• 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!

The Good in Bad Science

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
The reason you can't address the posts in this thread, is because they do not show a lack of understanding of science, but they address the problem with what is presented as science, but really is not.

The reason you would continue to deny that I answered your question, is because you don't want to admit that fact.
This is not a question and answer forum, or a classroom. It is a debate forum.

If you can't debate the topic,, it's quite understandable.
I don't wish to get in a debate over who is being evasive here.
For some reason, I pull my punches when it comes to you. :)

Have a good day ma'am.
Hope your stay wasn't too stressful. ;)

I am never stressed when I win. Ergo, i am never stressed. Especially with creationists :)

Ciao

- viole
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Why oh why...
Why do you think I need to understand.
Please point out in my post, what gave you the impression that you need to teach me. Please show me where it is clear to you that I don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory... scientific, that is. Which paragraph. Which line.

The God part for one, eg “hand of God”, the universe being “intelligently directed” or “controlled”, see below:
For real?
If it is intelligently directed, would it not logically follow that everything seen is a a result of the hand of God. Sheesh.

Just think of it this way - a controlled force in action,

That whole quote here are all completely unfalsifiable, and not evidences for anything.

You are merely conjecturing about your “logic”, because you have let your belief in god clouded your judgment. What you have stated in your reply to Polymath257, is mostly not “evidence”.

If it was evidence, how would you detect, quantify, measure or test “God” or the “hand of God”?????

Do you remember when I wrote evidences need to be testable, observable, detectable, measurable, quantifiable, etc?

It god actually exist you must be able to do all those things, but you can’t, because God, miracles and supernatural cannot be observed, detected, measured, quantified, tested or verified.

You, I or anyone else - whether he be atheist, theist, agnostic or any other people - cannot “observe” or “detect” God, then that’s Strike 1 in the God’s camp or the various forms of creationism (including the “Designer” in Intelligent Design).

Since you cannot detect God, then you wouldn’t be able to measure God, quantify God, test God, or verify or validate God’s existence and his active role in “Creation”, then that’s Strike 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the God’s camp.

So the “hand of God” or the universe being intelligently directed or controlled by Him, is unfalsifiable, untestable and unverifiable, meaning you cannot find evidences for a god, or any god.

The whole idea of EVIDENCE is being able to verify and refute any statement, so you must be able to test the hypothesis or theory, regardless of one’s personal belief.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
What makes you think I don't understand @Polymath257... amd that I needed information on CMBR.

Seems to me you are not addressing my posts. Thanks., but I don't need a teacher.
However, if you think I do, I;d be glad if you could point it out in my post. Thanks.
There are parts of the Big Bang theory that have been observed, tested and verified, from Nucleosynthesis to the Recombination Epoch (thus CMBR too), to the formation of large objects, like stars and galaxies.

Some of the stuff earlier than the Nucleosynthesis (BBN), while cannot be observed or verified, are logical if you understand particle physics and quantum mechanics, especially how quarks formed into protons and neutrons (thus Hadron Epoch), or what are leptons (eg electrons, muons), etc.

If you understand about subatomic particles and the 4 fundamental forces, you can logically predicted and backtrace what happen in the past and how it could happen. So the only things you can do, is patiently wait for technology capable of seeing beyond BBN.

It is only the first second after the Big Bang that is largely hypothetical and theoretical, which would include the Planck Epoch, the Inflationary Epoch and few other epochs that might have happened in those fractions of the 1st second.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
The God part for one, eg “hand of God”, the universe being “intelligently directed” or “controlled”, see below:


That whole quote here are all completely unfalsifiable, and not evidences for anything.

You are merely conjecturing about your “logic”, because you have let your belief in god clouded your judgment. What you have stated in your reply to Polymath257, is mostly not “evidence”.

If it was evidence, how would you detect, quantify, measure or test “God” or the “hand of God”?????

Do you remember when I wrote evidences need to be testable, observable, detectable, measurable, quantifiable, etc?

It god actually exist you must be able to do all those things, but you can’t, because God, miracles and supernatural cannot be observed, detected, measured, quantified, tested or verified.

You, I or anyone else - whether he be atheist, theist, agnostic or any other people - cannot “observe” or “detect” God, then that’s Strike 1 in the God’s camp or the various forms of creationism (including the “Designer” in Intelligent Design).

