Science Babble vs Truth

[QuestioningMind]

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.

No dude, I'm not making an equivalency, I'm making an analogy. A creator being claim and a cosmic pixie claim are BOTH unfalsifiable claims, neither of which are the preview of the scientific method.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Are you serious? This is just a blog, by some nobody called Heinrich Mallison. Who give a monkey's what he thinks, whoever he is?

Here are Dr. Feduccia’s own words during an interview. The question was asked:
“How did you get involved in the debate in the first place?”
His reply:
“ I really was not interested in the origin of birds until I wrote a book called The Age of Birds back in 1980, for which I had to write a chapter on bird origins. I tried to be as fair as possible, but when I did not come down firmly on the side of the dinosaurian origin of birds, I was viewed as a heretic. The vitriolic response I got was a big red flag to me. If these researchers were so convinced that they were right, why did it make a difference what I thought? Why did they get so enraged? As the years progressed, I started looking into the problem of the origin of birds in great detail, and everywhere I looked, it was as if we were being asked to put a square peg in a round hole.”

—Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia—Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds

Kudo’s to him!

But he didn’t jump too far out of the pot.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No dude, I'm not making an equivalency, I'm making an analogy. A creator being claim and a cosmic pixie claim are BOTH unfalsifiable claims, neither of which are the preview of the scientific method.

Are you for real? Your pixie farter is not analogous to a super intellect!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

A lot of scientists believe in God. I do.

Why? Since you and these scientists make facts of premier importance, which you should…what facts are there supporting your claim that there is a God? There must be something. Is it just “a feeling” y’all have?

 

[Moonjuice]

Consensus, many times, changes.

Facts never do.

https://blog.drwile.com/riddle-of-the-feathered-dragons/

Never?

What is the fastest way to delivered a message from NY to London?

In 1845? The answer would be by boat of course. That was an undisputed fact.

Until the 40's when we started flying planes across the Atlantic. At that point, it was a fact that if you wanted to deliver a letter from NY to London, airplane was the fastest way.

Now, you can deliver a message nearly instantaneously. Some facts can change.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Science goes on things that can be proven, time and again, so anything that needs faith doesn't fly.

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.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Could you please be kind enough to elaborate on that a little? Personal request. If you have some time.

One vivid memory is when a fellow graduate student (female) said that she was there because she was moved by the holy spirit. I get that now but she was mocked then.

 

[firedragon]

One vivid memory is when a fellow graduate student (female) said that she was there because she was moved by the holy spirit. I get that now but she was mocked then.

She was mocked in academia because she had a basis of the Holy Spirit? Okay okay. I understand what you say.

Err. Thanks Regiomontanus. I really appreciate your response. You didnt have to. So my gratitude.

Peace.

 

[osgart]

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.

How would you go about studying and unseen, immaterial reality though?

Does it have instrumental significance in the physical world? How would you distinguish the physical from the non physical?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Never?

What is the fastest way to delivered a message from NY to London?

In 1845? The answer would be by boat of course. That was an undisputed fact.

Until the 40's when we started flying planes across the Atlantic. At that point, it was a fact that if you wanted to deliver a letter from NY to London, airplane was the fastest way.

Now, you can deliver a message nearly instantaneously. Some facts can change.

Huh?

They are still facts.

The times have changed, not the established facts from those times.

Rome was a world power. Saying it isn’t now, does not change the fact it was. That is a fact.

 

[nPeace]

Of course.
Science is evidence based philosophy.

Faith is evidence based.

Simply put, It works.

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

All the day to day technology you use, is based on scientific assumptions.
Including the ones that kill. Yes.

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.

Some, are based on a broad and large amount of evidence. some are based on less.

So is Biblical truths.

The fact you can write this post, is a proof that science is reliable.

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.

A theory (in science) cannot be called a Theory unless it is reliable.

A theory in science is called a theory, not because it is reliable, but because it explains the facts well.
If it were reliable, there would be no need to change it, or make it obsolete if it were reliable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
Would you get rid of your antivirus software if it were reliable?

It took many years for the evolution theory to be considered reliable. many year and thousands of evidence, predictions and measurements.

It seems to me you are using the wrong word here. The word reliable would better be replaced by acceptable.
In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world

Evidence is not a conclusion, agreed. Evidence is information that supports a claim.

