Science Babble vs Truth

[Dan From Smithville]

We cannot use that so broadly, and here is why.
When you say science, that includes all science - the good, bad and ugly... unless you think some science is not really science.

So for example, when science gets it wrong for centuries, and it's a lens God gave us, then God is a failure.
However, God is not a failure, so it is the case science is not a God-given lens, but rather a tool man uses to discover things... in many cases, the wonders of God... and yes, it has its limits, as most recognize, and therefore has it's many failings, and yes, it does go off course to truth... many times.

God, according to the Bible, surely does not want us to be on the path that does not lead to truth. As the God of truth, he guide us in truth.
Science has its place. It can enlighten us with many things that enhances our appreciation for God, but it can never ever replace, or trump truth. Science has also contributed to ruination of the earth, after all... or is it man's use of science.

What is ugly science?

What has science gotten so wrong for centuries? I know you are not going to answer, but the question should be asked and it deserves an answer.

That is false equivalence. Belief in God and God Himself are not dependent on the conclusions of science. Do you actually understand what you just did? Obviously not.

Science is the result of the intellect that God gave man to observe, theorize, conclude and understand the natural world. It is clearly a God-given lens. Denial and crap logic won't change that. I cannot imagine that God would not want us to be on the path to knowledge and understanding. I can imagine and actually see people that do not want us on that path because it topples their personal agendas and love of man's religious ideology.

 

[oldbadger]

When babble comes up against truth, babble will remain babble, and never will it become truth.
Allow me to babble for a while in this thread.

Is there any truth to the claim that science has gives us answers based on evidence, whereas religion does not?

So write down something that is true and not religious babble, please.

Birds have evolved from dinosaurs.

Trying to be as brief as possible, i'm taking a few quotes from here.

Look, by waving a favoured expert's flag at us you get nowhere, 'cos all other debaters need to do is wave expert's flags back at you. It then becomes an 'our experts are better 'n yours' game.

You need to put your case for this idea not some so-called expert's.

I will answer these questions, and at the same time I want to ask the same of you. How do you know that the scientists perception about the things they infer, are reliable?
This thread will also explain why no amount of science babble will trump truth - Biblical truth first and foremost.

......... because I've read the laws of Moses and the NT and Christians have turned truth upside down, in to a nonsense. So I think I'll listen to researchers and specialists in archaeology.

Before I start, I want to be sure we have the same understanding of evidence, since it seems apparent to me that skeptics here, want to equate evidence to conclusions.

You've already started, and I wait to see your evidence......after all, it's your claim that feathered dinosaurs were not feathered dinosaurs.

Three Ways to Date the Destruction at Jericho
Carbon-14 is normally accurate to within 15 years, but the older the sample, the more necessary it is to calibrate and corroborate dates using other means. Indeed, there is a current debate in the field of archaeology concerning how accurate Carbon-14 dating is in the Levant9, as well as whether there is a need to recalibrate the curve used in radiocarbon calculations.

Hey! What happened to feathered dinosaurs/birds?
This is all a bit scattered, I think.

Over the years several samples of charcoal and grain seeds from the final Canaanite city at Jericho have been tested for C-14 levels. The current Italian-Palestinian excavation team, directed by Lorenzo Nigro, tested two samples from the final destruction of the city in 2000; one sample dated to 1347 BC (+/- 85 years) and the other dated to 1597 (+/- 91 years).11 Archaeologist, Dr. Titus Kennedy, has summarized: “The first of these dates fits roughly around the proposed 1400 BC destruction, while the other is closer to the proposed 1550 BC destruction…these dates are so broad that they are useless in contributing to solving the problem for the date of destruction. Overall, the C-14 dates from the destruction of the Bronze Age city of Jericho range from as high as 1883 BC to as low as 1262 BC - a range of over 600 years.” Clearly we will need to look to other methods to determine when Jericho was destroyed.

