Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-26-2013, 06:19 PM
 
32,516 posts, read 37,013,720 times
Reputation: 32572

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
There IS no reasoning or debating with such.
Very true. I often think of Sisyphus during these threads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-26-2013, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Freakville
511 posts, read 488,638 times
Reputation: 556
I think of Koalemos
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2013, 09:34 PM
 
Location: Hong Kong
689 posts, read 546,531 times
Reputation: 92
This is what science is.

=======
There's a reason why science can prove things beyond doubt where faith is considered having no bearing.

For a simplified example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. You can make such a prediction before each experiment that "water will dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen disregarding when and where you do the experiment". If your this prediction shall failed, you can get a Nobel Prize because this is the way how the formula is falsified. You make predictions which will never fail (or else you can get a Nobel Prize), this is what the nature of science is. A human brain will know for sure (without faith) that it is a truth because the endless repeatedly made predictions will never fail.

This is regarding to the predictability of science. Predictability depends on repeatability (things must be repeatable to make the predictions), and without predictability it's not a science. However, today's human call everything a science even that without any predictability.

For another example, if you try to conclude that cat is a result of evolution, you need to make a cat from a single cell repeatedly till you can predict that "if you follow these procedures, the single cell will certainly be turned to a cat (but not a dog)". And your this prediction never fail, then you are holding the truth. This is what science is.

However, humans (including scientists) know that the above (turning cell to cat) is not possible. That's why the scientists have already abandoned the true scientific approach. Instead of confirming a scientific truth by repeated predictions without failure, they start to use another approach to try to find out the truth of the origin of species. They try to look into the past to collect the so-called "evidence". However, this approach is hardly a science.

You need to know what limits humans are facing, before you draw your own conclusion.

Yet another example, why the Big Bang Theory is controversial because the Big Bang itself never repeats in front of humans. Strictly speaking it's not a science because you can never get the predictability out of it until it repeats. Subsequently, since it cannot be confirmed scientifically, you can have multiple theories about what it is. And you can choose one of them to believe with faith.
=======

The "science" in the mouth atheists won't attain the same accuracy as a true science does in detecting a truth. Worst still, they can no longer tell what is a truth beyond doubt and what is an assumption requiring faith. They are the true religionists who believe whatever the "peer-report" tells without questioning under what limits and assumptions the report results are obtained.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2013, 09:49 PM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,093,665 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn View Post
I wasn't aware that the participants in a debate are expected to give up their beliefs.
You sure seemed to say that in post #12. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2013, 10:28 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,876,154 times
Reputation: 3767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkins View Post
This is what science is.

=======
There's a reason why science can prove things beyond doubt where faith is considered having no bearing.

This is regarding to the predictability of science. Predictability depends on repeatability (things must be repeatable to make the predictions), and without predictability it's not a science. However, today's human call everything a science even that without any predictability.

For another example, if you try to conclude that cat is a result of evolution, you need to make a cat from a single cell repeatedly till you can predict that "if you follow these procedures, the single cell will certainly be turned to a cat (but not a dog)". And your this prediction never fail, then you are holding the truth. This is what science is.

However, humans (including scientists) know that the above (turning cell to cat) is not possible. That's why the scientists have already abandoned the true scientific approach. Instead of confirming a scientific truth by repeated predictions without failure, they start to use another approach to try to find out the truth of the origin of species. They try to look into the past to collect the so-called "evidence". However, this approach is hardly a science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn™
Well Hawkins, the way to generate that predictability is to do that exact thing: use an hypothesis to predict what sort of transient species we should find in our inestigations. Unlike the magic fingers approach of biblical God and his story, all quite implausible btw, we do in fact find ever more DNA lineage-tracked evidence, or the lineage of, for example, the African Wild Cat which is essentially indistinguishable from any modern house cat. There are also identical ingrained behaviors and responses in your average house cat.

Then we also have the recent finds that, given the very recent ability to track both DNA back-lineages and very accurate DNA maps, do confirm those lineages. Finally, we have now seen a natural evolution of one species into another. See: Lenski, 2008, before you auto-deny. It's usually good to try to keep up with the ever-expanding technologies, Hawkins!
You need to know what limits humans are facing, before you draw your own conclusion.

Yet another example, why the Big Bang Theory is controversial because the Big Bang itself never repeats in front of humans. Strictly speaking it's not a science because you can never get the predictability out of it until it repeats. Subsequently, since it cannot be confirmed scientifically, you can have multiple theories about what it is. And you can choose one of them to believe with faith.

Quote:
Again, wrong even on the most shallow investigation. We have predicted just what such an initial hyper-rapid expansion (hardly a "Bang" actually...) should produce in terms of rational physics. The detectible EMF in the right wavelengths (and which you can even listen to on your AM radio, by turning off any station. That static you hear? It's the EMF shadow noise of that long-ago BB event. Tis is vey much like investigating a murder we were not at, but which we do, with modern forensics, actually find the murderer without any doubt. Evidence my dear Watson, evidence! DNA "fingerprints", leftover biochemicals, DNA tracking, and so on. Geological sedimentary column finds, coincidental evolutionary trends and niche filling species in different biologically separated continents (australia, Africa, the Americas and so on..)

All plus the sorts of other cosmic debris, the direction out from a measured and determined starting point... all then confirmed by what we've physically measured. As well, we now know, unlike back when the bible was written by its' truly illiterate but very much afraid authors, that it is indeed a rapidly expanding universe, not a static one formed by "Insta-Poofy" God thing. You say that idea's so very implausible, is it?
=======

The "science" in the mouth (huh? in the mouth???) atheists won't attain the same accuracy as a true science does in detecting a truth. (no on has ever claimed that all atheists believe in science or are scientists, Hawkins. Thy simply don't believe in an ancient mythical and absolutely never seen God! It's that simple, but they also do tend to be better educated and far more logically oriented! Fact!)