Evidence can support a claim, but it does not have to.
Evidence is a collection of facts, which need to be evaluate, investigated, to determine if they support the claims.

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).

So weak evidence cannot be measured?
Evidence can be weak - not because it is not measured, but because there is not enough evidence to support it.
As said in the OP... On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another.

Nope. If an evidence requires interpretation, it is not really an 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.
Homology among proteins or DNA is inferred from their sequence similarity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics
In biology, phylogenetics is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among individuals or groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations). These relationships are discovered through phylogenetic inference methods that evaluate observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences or morphology under a model of evolution of these traits. The result of these analyses is a phylogeny (also known as a phylogenetic tree) - a diagrammatic hypothesis about the history of the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms

Population genetic models are used both for statistical inference from DNA sequence data and for proof/disproof of concept.

Why DNA Evidence Can Be Unreliable
The hardest job for investigators is to differentiate DNA that belongs to the criminal and DNA that randomly finds its way to the crime scene.

"There's something called 'accidental transfer' or 'secondary transfer,'" says Phillips. "The DNA on a weapon might come from the person who actually touched the object or the person who shook hands with the person who touched the object."

Phillips says that judges and prosecutors have learned from examples like the Scott case that DNA evidence alone is not enough to convict. With even a chance of contamination or secondary transfer, there must be other forms of corroborating evidence — like fiber samples, eyewitness accounts or fingerprints — that put the DNA results into context.

I was looking for one more, but can't find it right now. Will look later.

If I present you with a claimed evidence, and 10 people can interpret it differently, it is not an evidence.

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.

Agreed.
This is why there are so many denominations to most religious ideas.

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

Yep. That's why science only accept ideas that are supported by (actual) evidence.

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

And still, even with that, we can discover evidence that disproves an idea.

Scientist don't disagree on proven theories.

There is no such thing as a proven theory.

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.

Done

Done making incorrect statements. Whew Well that's a relief.
However, I'd be happy to hear you when you have your facts straight.

 

[Polymath257]

It should be this way. And I’m glad that quite a few scientists present their interpretations as supposition, using terms in their papers as “likely,” “probably,” “could have been”, etc. Unfortunately, these papers are then used by many (biased(?)) people as ‘proof’ of something.

And this “House of Cards” continues growing….

Scientists are very cautious in their conclusions. Often that is taken as a sign of weakness and uncertainty. Instead, it is a natural way to present a hypothesis for further testing. usually, the amount of confidence is actually pretty high simply because the researcher has tried the obvious tests.

Proof in the strong sense you are talking about only happens in mathematics.

That 'house of cards' from science is far, far stronger than a brick wall in most cases.

 

[nPeace]

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?

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Nope. Only knowledge. The bacterial flagellum was an epic fail by Behe. How it evolved was already largely explained by the time his book was published. Perhaps even when he was writing it. By the way, the first protein would have been during abiogenesis. As would be the cellular membrane, and the first cellular membrane is also well understood. It is on e of the problems of abiogenesis that has been answered.

For you it would be faith because you insist on keeping yourself in the dark about these discoveries. But for scientists they are not that hard to understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Faith is evidence based.

No. It isn't. There is a rather poor claim in the Bible, but it falls flat on its face. Faith is what people rely on when there is no evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That is a actually a good question. And it is determined by who's hypothesis is best supported by the evidence. It is why there is a consensus about birds being dinosaurs. It is not due to popularity, but due to the endless new discoveries that keep supporting that hypothesis. As to what tests you would have to read the scientific literature. Each paper written usually has its own tests. A person must present his idea as a hypothesis and explain how he tested that. Now those are not the only tests than can be done on that hypothesis. A well defined hypothesis lends itself to testing. Other scientists can also test the idea based upon the hypothesis and see if they can refute or support it.

Meanwhile the BAND group are almost as bad as creationists at times. There are some that hold that appear to hold that belief as an ideology and not as an evidence supported hypothesis.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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).

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Why focus on fossils? Fossils are far from the only evidence for evolution. Fossils are not even the strongest evidence for evolution. Not be a longshot. Fossils are the easiest evidence for an amateur to understand. But if you do not at least have a grasp of the basics of the other kinds of evidence for evolution you will never have an idea of how well supported it is.

