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!
But you could if you wanted to. And other scientists have done just that. That's why we rely on more than one study that points to a certain conclusion. One study on its own doesn't mean much. But several studies pointing to the same thing - now we're talking about evidence.
Evolution doesn't teach that there's no rhyme or reason to nature. It's an attempt to quantify and explain why and how nature operates in the way it does.
We know because we try to doubt it. That is why falseability is so important.
Using maps would be using cartography & printing technologies, not spiritual guidance.
Anyone who claims that there is no possibility of the truth of religious claims is making a claim they have to demonstrate; but the same is true of anyone who asserts, absolutely or otherwise, the truth of any religious claim.
Not really. Firstly, "non-theistic evolution" isn't really a thing. Evolution is evolution whether you believe God exists or not, the process as described by the theory is exactly the same, and the theory says absolutely nothing about the existence or nonexistence of a God.
This is a claim you need to demonstrate.
So? What do you think that proves? Pain is an effect. Why is its causal nature significant?
Why?
There are reasons, and they are taught aplenty. That they won't really support the myth of a creator guiding it is ultimately a minor matter, and the obsession of some in raising it to unreasonable levels of importance demonstrates little more than how mishandled such a belief has become.
I don't think that makes rational sense. It is not even untrue.
You privilege. Anything is possible until disproved, I guess.
This
All those experiments in personality research, perception, linguistics, Gedankenexperimente, and even the discovery of subatomic particles and dynamics...they weren't scientific?
Most of the experiments I conduced were under the direction of a well-known scientist (the head of my lab). Does that count? I haven't done much replication work, just new research. That's what most scientists do most of the time: extend previous work, not replicate others' work (which is unfortunate, really; there should be much more replication work than there is).
Or because the technology works and he's had years of engineering experience.
Not really. This is mainly just one of the distortions/simplifications many have thanks to the quality of scientific education (often even at the university level) non-scientists are exposed to (and, to be fair, discourse between scientists and the public). I suppose it's fair to say that even though most theories in the sciences aren't actually called theories, they still qualify. But many theories, including those that are well-known (like the "theory of gravity" or "chaos theory") are either just plain wrong or are no more scientific theories than is "number theory" or "graph theory". Others, like M-theory (a form of string theory) are not only unverified by anybody, they aren't even verifiable in principle (and in some cases may never be). Still others, such as embodied cognition, have been verified for decades whilst competing, incompatible theories (e.g., massive modularity and symbol processing) have been around even longer and continue to be "verified" alongside incompatible theories. Still others (like evolution) are theories but even more (entire fields, such as evolutionary psychology, depend upon evolutionary theory) and are too large to be verified because certain parts of the theory are always changing (actually, this is true of theories in general).
Yes.
Because the biblical account consists of competing and multiple contemporary accounts much of the time, is clearly historically inaccurate sometimes, and because most of the time myths and fiction is what historians have to work with.
Or at least it shouldn't be, and in general to the extent scientists do this there is enough competition and honesty for progress despite such failings.
It doesn't work anything like this. Hypotheses are generated from theories to extend theories and tested (with conclusions interpreted in light of) findings. These are then reviewed and published (usually only if the results are positive, unfortunately, as failed experiments should be published but aren't because we too often 1) know that nobody's career is furthered by publishing failures and 2) we still hope that things didn't work because we need to tweak the experimental design). Most of the time, they are never replicated and often even replication isn't actually replication but another test of the same idea under different conditions. Finally, we never ask "please test this" and lately problems with sharing data in order to facilitate replication ha become an issue, particularly in politically charged fields like climate science.
...is, at least in the form you learn about, a fiction:
You must have missed the whole point of that threads initial purpose, because nothing here pertains to it. I would only need to overturn your points if I claimed my pointing out of a specific brilliant overturning (and rightly) so of a tactic that is etched into the non theist playbook proved Jesus rose from the dead. I could do so but that was not something I am interested in doing these days..
Then instead of referring to cartoons, why don't you actually put forth the argument that actually justifies the trivial and adolescent claim you made.