Since you cannot detect God, then you wouldn’t be able to measure God, quantify God, test God, or verify or validate God’s existence and his active role in “Creation”, then that’s Strike 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the God’s camp.

So the “hand of God” or the universe being intelligently directed or controlled by Him, is unfalsifiable, untestable and unverifiable, meaning you cannot find evidences for a god, or any god.

The whole idea of EVIDENCE is being able to verify and refute any statement, so you must be able to test the hypothesis or theory, regardless of one’s personal belief.
The God part huh.
gnostic, your entire post was about hypothesis and theory - nothing more.

Okay, here is a thought. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and say, you probably mean well, and you are just eager and all excited to share what you know, especially with people like me, who don't understand or know anything about science.

So I asked a few questions earlier, here, which I think clearly shows I understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. So perhaps you can address that.

If from that, you think I don't understand the difference, then please, I would welcome your pointing out where I went wrong, and address the questions.
You can start from Key thought, in red.


Concerning 'the God part'. Polymath257 knows, at least he should by now, that I understand that the supernatural is not considered in methodological naturalism. However I am using this to make a point, which I started here, that there really is not any difference between a hypothesis that cannot really be demonstrably tested, and a God hypothesis.
So perhaps you can show me how cosmic inflation was repeatably tested, and observed,
I think there are claims it was.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
There are parts of the Big Bang theory that have been observed, tested and verified, from Nucleosynthesis to the Recombination Epoch (thus CMBR too), to the formation of large objects, like stars and galaxies.

Some of the stuff earlier than the Nucleosynthesis (BBN), while cannot be observed or verified, are logical if you understand particle physics and quantum mechanics, especially how quarks formed into protons and neutrons (thus Hadron Epoch), or what are leptons (eg electrons, muons), etc.

If you understand about subatomic particles and the 4 fundamental forces, you can logically predicted and backtrace what happen in the past and how it could happen. So the only things you can do, is patiently wait for technology capable of seeing beyond BBN.

It is only the first second after the Big Bang that is largely hypothetical and theoretical, which would include the Planck Epoch, the Inflationary Epoch and few other epochs that might have happened in those fractions of the 1st second.
I'll get back to you on the formation of large objects, like stars and galaxies and Nucleosynthesis later, as I am interested in these.

However, what about this...
Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed.

Why is it something to be believed, rather than observed?
If the proposed hypothesis that was supposed to explain these phenomenon can only be believed, why is it a good explanation? What good is an explanation in science, if it cannot be verified?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The God part huh.
gnostic, your entire post was about hypothesis and theory - nothing more.

Okay, here is a thought. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and say, you probably mean well, and you are just eager and all excited to share what you know, especially with people like me, who don't understand or know anything about science.

So I asked a few questions earlier, here, which I think clearly shows I understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. So perhaps you can address that.

If from that, you think I don't understand the difference, then please, I would welcome your pointing out where I went wrong, and address the questions.
You can start from Key thought, in red.


Concerning 'the God part'. Polymath257 knows, at least he should by now, that I understand that the supernatural is not considered in methodological naturalism. However I am using this to make a point, which I started here, that there really is not any difference between a hypothesis that cannot really be demonstrably tested, and a God hypothesis.
So perhaps you can show me how cosmic inflation was repeatably tested, and observed,
I think there are claims it was.
if one's concept cannot be tested then by definition it is not a scientific hypothesis. So jo, your God example fails since you cannot think of a reasonable test that would refute God. When @Polymath257 says that "inflation" cannot be tested then that applies to only the very first second or less of our universe. By the way, one does not need to be able to reproduce an event to test it. A concept can be tested on the evidence that it would leave behind.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I'll get back to you on the formation of large objects, like stars and galaxies and Nucleosynthesis later, as I am interested in these.

However, what about this...
Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed.

Why is it something to be believed, rather than observed?
If the proposed hypothesis that was supposed to explain these phenomenon can only be believed, why is it a good explanation? What good is an explanation in science, if it cannot be verified?

Why is it a good explanation? Because it is a simple idea that does, in fact, lead to specific predictions that the universe would have those observed properties. But those predictions are not considered verification because we knew about them before the proposal was made. And yes, there *are* tests that can be done to verify inflation (again, this is only about the very earliest stage of the expansion). For example, baryonic acoustical oscillations are predicted by inflation and have not yet been observed. If they ever are, that would be a good verification of inflation.

