stvdv
Veteran Member
That makes sense to me
Here you make a claim "it's obviously made up nonsense" without evidence
Applying your "rule" in the above first quote of yours
We can dismiss your claim
Right?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science Babble vs Truth
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Applying your "rule" in the above first quote of yours
We can dismiss your claim
Right?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Dismiss away, if you want, the part in brackets wasn't meant to be 100% serious.
Of course, if you want a more serious answer, the evidence would be that many scientists do believe in a god (about 50% according to a report on another thread here) and that scientific research is largely irrelevant to any possible 'first cause'. The only possible exception would be cosmology, as far as I can see. The absence of a first cause would not be a premiss to any scientific research. Science follows evidence, and if it led to a first cause, then that's what would be included in any resulting theory.
The first cause argument (at least in all the forms I've seen) is also logically unsound and invalid anyway, and, even if it wasn't, it wouldn't be an argument for an intelligent mind or any version of god.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Disagreements about aspects of theories in science are common, normal and a sign that the science is healthy.
Note that Feduccia merely has a controversial view on whether birds diverged from therapods, or from an earlier common ancestor of birds and therapods.
None of this in any way calls in question that birds and therapods evolved from archosaurs (as did mammals). It's just a disagreement on exactly when the split occurred. Which is fair enough, since everyone is working from a necessarily patchy fossil record. In due time, science may resolve this definitively, as it has for many other controversies. (The evidence seems to be coming down fairly firmly against him. He may well have dug himself into a position, over so many years, that he is unable to retreat from it.)
By the way, what is your evidence that Feduccia is ridiculed to the point that his reputation has been damaged? I can't see any evidence of this from the Wiki article about him. He seems to be a respected professor.
What assertion?
Maybe I’ve missed something….
Does science accept or even consider a Mind as a Cause for biological complexity? Or for physics?
Brian2
Veteran Member
That would probably depend on what science we are considering and if the subject of investigation is directly observable or in the past for example.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
This one:-
You appear to have missed a great deal. Any knowledge of science, for example.
Firstly, what has this got to to with first cause? Secondly, we have a well tested theory of how biological complexity came about and no mind is indicated or needed, quite the opposite, in fact. Any mind that did things this way would be deranged and/or making an attempt to deliberately deceive.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Why are you talking about science when you were asked about religious evidence.
Brian2
Veteran Member
How so?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
A lot of the 'design' has obvious problems and the evidence for common descent via evolution is overwhelming.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
But would it be different? ain't evidence the same whether they are performed with science in mind or religion? But the way it is put, it sounds like science is somehow claiming to be the only one using evidence, but that religion have some other type that are equally as good as that, and therefore science shouldn't claim to be the only one using evidence. But to me there is no difference between these, evidence are evidence.
So it wouldn't matter if its in the past or not, I mean how is religion going to "investigate" the past and provide evidence that science couldn't and vice versa?
You know the opposing debaters have weak arguments, when they resort to belittling a person’s intelligence.
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Okay. Just a few examples:-
Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Articles
Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles
Genesis and the Genome (pdf)
The Evidence For Evolution: A Succinct Introduction For Denialists
Evidence of common descent
There's plenty more, of course. Note also that the first three are from Christian sources (so no accusations of atheist motivations, please).
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Of course.
Is there any truth to the claim that science has gives us answers based on evidence, whereas religion does not?
Science is evidence based philosophy.
Simply put, It works.
All the day to day technology you use, is based on scientific assumptions.
Some, are based on a broad and large amount of evidence. some are based on less.
The fact you can write this post, is a proof that science is reliable.
A theory (in science) cannot be called a Theory unless it is reliable.
It took many years for the evolution theory to be considered reliable. many year and thousands of evidence, predictions and measurements.
Evidence is not a conclusion, agreed. Evidence is information that supports a claim.
It can be strong evidence or weak evidence.
Strong, means it can be measured and repeated objectively.
For example, we have many strong evidence to prove there is gravity.
Weak, means it is not measurable but can provide information of what it is you are testing.
Eyewitness for example, is considered one of the weakest evidence in science. this is why we not yet have strong evidence for aliens as an example (or God).
Nope. If an evidence requires interpretation, it is not really an evidence.
If I present you with a claimed evidence, and 10 people can interpret it differently, it is not an evidence.
Agreed.
This is why there are so many denominations to most religious ideas.
Yep. That's why science only accept ideas that are supported by (actual) evidence.
And still, even with that, we can discover evidence that disproves an idea.
Scientist don't disagree on proven theories.
No scientist today disagrees that the earth is spheroid. those who do, are not really scientist (in the related purview at least).
The purviews where disagreement starts, are those that do not yet have enough evidence, like multiple dimensions, sub-particle physics, pre big bang ideas and such.
DoneSo to be sure, is there anything you disagree with in this OP? Please specify or add anything you would like to... related to th OP, please.
So how is it that Christians disagree ─ with the Jews, who actually wrote the relevant book, and with each other so that according to >this< ─
"Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity."
Which one of them possesses 'the truth' ─ and what test did you use to derive your answer?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope. There is no such requirement. You have been listening to lies of creationists again. In fact that is the sin of creationists. They are the ones that require people to believe creationism to publish in thsites. There is no similar requirement for real scientists.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Some may. But they cannot find any evidence for one. Creationists cannot find any scientific evidence for their God. Science is evidence based. How can one scientifically support a God when there is no evidence for one?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The classic example being the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Bad enough in humans. Worse on giraffes. And crazy nuts on some dinosaurs.