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!
Thank you, but I have provided numerous references designed for scientists and scientific research concerning the nature of science (NOS) and scientific methods (to which I have contributed to), *post edited by RF staff*.
You can search my posts for this. I commented on it using actual physics literature years ago.
Umm. Straw man much? I said, Physics can't be used to explain things on the quantum level. I never said, "physics can't be used to explain anything." Newtonian mechanics aren't on a quantum or atomic level.
I didn't. I wanted to (as I said in my reply) discuss how fine-tuning does or doesn't support design, as well as what it is. *post edited by RF staff*
And, you just avoided the entire argument. Do you just ignore the difference between Scientific Theory and Scientific Hypothesis? How can a "scientist" get away with that? There are very distinct, specific, and defined diferences.
Umm...contradiction in terms much? What the **** do you think quantum physics is? Using a magic 8-ball?
My point is that the laws of Physics differ from Quantum Theory, or that is what our current understanding is.
No. I ignore all those who aren't scientists and rely on such simplistic distinctions that we real scientists cannot use for research but that so many such as yourself find definitive despite the disconnect between this pre-college and undergrad notion and actual scientific research>
Interesting, considering the we scientists don't actually make such distinctions and even in the philosophy of science and in some popular science literature (not to mention several decades of research in science education) deem your distinction to be not only misinformed, but lending credence to an understanding of the nature of science that is fundamentally skewed.
I would say the same about you, my friend. And it seems as though, through doing some research on my own, most scientists agree that there is a difference between a "scientific theory" and a "scientific hypothesis" as I do. And, btw, saying that you are a scientist and talkling down to everyone doesn't really act to convince anyone of your intelligence. Just a bit of friendly advice. Anyone can claim to be a scientist, so try not to rely on that too much.
I'm not your friend. You represent a position that I believe plagues the discourse between scientists and the public, which is misused by politicians, corporations, and even scientists. I have devoted years to attempts to counterbalance some small part of this. Your posts represent my failure and all those who, like me, which that the sciences were better understood.
What databases did you search?
You are reasonable as always. I'm not, alas. I'm tired, sick (actually sick), and sick of having to defend positions that are granted by anybody whose field is relevant, etc. Is this unreasonable and childish of me? Yes. With more sleep I could grant more patience, despite the numerous posts that have misconstrued my intent, what I have sought to address, and the scientific literature. So it is probably best that I quit now, before I become really nasty.Eh Deidre's a cool and froody dudette, miscommunications happen. Can't we all just get along?
You reduced my entire thread to some thread "geared to argue in favor of ID"
We both know that these discussions are typically geared to argue in favor of ID. Which is fine, honestly. But, let's not pretend on a religious forum, in the religious debate subforum...that we're merely discussing the parameters of physics.
It does. Were it different, no life would be possible.
Assuming that to be true, it doesn't negate or address the fine-tuned problem (or, for believers, fine-tuning argument).
The guy who wasn't working on the plans for infinitely many universes: Bob Cratchit
