Theory....again

[Sha'irullah]

Oh this is hilarious . Scimitar هل تريد أن تكون صادقة؟

The inability to understand the most basic of scientific principles or methodologies is laughable when you argue against science.

 

[Ouroboros]

In mathematics, there's a field called Number Theory. Another name for it is arithmetics, or at least it's a part of arithmetics.

So it means that 1+1=2 is just a guess...

 

[McBell]

In mathematics, there's a field called Number Theory. Another name for it is arithmetics, or at least it's a part of arithmetics.

So it means that 1+1=2 is just a guess...

1+1 is subjective you know.

For example, if you have one pile of sand and I have one pile of sand and we combine them how many piles of sand do we have?
Yeppers, one.

 

[gnostic]

1+1 is subjective you know.

For example, if you have one pile of sand and I have one pile of sand and we combine them how many piles of sand do we have?
Yeppers, one.

Yeah, that a problem.

Perhaps, you should try counting cows.

 

[Thief]

I can't even begin to figure one, except perhaps some kind of praying for his manifestation.

Is that a problem?

Only if you insist on...'proof'.

 

[gnostic]

To thief:

I seriously you really need to read and understand these definitions (do some researches) before you can debate on them.

I usually don't recommend Wikipedia pages, but you should read up on scientific evidence, hypothesis, scientific theory, mathematical proof, falsifiability, scientific method.

Here, in the introduction to Scientific Method, is something that you should consider.

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false

The idea of Scientific Method is to acquire information or knowledge, objectively, in which empirical evidences play a role that the empirical evidences either confirm the hypothesis to be true or shown to be false.

Hypothesis is false, until it is proven true, through observation or experimentation. In experimentation, it has to be tested repeatedly.

You can't test it once or twice, and say this hypothesis is true.

If experiment has been done 50 times, for example, and it only meet the requirement of the hypothesis' prediction only once, then that one successful test must be an error or a fluke. And if your peers, tested your hypothesis, 50 times, and they all failed, then it is a very high probability that your hypothesis is false. At this point, the hypothesis have been refuted or debunked, so it really should be discarded.

A successful hypothesis will develop, to become a scientific theory, an accepted and well-substantiated explanation because it followed the guideline of Scientific Method, and that it frequently and repeatedly confirmed through observations and experimentation.

In science, you can only draw your conclusion to be true, if the evidences support your hypothesis or theory.

Since you can't prove the existence of god (or gods for some other people), because there are no evidences to support his existence.

You keep saying "spirit first" or "spirit before substance", but this is only matter of your faith, belief or opinion. If you and I can't test your belief, then it is nothing more than just that - your belief and opinion.

And other parts of the bible, where miracles occurred. Miracles that defy the law of nature. How do test claims of miracles? Can you prove that it is possible to walk on water, like Jesus?

If the miracle can't be tested, then it is unfalsifiable (meaning unscientific).

There are, I don't know how many evidences, that support Darwin's Natural Selection (not the origin of 1st life).

Creationists tried to replace evolution with Intelligent Design (ID). But ID cannot prove the existence of Intelligent Designer any more than they can prove Creator. ID advocates failed to provide any evidence to support the existence of a Designer.

 

[gnostic]

Only if you insist on...'proof'.

Evidence, thief. EVIDENCE!

Did you bother to read my previous post on "evidence" & "proof", on post 119?

I have provided definition to what proof and evidence, since you have to fail to provide ones, and seemingly can't distinguish one from the other.

Evidence is either observation or experimentation. Proof is a mathematical statement or mathematical model.

 

[Ouroboros]

1+1 is subjective you know.

For example, if you have one pile of sand and I have one pile of sand and we combine them how many piles of sand do we have?
Yeppers, one.

I don't know.... maybe it can be solved with a indefinite integral?

No wait... scary thought. The trinity can be explained with this number theory of sand piles! 1 pile + 1 pile + 1 pile = 1 pile ... urgh....

 

[Thief]

Evidence, thief. EVIDENCE!

Did you bother to read my previous post on "evidence" & "proof", on post 119?

I have provided definition to what proof and evidence, since you have to fail to provide ones, and seemingly can't distinguish one from the other.

Evidence is either observation or experimentation. Proof is a mathematical statement or mathematical model.

Yeah sure....the terms are used interchangeably.
And you did read my postings that numbers can't go there and there won't be an experiment?

No 'proof'.....just reason

 

[LuisDantas]

Only if you insist on...'proof'.