And again, the inflationary scenario is NOT the same as the Big Bang scenario. Inflation *only* deals with the very early universe (within the first second). So the above quote is NOT saying anything about the Big Bang or even the age of the universe. Those are solid.

Again, the *expansion* of the universe is not in doubt. It *has* been observed and *has* been tested in many ways. And, when people talk about the Big Bang theory, this is what they mean.

Before we continue, please verify that you understand the difference between the expansion of the Big Bang and the inflationary stage that has been proposed.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I'll get back to you on the formation of large objects, like stars and galaxies and Nucleosynthesis later, as I am interested in these.

First note that there is a huge time gap between these. Nucleosynthesis happened within the first three minutes or so of the expansion. Formation of stars didn't happen until *millions of years* after that and galaxies even later. Between these was the time when the background radiation was formed (about 300,000 years into the expansion). And don't forget that the Earth (and Sun) didn't form until about 9 *billion* years after that.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
The God part huh.
gnostic, your entire post was about hypothesis and theory - nothing more.

Okay, here is a thought. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and say, you probably mean well, and you are just eager and all excited to share what you know, especially with people like me, who don't understand or know anything about science.

So I asked a few questions earlier, here, which I think clearly shows I understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. So perhaps you can address that.

If from that, you think I don't understand the difference, then please, I would welcome your pointing out where I went wrong, and address the questions.
You can start from Key thought, in red.


Concerning 'the God part'. Polymath257 knows, at least he should by now, that I understand that the supernatural is not considered in methodological naturalism. However I am using this to make a point, which I started here, that there really is not any difference between a hypothesis that cannot really be demonstrably tested, and a God hypothesis.
So perhaps you can show me how cosmic inflation was repeatably tested, and observed,
I think there are claims it was.
You do not sound like someone that knows the difference between hypothesis and theory or what is scientific and what is not.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Why is it a good explanation? Because it is a simple idea that does, in fact, lead to specific predictions that the universe would have those observed properties. But those predictions are not considered verification because we knew about them before the proposal was made. And yes, there *are* tests that can be done to verify inflation (again, this is only about the very earliest stage of the expansion). For example, baryonic acoustical oscillations are predicted by inflation and have not yet been observed. If they ever are, that would be a good verification of inflation.
So good science is about simple ideas that explain a phenomenon, even when they fail to explain the phenomenon, due to the fact that they cannot possibly do so without invoking miracles.

Inflation answers this question by postulating that all the regions come from an earlier era with a big vacuum energy, or cosmological constant.

Is that prediction correct? Or rather, does it not disagree with what is observed?
Cosmological constant problem - Wikipedia

If inflation has its own unresolved problems, how does it get off the ground as a working idea?
Some of the major unsolved problems in physics are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result. The others are experimental, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail.
You never did explain how cosmic inflation became a theory, when it apparently fits the category of pseudoscience - beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.
You never even address the argument that it is not compatible with the scientific method. Any reason why?

If it has these problems, surely it cannot get off the ground, and that creates problems for the Big Bang, doesn't it?

And again, the inflationary scenario is NOT the same as the Big Bang scenario. Inflation *only* deals with the very early universe (within the first second). So the above quote is NOT saying anything about the Big Bang or even the age of the universe. Those are solid.
I don't know WHY you think there is a need to keep mentioning that.
Since you keep bringing it up though...
Since evidently the inflation ?theory? has not passed the test of good science, the horizon problem, which the Big Bang does not predict, and other anomalies remains unfixed
That means no BB.
I know what they say. It's solid only because it fits their assumptions... nothing more.

Again, the *expansion* of the universe is not in doubt. It *has* been observed and *has* been tested in many ways. And, when people talk about the Big Bang theory, this is what they mean.
There are certain observed phenomenon.
There are proposals, for explaining the universe - many of them problematic, untestable, and purely speculative.
If they want to call the observed universe 'the Big Bang theory', then that's their prerogative. It doesn't make the universe become theirs. It doesn't change the fact that the universe exists because it had a beginning. As to why it exists, and how it came into existence, is a different story.
Nor does it solve their problems.

It doesn't matter what they call it. We call it creation. Does that matter to you?