Worst still, they can no longer tell what is a truth beyond doubt and what is an assumption requiring faith. They are the true religionists who believe whatever the "peer-report" tells without questioning under what limits and assumptions the report results are obtained.
Well I hate to be the one to say it again, Hawkins, but you are WRONG again here. Wrong conclusions, wrong claims, and so on. We can indeed evaluate real versus false "truths", via professional research studies and their peer-reviewed publications.

Now perhaps your lack of trust in the peer-review process comes from you never having had to meet the requirements, but if so, please DM me with the publication details on any one of your publications. I have been through that very rigorous process no less than 15 times, and know they ain't kidding!

We scientists actually love to question stuff that other scientists have had published (it's often an ego defense thing, as with all humans..), and so we happily try to falsify their results if questionable in any possible way, and sometimes we actually do get there! Then our new hypothesis gets to be tested, by ever-better techniques.

Meanwhile your seeming hatred and distrust of all science, while I suppose you simultaneously grant technically illiterate theists all the respect they do not deserve, is interesting, but indefensible. Try me on any time: as a retired but multi-degreed professional biologist, geologist, automotive engineer and a few other later add-on technical specialties, can easily defend the work out there, while you most likely cannot defend yours. Finally, your selected intransigence is also very telling!

Keep it up!

Last edited by rifleman; 09-26-2013 at 10:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2013, 01:05 AM
 
Location: South Africa
5,563 posts, read 7,190,901 times
Reputation: 1798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkins View Post
This is what science is.
There's a reason why science can prove things beyond doubt where faith is considered having no bearing.

For a simplified example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. You can make such a prediction before each experiment that "water will dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen disregarding when and where you do the experiment".
Water dissolves into Oxygen and Hydrogen? When you start off with such an erroneous example it shows that your scientific acumen is sorely lacking.
Quote:
A human brain will know for sure (without faith) that it is a truth because the endless repeatedly made predictions will never fail.
I have yet to personally see where water is split into oxygen and hydrogen w/o injecting a whole lot of energy and catalysts to make the split like at an industrial plant. It is far easier to extract hydrogen from air than from water. At a high school level, the best evidence is in chemical equations.
Quote:
This is regarding to the predictability of science. Predictability depends on repeatability (things must be repeatable to make the predictions), and without predictability it's not a science. However, today's human call everything a science even that without any predictability.

For another example, if you try to conclude that cat is a result of evolution, you need to make a cat from a single cell repeatedly till you can predict that "if you follow these procedures, the single cell will certainly be turned to a cat (but not a dog)". And your this prediction never fail, then you are holding the truth. This is what science is.
A cat from a single cell? This is not how evolution works. You need to visit Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort's site, they postulate such garbage.
Quote:
However, humans (including scientists) know that the above (turning cell to cat) is not possible. That's why the scientists have already abandoned the true scientific approach.
Wow, this is so stupid. You are conflation abiogenesis with evolution, scientists and the scientific literate already know this, it is only creationists that hold to this non scientific postulation.
Quote:
Instead of confirming a scientific truth by repeated predictions without failure, they start to use another approach to try to find out the truth of the origin of species. They try to look into the past to collect the so-called "evidence". However, this approach is hardly a science.
Of course it is. One can make predictions of what type of fossil may be found and then find it.
Quote:
You need to know what limits humans are facing, before you draw your own conclusion.
Yeah, I know, dirtmen and spare ribs make sooo much more sense.
Quote:
Yet another example, why the Big Bang Theory is controversial because the Big Bang itself never repeats in front of humans. Strictly speaking it's not a science because you can never get the predictability out of it until it repeats. Subsequently, since it cannot be confirmed scientifically, you can have multiple theories about what it is. And you can choose one of them to believe with faith.
Again ignorance on display. The BBT was in fact first proposed by a Jesuit priest (look it up). The cosmos presents all the evidence supporting the BBT
Quote:
The "science" in the mouth atheists won't attain the same accuracy as a true science does in detecting a truth. Worst still, they can no longer tell what is a truth beyond doubt and what is an assumption requiring faith. They are the true religionists who believe whatever the "peer-report" tells without questioning under what limits and assumptions the report results are obtained.
Wrong again. Peer reviewed literature does not get published if it is hogwash. Anyone can take a finding and test it anywhere in the world. I think you like so many ignorant posters here need to read up on exactly what a Scientific Hypothesis is and a Scientific Theory are.

Unlike religious texts suggest by some here as records of archaic science, any scientific theory is open to new evidence should any arise. These are updated as and when new information is discovered.

The example I always use is that for centuries, religious texts inferred that reproduction was solely the contribution of the man and the woman's menses reduced to being something unclean and she was merely a vessel to accomplish this. The Ovum was only discovered in the 19th century by Dr Karl Ernst von Baer yet the original texts of the bible remain as is. No redaction, no revisions just the same old garbage. This is why myths like virgin births were accepted by the gullible and uneducated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2013, 09:48 AM
 
32,516 posts, read 37,013,720 times
Reputation: 32572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Perhaps I misunderstood you.
Apparently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2013, 10:02 AM
 
32,516 posts, read 37,013,720 times
Reputation: 32572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flem125 View Post
I think of Koalemos
Very apropos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top