It is your call, not mine.

 

[Thief]

It is your call, not mine.

I'm not calling to you.
note previous post.

 

[gnostic]

Yeah sure....the terms are used interchangeably.

If you are going by scientific terms, then you have to go by their scientific definitions and scientific contexts.

Using an ordinary dictionary, just won't cut it. And "proof" have different meaning in the court of law against that of science and of mathematics.

But since you are talking about science, then the usage of the word "proof" and "evidence" are different and not interchangeable.

You said that have high academic records but it becoming more apparent to me, academics in science is not one of them, since you continually apply everyday meanings to words like theory, proof and evidence. To me, you have the lack of understanding to basic science literacy as these ignorant creationists, despite you early claim that you have no problem with science or that you like science. It is quite embarrassing and horrendous reading you replies when you continually misuse scientific terminologies.

You don't like science, because you are unwilling to grasp the concept of scientific theory, of scientific evidence, of falsifiability, and of the difference between proof and evidence.

Was your areas of academics or scholarship ever in the areas of science or mathematics? If I may ask, what is or your qualification.

 

[Thief]

If you are going by scientific terms, then you have to go by their scientific definitions and scientific contexts.

Using an ordinary dictionary, just won't cut it. And "proof" have different meaning in the court of law against that of science and of mathematics.

But since you are talking about science, then the usage of the word "proof" and "evidence" are different and not interchangeable.

You said that have high academic records but it becoming more apparent to me, academics in science is not one of them, since you continually apply everyday meanings to words like theory, proof and evidence. To me, you have the lack of understanding to basic science literacy as these ignorant creationists, despite you early claim that you have no problem with science or that you like science. It is quite embarrassing and horrendous reading you replies when you continually misuse scientific terminologies.

You don't like science, because you are unwilling to grasp the concept of scientific theory, of scientific evidence, of falsifiability, and of the difference between proof and evidence.

Was your areas of academics or scholarship ever in the areas of science or mathematics? If I may ask, what is or your qualification.

Already said so....numbers won't go there.....no petri dish big enough.

But science would insist.....cause and effect.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not calling to you.

Of course you aren't. That would make no sense.

note previous post.

I fail to understand what it means.

 

[Thief]

Of course you aren't. That would make no sense.



I fail to understand what it means.

I know.....pick a post of mine that you truly do not understand.....
and post it as an op.

Ask anyone else if they have difficulty getting the point.

Be sure to confess you don't get it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I know.....pick a post of mine that you truly do not understand.....
and post it as an op.

Ask anyone else if they have difficulty getting the point.

Be sure to confess you don't get it.

Isn't it more proper to simply clarify what you mean? I have asked you to often enough.

 

[Thief]

Isn't it more proper to simply clarify what you mean? I have asked you to often enough.

We are more than 100postings into this and you admitted you don't understand.

How many (or which words) do you need to read?

 

[LuisDantas]

How would I know?

 

[Thief]

Indeed.

 

[gnostic]

Already said so....numbers won't go there.....no petri dish big enough.

But science would insist.....cause and effect.

I wasn't talking about any specific field of science: I am only talking of basic science terminologies, like theory, hypothesis, evidence, proof, scientific method, etc.

You said yourself, that you have great academic, and that you like science, but did your qualification or work experience involve in science whatsoever?

If you are going to use the right words with the right scientific meanings. So proof and evidence shouldn't be used interchangeably. If you are going to make claim about this or that theory, then you should understand the difference between theory and hypothesis, or know that scientific theory is different to all other non-scientific definitions to theory.

It is all these claims you make about theory, proof, etc, that make you sound like very ignorant.

Saying that you like science, don't make you understand or know science, because you misuse all these scientific terms just like any ignorant creationists.

You give yourself a title of being "rogue theologian" and like science, but so far I have not seen nothing academic-worthy when your own claims are no different to that of any other creationists.

You speak of science having cause-and-effect, and the creation has a cause-and-effect, but you ignorantly overlook that the CAUSE required evidences as much as the EFFECT need evidences. Can you give us evidences that

A) the creator god exist?
B) show the creator have any link to the creation of the natural world?
​

If you can't provide evidences that god exist, I doubt very much you can provide link between creator and creation.

You are already using the bible to make your claims, so you can't use the bible as evidences to support your claims. Using silly "I AM" again and again, is not evidence, but your belief, is nothing more than circular reasoning.