Before we continue, please verify that you understand the difference between the expansion of the Big Bang and the inflationary stage that has been proposed.
I already did that.
I can put it in baby terms - drawing an illustration, and all, but I don't believe you care about that. This is an unnecessary distraction imo.

How about you demonstrating that you understand that my argument is focused on the inflation ?theory?, and perhaps start by addressing the question I asked, and the challenges made against the inflation ?theory?, from the article(s) I quoted? So far, you have been :nomouth: on these.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
First note that there is a huge time gap between these. Nucleosynthesis happened within the first three minutes or so of the expansion. Formation of stars didn't happen until *millions of years* after that and galaxies even later. Between these was the time when the background radiation was formed (about 300,000 years into the expansion). And don't forget that the Earth (and Sun) didn't form until about 9 *billion* years after that.
I'm sure you will be there to remind me of anything I forget... even if I forget to remember. :)
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You never did explain how cosmic inflation became a theory, when it apparently fits the category of pseudoscience - beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.
You never even address the argument that it is not compatible with the scientific method. Any reason why?

Inflation is a *hypothesis* and not a theory at this point. It is a *proposal* that is taken seriously because it explains some aspects of classical BB theory.

If it has these problems, surely it cannot get off the ground, and that creates problems for the Big Bang, doesn't it?

Not really. The BB description is very, very good for times after the first second of the current expansion. For that reason, and because it has been extensively tested and verified, it is a *theory*.

Inflation, on the other hand, is a *proposal* that attempts to explain some issues with the standard theory (uniformity, lack of monopoles, horizon problem). These issues are NOT fatal to the basic theory. They are perplexing, but not direct contradictions to the non-inflatiomary scenarios.

And, there are many versions of inflation (depending on the characteristics of the inflaton), none of which are, at present, to the status of a theory.

I don't know WHY you think there is a need to keep mentioning that.
Since you keep bringing it up though...
Since evidently the inflation ?theory? has not passed the test of good science, the horizon problem, which the Big Bang does not predict, and other anomalies remains unfixed
That means no BB.
I know what they say. It's solid only because it fits their assumptions... nothing more.

Wrong. It only says that the BB description (based on GR) is only valid past a certain time, AT MOST. It does NOT mean that this standard model is in any trouble *for its domain of applicability*.


There are certain observed phenomenon.

Which are consistent with the standard model, but would be considered unusual in that model.

There are proposals, for explaining the universe - many of them problematic, untestable, and purely speculative.
If they want to call the observed universe 'the Big Bang theory', then that's their prerogative. It doesn't make the universe become theirs. It doesn't change the fact that the universe exists because it had a beginning. As to why it exists, and how it came into existence, is a different story.
Nor does it solve their problems.

Whether the universe began to exist or not is a question that concerns quantum gravity, which is even before the inflationary epoch. From what we know of quantum gravity (which is not much), it seems quite possible that 'beginning' is merely a type of phase change and that the universe (multiverse?) is infinitely old.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
It doesn't matter what they call it. We call it creation. Does that matter to you?
If the “Creation” you are proposing, involve the Creator, like a god, and the divine intervention (thus miracles and supernatural forces), then the answer is “Yes, there’s a problem”.

It isn’t science.

The things are, that for the “Creator” “creating” the “Creation” (eg universe galaxies, stars, Earth, etc), then your claim that’s the way it happened, 2 things should be (A) falsifiable and (B) tested.

For instances,
  1. the Creator himself need to be falsifiable and tested, there needs to be demonstrable evidences to support his existence.
  2. Next, you would need demonstrable evidences that the Creator actually “created” anything.
Since the Creator or God cannot be observed, measured or tested, than point 1 isn’t probable, but so is point 2. There are no physical evidences that can verify the existence of the Creator, which makes it impossible to verify God creating anything.

Science is about 2 fundamental things,

(A) to explain WHAT the phenomena is and HOW does it work, as well as explaining WHAT possible application it may have - this is the HYPOTHESIS FORMULATION stage of Scientific Method

and (B) the only way to determine if the hypothesis is true or false, is for the hypothesis to tell us WHERE the evidences may be found, or provide methodology for EXPERIMENTATION - this is the TESTING stage of the Scientific Method.​

In most creation myths, the only thing that important is the WHO, not the WHAT or HOW. There is no way to observe, detect, measure or test God or Creator, so Creation isn’t falsifiable.