Stop you right there. You have started your search above with the conclusion that Jericho was destroyed, which isn't good research. You need to start with 'the date that Jericho's walls failed'.

Regarding the second, the article says that Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon's earlier interpretation that Jericho was abandoned at the time of the Conquest of Canaan in 1406 BC is incorrect, when considering all the evidence demonstrating that Jericho was still in existence through 1500 BCE.

So we aren't going to debate feathered dinosaurs...... *saddened*

On the third, one archaeologist - Dr. Bryant Wood, considered to be an expert in Canaanite pottery noted that another Archaeologist - Kathleen Kenyon, had based her dating of the destruction of Jericho solely on "the absence of imported pottery". Her conclusions that Jericho was unoccupied at the time Joshua is said to have conquered and destroyed Jericho was based on... The author of the article put in his bit... (She would have done well to follow esteemed Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen’s maxim, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”)


What's the point?

Hang on........... You've already shown us that 'experts' disagree about stuff. That's all you've proved.

Look, it's possible that Jericho got mined, or overrun and then damaged to make sure it could not be re-used, or destroyed by seismic activity (since it's not far from the Dead Sea....... how does this help you with feathered dinosaur birds????? !

Evidence is not conclusion. Evidence requires interpreting. Different interpretations lead to different conclusions. Those conclusions may be wrong.

True! And since Christians will apply wonderful interpretations in order to adjust the story of, say, Jesus, this makes me very cautious about their claims for dinosaurs. !!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Archaeopteryx remains transitional whether you regard it as a bird-like dinosaur or a dinosaur-like bird. Emphasis does not alter its status as transitional. Good grief.

Creationists can never understand the concept that "transitional" does not mean "ancestral". Don't any of them have uncles or aunts?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks for sharing that, bro.
It's like discovering that your transitional is not a transitional after all, but a creature similar to all the other creatures... just unique in its own way.
Rather than admit that though, it seems, according to scientists, Archaeopteryx will make a transition...
No matter what Archaeopteryx turns out to be, the creature will remain important to both the historical development of our ideas about evolution and the actual, prehistoric transition from non-avian to avian dinosaurs.

Except that Archaeopteryx remains evidence of evolutionary transition. Just because you decide to use trickery and crap logic to maintain denial does not magically remove it as useful evidence of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Creationists can never understand the concept that "transitional" does not mean "ancestral". Don't any of them have uncles or aunts?

I am thinking that tree may be straighter than I originally hypothesized.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I stated my belief and will restate it: I believe in Divinity. I know that science uncovers how the material universe works. Any time a belief contradicts science, I know that the belief is in error whether that belief comes from some scripture or political orientation.

I look on the contradiction between knowledge and belief as an indication that we do not understand God or the Bible as well as we think. It may be just a minor distinction and saying the same thing in essence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So write down something that is true and not religious babble, please.

Birds have evolved from dinosaurs.



Look, by waving a favoured expert's flag at us you get nowhere, 'cos all other debaters need to do is wave expert's flags back at you. It then becomes an 'our experts are better 'n yours' game.

You need to put your case for this idea not some so-called expert's.


......... because I've read the laws of Moses and the NT and Christians have turned truth upside down, in to a nonsense. So I think I'll listen to researchers and specialists in archaeology.


You've already started, and I wait to see your evidence......after all, it's your claim that feathered dinosaurs were not feathered dinosaurs.


Hey! What happened to feathered dinosaurs/birds?
This is all a bit scattered, I think.


Stop you right there. You have started your search above with the conclusion that Jericho was destroyed, which isn't good research. You need to start with 'the date that Jericho's walls failed'.


So we aren't going to debate feathered dinosaurs...... *saddened*


Hang on........... You've already shown us that 'experts' disagree about stuff. That's all you've proved.

Look, it's possible that Jericho got mined, or overrun and then damaged to make sure it could not be re-used, or destroyed by seismic activity (since it's not far from the Dead Sea....... how does this help you with feathered dinosaur birds????? !