 

[Nimos]

In both cases, reasoning, and interpretation of those facts, is required.
I don't see any difference between evidence for faith, and scientific evidence, where direct evidence is involved.
If you see a difference, then please, i would like to hear it.

Not a 100% sure what you mean with evidence for faith?

As I wrote, to me, evidence are evidence, they are not subcategorized such as religious evidence or scientific evidence etc. And depending on what field or area you are working in we make use of different types of evidence and methods for trying to get as close to the truth as possible.

Faith is something personal and something you would want to remove as much as possible when it comes to evidence. Lets say, im trying to make a case that Jesus lived and was the son of God, and I want to convince others that this is the truth, then I wouldn't start out by saying that "I will now present a lot of evidence which I have faith in being true", anyone should or would reject them instantly, because it wouldn't be evidence. So if that is what you mean with evidence for faith, then I disagree with you.

But if by faith you mean like a detective solving a crime scene, it is not exactly like faith, because certain clues as you said, like the person having rope marks on their neck and these matching the rope found on the scene, is not based on faith, but on the fact that there is a match between these two things, does it 100% prove that it was that exact rope that was used? No, but given the crime scene, it does seem like it is the most likely explanation. Which is not that much different than what archaeologists would do when they look at some ancient finds, if they find some old pottery and some old bones next to each other and the dating seem to match etc. its reasonable to assume that there is a connection between the pottery and the bones. But again, its not based on faith because it is a fact that the pottery and the bones were found there next to each other.

 

[nPeace]

This is known as a 'quote mine'. It is a quote taken out of context in such a way that it appears that the person is claiming something very different than what they were actually meaning. Quote mines are very common in creationist literature. For that reason, it is always a good idea to find the original source of the quote to see what was actually being said. others have given the correct context for this quote.

Quote mines are one form of creationist dishonesty.

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

I'm going to slightly disagree with this definition. Evidence is something that *changes* the likelihood that a claim is correct. It can change either way (being for or against the claim) and it can be weak or strong (changing a little or a lot). But it isn't evidence if it doesn't change the likelihood of the claim either way. At that point, it is irrelevant.

How has this changed or differed from the definition in the OP?

Using this definition, direct evidence *never* exists. There is *always* an inference. Even if you are looking at a chair in broad daylight, it is an *inference* that there is a chair there: you are basing your claim on the assumption that the light is giving correct information about an object, that there is nothing interfering with that light, etc.

Did the definition say direct evidence must be inferred? Where?

The only 'direct' thing you can say is what amounts to an observation, for example, 'I saw light of this color from that direction' or the scanner said the amount of C14 in the same was .3 micrograms'. According to your definition, it is an *inference* that the actual amount of C14 is .3 micrograms.

Really? Where did you infer that from... which statement?

And, again, there is always more than one way to interpret any given piece of evidence. That is why we *test* our interpretations by trying to see where they go *wrong*. zthat way, we know the limits of our knowledge.

More to the point, scientists create hypotheses to explain the observations made. They then test those hypotheses, trying to break them. When they do NOT break, the scientist can use that hypothesis as the basis of inferences.

But is is *always* possible that new information will show the hypothesis doesn't work in some cases. That puts a limit on when that hypothesis can be used AND requires a new hypothesis be formulated that matches *all* the previous evidence and the new evidence as well.

There is *always* the possibility that the perceptions and inferences are faulty. That is why all hypotheses need to be extensively tested, why all observations have to be critiqued to be sure they are repeatable and have made no mistakes, and why it is important to beware of 'confirmation bias' by actively trying to show when the hypotheses are *wrong*.

The conclusions are reliable in the topics that have been extensively tested and to the accuracy that they have been tested. part of the reliability comes from the attempts to show the ideas to be *wrong*. If such attempts fail repeatedly, that leads to reliability.

:So you think something is reliable, based on attempts to show it wrong failing. Thanks.
I'll keep that in mind.

Question. Would you say something once considered reliable, was indeed reliable even after it was shown to be a mistaken belief?
There are scores of examples I can find, but I will just refer to one I looked at recently.
The moon is much older than some scientists believe, a research team now reports. Their precise analysis of zircons bought to Earth by Apollo 14 astronauts reveals the moon is at least 4.51 billion years old and probably formed only about 60 million years after the birth of the solar system -- 40 to 140 million years earlier than recently thought.