To give you an example of creation of everyday object, where we can know and verify its maker, the motor vehicle - known as the car.

Now a consumer may have only basic information about the company who makes the car he or she has bought, but if that consumer is determined, he or she can trace every steps before his or her car left the manufacturing plant.

The manufacturing plant is where the car is put together in the assembly line, where all the parts are assembled, such as the car seats, doors, windows, engine, transmission, fuel tank, radiator, the exterior panels, the chassis, etc.

Since the engine and the transmission are more complex and have many different parts, you may have to different and separate assembly lines for the transmission and for the engine.

The parts may be manufactured in this plant, or be made by 3rd party vendors, so you can trace where each parts were made.

You can also trace back to the engineers who designed the parts in the specifications it may be built, as well as the designers of this specific model of car that you eventually bought. You can go even further and meet the CEO of the car company.

You can meet everyone involved in making the car that you have bought, so these are not some invisible and mysterious beings, like god, spirits or angels. You can go where all the cars and parts were made, which are all real, not like the invisible Heaven.

Do you see where I am getting at with car maker example?

You can witness every process of car manufacturing, something that you cannot do with the Creator in the creation myth.

The problem with the word Creation is that it is often associated with a myth and mythological being.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Inflation is a *hypothesis* and not a theory at this point. It is a *proposal* that is taken seriously because it explains some aspects of classical BB theory.
Thanks for that.
In my mind, it is a hypothesis, and you are saying it is, but that's not what is being written in the journals, so am I right then to refer to it as bad science, when scientists declare it a theory?

Not really. The BB description is very, very good for times after the first second of the current expansion. For that reason, and because it has been extensively tested and verified, it is a *theory*.
How is it good, and how has it been tested and verified?
Is it not true that the only thing they have, is the assumption base on running the imaginary tape backward, from what is currently, or presently observed, How is that assumption a tested and verified scientific fact?

I could run my imaginary tape backwards and it leads me to Isaiah 40:26. I can claim it has been tested and verified as well.

Inflation, on the other hand, is a *proposal* that attempts to explain some issues with the standard theory (uniformity, lack of monopoles, horizon problem). These issues are NOT fatal to the basic theory. They are perplexing, but not direct contradictions to the non-inflatiomary scenarios.

And, there are many versions of inflation (depending on the characteristics of the inflaton), none of which are, at present, to the status of a theory.
From what I read, and viewed, apparently cosmic inflation is considered a theory to most individuals, while eternal inflation is a hypothesis.
33 Top Physicists Including Hawking Defend the Theory of Cosmic Inflation
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia
In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe.


Have I been using wrong sources?
Or perhaps this is an example of what we see so common in recent times - Scientist eager to establish propositions, so that even after their expectations and hopes do not materialize, the journals give the impression that they do, and remain that way for years... although wrong.

Or is it a case of jargon, where scientists use words interchangeably, thus allowing for 'slight of mouth' discussion... or confusion? That's a rhetorical question.

Wrong. It only says that the BB description (based on GR) is only valid past a certain time, AT MOST. It does NOT mean that this standard model is in any trouble *for its domain of applicability*.
It can be in trouble, and probably is.
New findings would allow scientists to accept that their assumptions were wrong... and throw them out.
If indeed, the current assumptions are all we have, then anything goes.
I have not yet seen the verifiable evidence. Do you have it?

Which are consistent with the standard model, but would be considered unusual in that model.

Whether the universe began to exist or not is a question that concerns quantum gravity, which is even before the inflationary epoch. From what we know of quantum gravity (which is not much), it seems quite possible that 'beginning' is merely a type of phase change and that the universe (multiverse?) is infinitely old.
You really think that man in his limited capabilities will know, it seems.
I have to see this. I have no doubt that multiverse is part of the script, and will gradually be weaved in.
So, I'll just grab a pizza and sit back, and enjoy the show - the long awaited prelude of the latest sci-fi.

Meanwhile, they are still those with wishful thinking...
Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

If the “Creation” you are proposing, involve the Creator, like a god, and the divine intervention (thus miracles and supernatural forces), then the answer is “Yes, there’s a problem”.

It isn’t science.

The things are, that for the “Creator” “creating” the “Creation” (eg universe galaxies, stars, Earth, etc), then your claim that’s the way it happened, 2 things should be (A) falsifiable and (B) tested.