True! And since Christians will apply wonderful interpretations in order to adjust the story of, say, Jesus, this makes me very cautious about their claims for dinosaurs. !!

Unfortunately creationists are not consistent at all. They count that there is a slight possibility that their unevidenced beliefs are right as a "win" and the massive evidence for evolution is somehow a "loss". I do not think that I will even understand that odd sort of reasoning.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dude, you’re equating a Master Scientist harnessing energy to create, with “a cosmic pixie farting”?

Is that what the atheist Hoyle alluded to, by saying "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology….”?

“Common sense” seems to be lacking.

It certainly does.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not knowing who the builder of some artifact was, has no inhibitive effect on studying it!

Example: the pyramids.

In fact, knowing it was created, gives researchers another aspect to study: the artifact’s purpose.

You are missing the point. Claims of divine creation are not falsifiable. What is believed cannot be used to study the physical universe. Discovery would be wasted with all the time trying to determine whose belief should be used to base study on. In the end, it would be fruitless.

You are taking something that is manmade and trying to make it equivalent as evidence to all of creation to establish that a Creator exists. How many times does this attempt have to fail before you understand it is a failure to do so. What would be the pyramid for Creation then? If you have it, why bother going on about pyramids?

 

[firedragon]

I am an entomologist.

Thats amazing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not knowing who the builder of some artifact was, has no inhibitive effect on studying it!

Example: the pyramids.

In fact, knowing it was created, gives researchers another aspect to study: the artifact’s purpose.

It is true that not knowing who built or made something does not prohibit the study of the artifact. Just as not knowing how life originated does not inhibit us from studying how life is related and how it changes over time.

My previous objection is maintained for the rest. Man made objects are evidence of the work of man and not of divine creation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thats amazing.

It is OK. A lot of people have done it. Thank you though.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey! We haven’t dialogue in a while. Hope you and yours are doing well.


Tell this to Dr. Caroline Crocker & Richard Sternberg.

Take care.

Would you mind to explain and summarize what Caroline Crocker and Richard Sternberg have said in relation to the post you are responding to?

 

[firedragon]

It is OK. A lot of people have done it. Thank you though.

Well. When someone is not a scientist, and another person is, from my point of view it is like catching the moon. Actually I have never known an entomologist. I was trying to think of one but I couldn't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry, but it takes faith to believe that evolutionary mechanisms produced the first bacterial flagellum. Or the first protein. Or even the first cellular membrane.

I disagree. Show me.

 

[Segev Moran]

Faith is evidence based.

I wouldn't say so.
If faith is based on evidence, it means faith is knowing. there are countless examples where faith is absolutely, without a doubt, not based on evidence or knowing anything about the subject people faith for.
Faith is "filling up" what seems logical to ourselves. The more you know, the less you fill.

Faith in God and living by divine standards and guidance works.

History proves otherwise.

All the people living by Bible standards - for example... being honest in all thing, is based on Godly devotion, or a God trained conscience, at least.

I agree. shame the vast majority of humans do not really live by that standard (me included without a doubt).

So is Biblical truths.

There is a very small part so far that we can say is probably true.

The fact that we can sit on our soft buttocks while using our computer, is evidence our body was designed with purpose... At least one evidence.

Our bodies purpose was for us to develop a computer and type posts?

A theory in science is called a theory, not because it is reliable, but because it explains the facts well.

No, not really.
A theory in science is called a Theory, because it has to be predicting things to a high degree.
Evolution for example, can make amazing prediction that are time and time again proven to be correct.
Einstein predicted things he himself did not believe are true, yet his theory proven correct.

If it were reliable, there would be no need to change it, or make it obsolete if it were reliable.

Not really.
Reliable means you can relay on its assumption to further develop the theory.
An example is the newton laws.
They were reliable enough to develop other theories based on them.
If theory X is supported by other 10 theories, who in turn are supported by another 10 each, will render the first theory much more reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
Would you get rid of your antivirus software if it were reliable?

