But it would if they were talking about anything with objective existence, anything real. Physics and Chemistry in particular are very good at reality. And there are branches of science to explore the psychological roots of religion.

Maybe you wish to redefine science. Thats alright with me but them you have to redefine it. So its not within my paradigm.

I don't understand what you're saying ─ how do you define science?

 

[firedragon]

But it would if they were talking about anything with objective existence, anything real. Physics and Chemistry in particular are very good at reality. And there are branches of science to explore the psychological roots of religion.
I don't understand what you're saying ─ how do you define science?

I dont define science. I have no qualification to do that.

Also, psychological "roots" of religion etc etc is CSR or Sociology of religion etc. That is not science trying to explain the supernatural.

I thing prior to making this kind of statement, you should find out what each of these things are.

Science fundamentally does not even attempt or have a scope in what you are trying your best to mix it into. Blu, your claims are absolutely bogus.

Cheers.

 

[blü 2]

I dont define science. I have no qualification to do that.

So throughout this conversation, you've had no idea what you were talking about ─ or what I was talking about.

Not unprecedented, but still odd.

Also, psychological "roots" of religion etc etc is CSR or Sociology of religion etc. That is not science trying to explain the supernatural.

No, you don't know what science is, so by your own admission you once again don't know what you're talking about.

 

[firedragon]

So throughout this conversation, you've had no idea what you were talking about

It was you had no idea what you talking about. You dont know how science works, and you have no concept of humility in your system.

When I say I dont define science, I mean to say that philosophers of science have already done it. Thats just accepting it is already done and you have no right to redefine science. But you seem to not have any idea about it so you seem to think science is anyones clay to define as you please arbitrarily.

 

[firedragon]

No, you don't know what science is, so by your own admission you once again don't know what you're talking about.

See, creating some bogus caricature is not an argument you see? Maybe it makes you feel a little bigger because maybe you dont get that in some other way. But that's kind of pathetic.

Maybe if you read without your superiority blinkers you will find yourself using your true understanding.

I didnt say I dont know what science is. Dont lie about others. If you try hard, you will achieve that elevated status.

 

[blü 2]

It was you had no idea what you talking about. You dont know how science works, and you have no concept of humility in your system.

Now now. You're the one who said you didn't know what 'science' means. Don't blame me just because I point it out.

When I say I dont define science, I mean to say that philosophers of science have already done it.

Then quote the definition provided by the philosophers that you approve of.

And then I'll have a chance of understanding your original comment that started our present discussion.

you have no right to redefine science.

Two points:

I haven't refined 'science'. I haven't at this point offered any definition of science at all. You're the one who raised the issue, so set out the definition of science you approve of.

And second, when you've done that, point out where you say I've departed from it.

 

[firedragon]

Now now. You're the one who said you didn't know what 'science' means.

I think you should read again.

 

[Shadow11]

Science is simply mans understanding of his environment there is no conflict except for Genesis and I see people are ready to throw it all out the door and call it evil because of Genesis. Take a long look around you everything is there because of science. There is no argument other than how the earth was created.Scripture does not answer science questions and science doesn't teach moral values. God put that desire for man to understand the environment in him it cannot be ignored nor do I think God wants it to be ignored. Argue over Genesis its the only argument of science verses religion..

 

[firedragon]

Science is simply mans understanding of his environment there is no conflict except for Genesis and I see people are ready to throw it all out the door and call it evil because of Genesis. Take a long look around you everything is there because of science. There is no argument other than how the earth was created.Scripture does not answer science questions and science doesn't teach moral values. God put that desire for man to understand the environment in him it cannot be ignored nor do I think God wants it to be ignored. Argue over Genesis its the only argument of science verses religion..

Well. There are some who "believe" science "Will one day" if not already done, answer all questions. Even truths, facts and morals. Some call it scientism.

You are right. Science does not teach moral values. One must note though that science also fundamentally has methodological naturalism which is the normative method of inquiry. Thus, science does not get into the business of any idea of supernatural matters.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I’ve never found proof of its accuracy. What’s to discuss? The lack of proof?

You wrote, "Please provide proof that radio-carbon dating is accurate and trustworthy." I told you that your education is your own responsibility. I noted that another poster had given you a link on the subject, and that I didn't expect you to look at it. You fail to recognize that your unawareness in this area, radiodating, is by design, and that you have no interest in changing that. If you had, you would have at least looked at the link and hopefully, returned to the thread with any questions you might have, and to summarize what you learned.

Aupmanyav, made the statement that I responded to. He is wise enough to respond in return that science has its limitations. He isn’t trying to force the thought that science is infallible.

Straw man. Nobody is. I'm a strong believer in empiricism in the lab and in daily life (we can call these formal and informal science, as they attempt to do the same thing - collect data and generate inductions that allow predicting future outcomes), but I actually never even endorsed it in the post you are responding to, much less call it infallible.

I’m not here to argue with anyone who gets huffy when their precious science theories are challenged.

Huffy?

You didn't challenge any theory or even any idea. You asked to be taught radiometric dating by RF posters, and I explained not only was your education your responsibility, but that based on experience with apologists asking for information (there's that informal science of daily life), I have concluded that they're never really interested. Perhaps you might have decided to prove me wrong just this one time by reading the link and sharing what you learned. Instead, you got huffy yourself (projection much?) and turned it from a discussion of ideas to what you disapprove of in me.

Are you weak enough that you will fall apart when the theory of evolution crumbles? Therefore, you feel threatened when it’s challenged in any way?

