Science = Atheistic?

[gnostic]

If something is unnatural and untestable, we've never seen or heard of it before. And just because someone makes it up and says you can't test it, well... you can certainly test their sanity.

It is not necessarily true that something untestable would be classified under "unnatural". There may be a number of things that we can't test, maybe because our technology had not reach the stage of testing or measuring. Most of these are outside of solar system.

The String Theory is still under development as a theory. A theory that tried to bridge the gap between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. So far we only have testable evidences through mathematical proof. We don't have hard evidences about the theory's 11th dimension and alternate reality, dimension that we neither observe nor test.

I would not classify String Theory to be unnatural....yet, largely because it is still under development, but some of the theory is still largely untested or untestable.

 

[Danmac]

Science doesn't deal with the concept. It only deals with the observable and testable.

Yeah, like macroevolution.

 

[Danmac]

I would say it's Agnostic... it makes no declarations about God.

That which can neither be proven nor disproved is outside of it's jurisdiction.

wa:do

But not outside of yours. Now that we cleared that up.

 

[painted wolf]

But not outside of yours. Now that we cleared that up.

No more mine than yours. But I'm sure you don't need me to explain it to you.

You have far more intimate knowledge of the irrationality of faith.

wa:do

 

[jonman122]

Yeah, like macroevolution.

macroevolution has been tested, and seen in the fossil records. I hope you aren't really a YEC, i figured all of those had dissapeared since everything they've fought for was utterly disproven and thrown away as irrational garbage.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Some basic beliefs yes... but not the major ones.

The virgin birth and resurrection of Christ is "basic" but not "major" to Christianity? Again, this seems like semantics.

How would you put Jesus under a microscope? At some point you step beyond the scientific and into the realm of opinion.

Sure, at some point. But when? Do I step beyond the scientific when I say the legend of the flying shield which protected Alexander was almost certainly myth? No. Do I need a microscope to reach this conclusion? No. So why would a scientific approach treat the Gospels any differently?

 

[DeitySlayer]

Yeah, like macroevolution.

Still banging the YEC drum, Danmac?

"Observable and testable" does not call for direct visual observation of the event taking place first hand.

Imagine a crime scene that a detective happens upon after a murder. There is a body, blood, DNA, a knife; all the 'standard' evidences that are used in murder trials. No-one actually SAW the murder. But you would be hard pressed to find someone who would deny this is evidence for a particular person being the murder.

 

[painted wolf]

The virgin birth and resurrection of Christ is "basic" but not "major" to Christianity? Again, this seems like semantics.

I didn't know you could scientifically disprove either of those...
Logically you can make a terrific case... but how do you propose to scientifically test it?

Sure, at some point. But when? Do I step beyond the scientific when I say the legend of the flying shield which protected Alexander was almost certainly myth? No. Do I need a microscope to reach this conclusion? No. So why would a scientific approach treat the Gospels any differently?

But are you using science to fully explain why the flying shield was myth? What experiments have been done? How do you account for human tendency to exaggerate factual events for socio-political gains?
History is not exactly empirical science.

wa:do

 

[The Ben G]

Is cardboard sweet? Of course not! My friend's dad is a Geologist and a Christian.

 

[Danmac]

Still banging the YEC drum, Danmac?

"Observable and testable" does not call for direct visual observation of the event taking place first hand.

Imagine a crime scene that a detective happens upon after a murder. There is a body, blood, DNA, a knife; all the 'standard' evidences that are used in murder trials. No-one actually SAW the murder. But you would be hard pressed to find someone who would deny this is evidence for a particular person being the murder.

Oh, I get it. Kinda like the OJ trial right?

 

[Danmac]

macroevolution has been tested, and seen in the fossil records. I hope you aren't really a YEC, i figured all of those had dissapeared since everything they've fought for was utterly disproven and thrown away as irrational garbage.

Macro evolution cannot be tested. That's why the record is stuck on microevolution.

 

[Tristesse]

Macro evolution cannot be tested. That's why the record is stuck on microevolution.

What's your definition of tested?

 

[Danmac]

What's your definition of tested?

The absence of the words theory and hypothesis.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What's your definition of tested?

The absence of the words theory and hypothesis.

This is where you fail miserably.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation and experimentation. A theory must be tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

It is your complete lack of understanding of the scientific methods that causes you to look so foolish in scientific debates.

 

[Danmac]

This is where you fail miserably.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation and experimentation. A theory must be tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

It is your complete lack of understanding of the scientific methods that causes you to look so foolish in scientific debates.

blah blah blah blah. It sounds so, shall we say, Obamaesc

 

[jonman122]

blah blah blah blah. It sounds so, shall we say, Obamaesc

if by obamaesc you mean it sounds like the opposite of stupid, then yes.

 

[jarofthoughts]

blah blah blah blah. It sounds so, shall we say, Obamaesc

Ooooh... Ad Hominem attacks!
The last refuge of someone with no facts and no arguments. ^_^

But hey, I've played this Evolution game before, so I have a question for you:
Since what you call "micro-evolution" (a nonsense term btw) is beyond question, exactly what mechanism do you propose stops "micro-evolution" from becoming "macro-evolution" given enough time?

 

[skydivephil]

Macro evolution cannot be tested. That's why the record is stuck on microevolution.

of course macro evolution can be tested. Searching for a chromosne fusion site was a test of the macro evolution, we did the test it passed. Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is where you fail miserably.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation and experimentation. A theory must be tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

It is your complete lack of understanding of the scientific methods that causes you to look so foolish in scientific debates.

blah blah blah blah. It sounds so, shall we say, Obamaesc

Ohhhh. Good reply!! Well, that does it. You have completely destroyed my argument from facts with your intellectually superior ad hominem attack.

I mean, why should anyone even bother presenting reality when you can so deftly destroy their presentation with such profound, yet ignorant, statements.

 

[Tristesse]

The absence of the words theory and hypothesis.

Oh ok. Thats easy then, gravity can't be tested, sexual reproduction can't be tested. Pretty much any valid scientific study. Because a theory is the graduation point in science, there is nothing higher than a theory in science. And don't conflate hypothesis and theory, they are two completely different things.