For instances,
  1. the Creator himself need to be falsifiable and tested, there needs to be demonstrable evidences to support his existence.
  2. Next, you would need demonstrable evidences that the Creator actually “created” anything.
Since the Creator or God cannot be observed, measured or tested, than point 1 isn’t probable, but so is point 2. There are no physical evidences that can verify the existence of the Creator, which makes it impossible to verify God creating anything.

Science is about 2 fundamental things,

(A) to explain WHAT the phenomena is and HOW does it work, as well as explaining WHAT possible application it may have - this is the HYPOTHESIS FORMULATION stage of Scientific Method

and (B) the only way to determine if the hypothesis is true or false, is for the hypothesis to tell us WHERE the evidences may be found, or provide methodology for EXPERIMENTATION - this is the TESTING stage of the Scientific Method.​

In most creation myths, the only thing that important is the WHO, not the WHAT or HOW. There is no way to observe, detect, measure or test God or Creator, so Creation isn’t falsifiable.

To give you an example of creation of everyday object, where we can know and verify its maker, the motor vehicle - known as the car.

Now a consumer may have only basic information about the company who makes the car he or she has bought, but if that consumer is determined, he or she can trace every steps before his or her car left the manufacturing plant.

The manufacturing plant is where the car is put together in the assembly line, where all the parts are assembled, such as the car seats, doors, windows, engine, transmission, fuel tank, radiator, the exterior panels, the chassis, etc.

Since the engine and the transmission are more complex and have many different parts, you may have to different and separate assembly lines for the transmission and for the engine.

The parts may be manufactured in this plant, or be made by 3rd party vendors, so you can trace where each parts were made.

You can also trace back to the engineers who designed the parts in the specifications it may be built, as well as the designers of this specific model of car that you eventually bought. You can go even further and meet the CEO of the car company.

You can meet everyone involved in making the car that you have bought, so these are not some invisible and mysterious beings, like god, spirits or angels. You can go where all the cars and parts were made, which are all real, not like the invisible Heaven.

Do you see where I am getting at with car maker example?

You can witness every process of car manufacturing, something that you cannot do with the Creator in the creation myth.

The problem with the word Creation is that it is often associated with a myth and mythological being.
Do you believe science has the answer for everything?
Do you believe it is a path, the path, and or the only path to truth?
I don't. So it does not affect me, one way or other, whether science accepts a creator or not.


If one says, "I am going to follow the evidence where it leads me.", then one must be willing to accept that where the evidence leads is not necessarily determined by a method that starts and ends with a purely naturalistic viewpoint.
For one to then accuse religious people of having a wrong approach, is to deny the fact that the scientific approach is no different to a religious approach - some call it philosophical.

Nonetheless, one's search for truth is dependent on... not science alone, which must involve still, and does not exclude the use of, common sense, logic, reason, thinking ability...
These are what I use, in determining truth.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Do you believe science has the answer for everything?
“Believe”?

No.

But I also have never made such claim.

What I do know, is that science is better at explaining natural phenomena (“natural” as in nature) than any superstitious holy book, be it the Bible, Torah, Qur’an, or the Hindu or Buddhist literature.

I am talking about natural science (eg biology, physics, chemistry, Earth science and astronomy), not social science (eg psychology, anthropology, archaeology, political science, etc).

Natural science, which I have already said a number of times, provide methodology of testing theory or hypothesis, thus Scientific Method, in which you either discover the evidences or by performing experiments.

This method of testing is the way to objectively determine if the hypothesis or theory is probable or improbable. No religion offered any objective testing.

With religion, you would either believe or not believe, and this belief is based on faith, not on logic and evidences.

All belief are subjective, based on one’s conviction, which isn’t at all objective.

If one says, "I am going to follow the evidence where it leads me.", then one must be willing to accept that where the evidence leads is not necessarily determined by a method that starts and ends with a purely naturalistic viewpoint.

nPeace, nPeace, nPeace.

You still don’t understand science.

No hypotheses or theories are accepted true by default.

That’s why it required evidences, testings, observation.

But what you don’t seem to be grasping, is that the scientific method and the testings aren’t just about validating new hypotheses, it even more important to refute or debunk hypotheses that are incorrect, faulty or biased.

Dou you understand what I am saying here?

Scientific Method and Peer Review are about catching errors and catching cheat or doctored data or test results. Proving hypotheses are wrong, is just as important as finding the right hypoetheses.