You haven't challenged the theory of evolution. You requested information that you were never interested in. It's interesting that you see that as a challenge to evolution. I have also long said that these questions about science aren't really requests for information, but declarative statements in the form of a question, like "What's the use?" (rhetorical questions) as part of an implied ignorantiam argument that is basically, "If you can't prove something to me to my satisfaction - and I won't cooperate with you even if you try - then your science is wrong, ergo God." It's further evidence that your request wasn't sincere as I suggested.

You probably didn't like my calling this the apologists' two-step, but then you went and did it, and got huffy when you were called on it. It's an extremely common problem in these discussions. One has to learn to focus on making reasoned arguments and not injecting emotion into the process. It's an acquired skill found in those familiar with courtrooms, boardrooms, congressional hearings, and academic environments. Lose your cool and lose your argument, and be rebuked (if not sanctioned).

When that fighting culture meets the other one, there will be one side getting emotional and threatening to walk out, or begin flinging derogatory personal opinions. Just look at those court TV shows, and compare the demeanor of the judge to the typical angry defendant. It resembles these discussions between skeptics and apologists - one of us posting as I have, and one posting as you have. Those are the two cultures to which I refer.

I have a name for that as well - the three stages of apologist decompensation. It begins with some incoherent or previously refuted "proof of God" or some challenge to science as you offered. This is rebutted, leading to the "You can't prove I'm wrong. That's just your opinion." When this is rebutted, the emotional food fight begins. Sometimes, as in this case, the second step is skipped entirely.

You probably don't like reading that either, but it is an observation that I find maps reality well, and is thus a useful idea. I'm using it now. If you choose to respond, practice rebutting what is actually said to you (you haven't done that yet with me) without injecting emotion. Be Spock.

Incidentally, the theory of evolution is so robustly evidenced that it can be called proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the legal use of the word. Have you thought about the implications were the theory falsified tomorrow? The existing evidence doesn't go away. It just needs to be reinterpreted in the light of falsifying find.

What could that interpretation possibly be apart from a deceptive intelligent designer or race of designers existing that went to great pains to make it appear as if evolution had occurred, by planting the geological column, for example, with progressively less modern looking forms at deeper strata with radioisotopes (you can read about these on the Internet, including the link already provided you) carefully placed in the fossil remains in ratios such that deeper forms appear older. Giving man that fused chromosome was a nice touch. Very convincing, but if evolution were falsified, just another deception.

What's interesting to me here is the effort Christian creationists make to overturn evolution, never realizing that even if they are successful and correct about intelligent design, their god is already ruled out by this deception. The Christian god is said to want to be known, understood, believed, loved, obeyed, and worshiped. The intelligent designer can't be that god if it is a trickster god. Nor need it/they be gods at all.

 

[ratiocinator]

I’ve never found proof of its accuracy. What’s to discuss? The lack of proof?

I've already given you a link that explains how we know radiometric dating works and why it's a mistake to ask for 'proof' (#354), which you just ignored.

Of course you'll never find something if you simply refuse to look.

I’m not here to argue with anyone who gets huffy when their precious science theories are challenged. Are you weak enough that you will fall apart when the theory of evolution crumbles? Therefore, you feel threatened when it’s challenged in any way?

It looks much more like you're the one getting all defensive. You asked for some information, it was given to you, and you ignored it.

Anyway, here's the link again: Radiometric Dating. It's also written by a Christian.

 

[firedragon]

I’ve never found proof of its accuracy. What’s to discuss? The lack of proof?

Aupmanyav, made the statement that I responded to. He is wise enough to respond in return that science has its limitations. He isn’t trying to force the thought that science is infallible.

I’m not here to argue with anyone who gets huffy when their precious science theories are challenged. Are you weak enough that you will fall apart when the theory of evolution crumbles? Therefore, you feel threatened when it’s challenged in any way?

Just out of curiosity, is it your conception that scientific dating is flawed? Or is it just simple possibility of error?

It is not really scientific to say dating is spot on, but please be kind enough to state what kind of error can there be? Can there be billions of years in error?

I am only trying to understand your point so dont get offended. I am no scientist so I could of course be in error.

In radiometric dating, there are some problems. In dating, half lives are said to have got shortened in the past. Thats true. But how much is the difference? 20%?? We are not sure. What is assured is that it simply cannot get so much accelerated that darting is so much different in billions of years. Tree ring annual calculations can be not exactly annual but its a good yardstick. How much difference can it make?

Please try to elaborate if you have time.

 

[1213]

...So you don't have a problem with everything that science has led to, all the products, advancements and progress. The things you use and accept every day.

I have not problem in believing things that can be proven, shown to be true. For example, we can test that things fall certain way, therefore it is ok to me. I have difficulties to believe claims that can't be proven, that are just opinions of people who are speaking in the name of science.

...It is only when the products of science refute your religious belief that science is suddenly untrustworthy ...

There is no product of real science that refutes my religious beliefs. If some human imagine that their beliefs are the science, it is not science to me.

 

[1213]

Because until writing was developed knowledge advanced very very slowly. ...

Why it took so long to develop writing?

 

[1213]

... In fact to make this claim you would have to state that neither history or science support the Bible since they both can show major flaws in it.

Please show one example?

 

[1213]

...
Evolution itself, of course, is an observed fact,...

If it is an observed fact, what observation makes it a fact? Evolution theory really is nothing more than modernized mother earth cult.