No. I don't.
Not sure what you linked.
It claims science does not accept something as true just because many people say it is. Its kind of why science doesn't accept religion as true.

It seems to me you are using the wrong word here. The word reliable would better be replaced by acceptable.

Not really.
We have many developments that are based on evolution that prove you can relay on it.

In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world

past tense: substantiated; past participle: substantiated

1. provide evidence to support or prove the truth of.

Evidence can support a claim, but it does not have to.

If it doesn't, it is not considered evidence.
I don't understand what you mean by that.

Evidence is a collection of facts, which need to be evaluate, investigated, to determine if they support the claims.

Pretty much.

So weak evidence cannot be measured?

Depends.
It can be measured, but provide very little or partial information.

Evidence can be weak - not because it is not measured, but because there is not enough evidence to support it.

No. you don't need evidence to support evidence. you need facts to support evidence.

Oh? So you don't think using the argument for genetics is a good one then?
Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences to infer common descent is a hypothesis.

If that was the only evidence, than yes, you are right. I would not be enough to prove evolution.
There are thousands of evidence that support evolution.

Homology among proteins or DNA is inferred from their sequence similarity.
Why DNA Evidence Can Be Unreliable

DNA has many uses. Some are more efficient than others.

That's not correct.
We are not discussing direct evidence alone.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

This does not mean that evidence is interpertable.
It means that some evidence (weak) are not enough to prove a point on their own and must NOT be used as a factual evidence.
If you have a fingerprint, it is evidence that a person was at some point in location X (or part of him).
If the fingerprint was not clear, and points to 1000 people that might have left it in the scene, it will not have any impact on its own.

Did you read the OP? No. It happens among scientists. They have different theories for the same phenomenon.

No. They have different thesis.
String theory for example, is not really a theory rather a thesis.
I am not sure you understand what a scientific theory is.

Depends on what you call science, and who is doing the science.

sci·ence
/ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

There is no such thing as a proven theory.

Hmmm. So I guess the earth is flat

Done making incorrect statements. Whew Well that's a relief.

Were you referring to yourself or to me?

However, I'd be happy to hear you when you have your facts straight.

I seriously hope you will open some scientific educational books.
You have no real understanding of what science is and how it works.
Cheers

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There’s only one article you posted here that has some bearing.

The others, either deal with genetics (which can’t be deciphered from fossils), or basically just support evolution within Family taxa (which I have no problem with).

Gotta go.

Ah yes, the magical mystery barrier that prevents evolution from occurring beyond the arbitrary selection of family to mean kind.

Imagine even 100 years ago, creationists considered all living things to have been created as is. Then it was adaptations. Now some creationists have found a gap to accept evolution up to the family level. Just a little while longer and creationists can go the entire distance.

There is no reason to limit the discussion of evolution only to fossils.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

People disagree for multiple reasons. Scientists disagree, as well.
How is it scientists in the same field, disagree?
Which of them posses the truth?
What tests do they use to derive the answer?
We all use the same. There are methods of investigation in every field on earth.

Scientist disagreeing does not equal creationism wins.

Just because you found a scientist that disagrees with the consensus doesn't establish your personal religious view as an objective fact. You cannot establish that the horse you picked is even a winner. Just because there is a dissenting voice is not evidence that what the voice is saying is true.

What are the methods and evidence that you use to demonstrate what you believe in on faith?

Believing on faith is believing without evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well. When someone is not a scientist, and another person is, from my point of view it is like catching the moon. Actually I have never known an entomologist. I was trying to think of one but I couldn't.

E.O. Wilson is a well-known entomologist. Willi Hennig is another. Even Darwin and Wallace collected insects.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is an ad hominem. Sad to say, it's one of Atheist's most used "tools", and one of their weakest areas.

It is not an ad hominem and I find it is creationists that show the greatest propensity for the use of ad hominems. As well as the gamut of logical fallacies. Your thread itself is false equivalency at its finest.