So yes, you would follow wherever the evidences take you, whether those evidences support or don’t support new hypotheses.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
“Believe”?

No.

But I also have never made such claim.

What I do know, is that science is better at explaining natural phenomena (“natural” as in nature) than any superstitious holy book, be it the Bible, Torah, Qur’an, or the Hindu or Buddhist literature.

I am talking about natural science (eg biology, physics, chemistry, Earth science and astronomy), not social science (eg psychology, anthropology, archaeology, political science, etc).

Natural science, which I have already said a number of times, provide methodology of testing theory or hypothesis, thus Scientific Method, in which you either discover the evidences or by performing experiments.

This method of testing is the way to objectively determine if the hypothesis or theory is probable or improbable. No religion offered any objective testing.

With religion, you would either believe or not believe, and this belief is based on faith, not on logic and evidences.

All belief are subjective, based on one’s conviction, which isn’t at all objective.
I know differently.
When it comes to history, if there are eyewitnesses to the events, then they can serve as the best evidence, and if checked and verified, it is better than any guesswork - aka scientific inquiry into past events.

I am not saying that a person is wrong for doubting claims, but do you think that if the witnesses claims appear to be credible and reliable, we have any valid excuse for dismissing them, and pursuing 'just-so-stories'?

nPeace, nPeace, nPeace.

You still don’t understand science.

No hypotheses or theories are accepted true by default.

That’s why it required evidences, testings, observation.

But what you don’t seem to be grasping, is that the scientific method and the testings aren’t just about validating new hypotheses, it even more important to refute or debunk hypotheses that are incorrect, faulty or biased.

Dou you understand what I am saying here?

Scientific Method and Peer Review are about catching errors and catching cheat or doctored data or test results. Proving hypotheses are wrong, is just as important as finding the right hypoetheses.

So yes, you would follow wherever the evidences take you, whether those evidences support or don’t support new hypotheses.
I fail to see what prompted this response... again.
It seems like another one of your "just for the sake of it" lessons.

Or perhaps you focus so much on science, it's hard for you to appreciate any study that doesn't carry the word science.
Thanks but it zipped past my head, because of it's irrelevance to what I am saying.

Just curious though... What do you understand me to be saying, from this...
If one says, "I am going to follow the evidence where it leads me.", then one must be willing to accept that where the evidence leads is not necessarily determined by a method that starts and ends with a purely naturalistic viewpoint.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I know differently.
When it comes to history, if there are eyewitnesses to the events, then they can serve as the best evidence, and if checked and verified, it is better than any guesswork - aka scientific inquiry into past events.

I am not saying that a person is wrong for doubting claims, but do you think that if the witnesses claims appear to be credible and reliable, we have any valid excuse for dismissing them, and pursuing 'just-so-stories'?
The problem is that the Bible is not a collection of eyewitness testimony. The Gospels are not an example of that, neither is the writing of Paul, nor Genesis nor Exodus. And speaking of "just-so-stories" that is all that you have. Why make the false claims that others have those flaws? In case you did not know just so stories are not testable and falsifialble. The science that you deny has been tested.
I fail to see what prompted this response... again.
It seems like another one of your "just for the sake of it" lessons.

Or perhaps you focus so much on science, it's hard for you to appreciate any study that doesn't carry the word science.
Thanks but it zipped past my head, because of it's irrelevance to what I am saying.

Just curious though... What do you understand me to be saying, from this...
If one says, "I am going to follow the evidence where it leads me.", then one must be willing to accept that where the evidence leads is not necessarily determined by a method that starts and ends with a purely naturalistic viewpoint.


Yes, it is possible that the evidence could lead us to a non-naturalistic viewpoint. The problem for you is that all of the evidence seems to indicate that a natural explanation is all that is needed.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
The problem is that the Bible is not a collection of eyewitness testimony. The Gospels are not an example of that, neither is the writing of Paul, nor Genesis nor Exodus. And speaking of "just-so-stories" that is all that you have. Why make the false claims that others have those flaws? In case you did not know just so stories are not testable and falsifialble. The science that you deny has been tested.



Yes, it is possible that the evidence could lead us to a non-naturalistic viewpoint. The problem for you is that all of the evidence seems to indicate that a natural explanation is all that is needed.
No.
 
Top