jerryR34 Posted March 4, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 4, 2014 HOWEVER; ...if it's dealing with past events its not "science". It's.... hahaha...I now see why you have such a hard time with science. Anything we observe is in the past, so by your comment, there is no "science". It's kind of like looking at a picture of yourself when you were younger. lol... (btw, all pictures of yourself are pictures when you were younger). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted March 4, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 821 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted March 4, 2014 it is my personal belief You've disqualified yourself from any science discussion in your first 5 words... Is it your personal belief that personal beliefs are disqualified from any science discussion, or is it something you hold based on empirical testing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 4, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 4, 2014 it is my personal belief You've disqualified yourself from any science discussion in your first 5 words... Is it your personal belief that personal beliefs are disqualified from any science discussion, or is it something you hold based on empirical testing? Any well-planned science experiment will attempt to exclude any bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted March 4, 2014 ======================================================== Hey fire-heart, i asked my friend who loves knowledge and science how could these things just always have been there without being created? he replied they just were not everything needs to be created. so you see even scientists have a certain faith they cannot exlain why in a vast emptyness two atom just existed and werent created Give your friend this....... See what he has to say. Also, "things" atoms or anything else do not exist without a cause. In the case of the Universe.... "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent." Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 4, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) "If I say..." If you say, nature does not care one iota. Our vocabulary has no impact on natural processes whatsoever. Edited March 4, 2014 by jerryR34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnochBethany Posted March 4, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 649 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 99 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 4, 2014 "If I say..." If you say, nature does not care one iota. Our vocabulary has no impact on natural processes whatsoever. No impact on natural processes? How about global warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire-heart Posted March 4, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 93 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 386 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 104 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/02/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/20/1991 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 ======================================================== Hey fire-heart, i asked my friend who loves knowledge and science how could these things just always have been there without being created? he replied they just were not everything needs to be created. so you see even scientists have a certain faith they cannot exlain why in a vast emptyness two atom just existed and werent created Give your friend this....... See what he has to say. Also, "things" atoms or anything else do not exist without a cause. In the case of the Universe.... "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent." Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University) exactly nothing can exist with a cause so accoring to the big bang theory it was just vast nothingness but somehow two atoms or whatever they were did exist and exploded to create our vast universe. two issues i see with that- first obviously the atom had to have been created by something or someone second i dont think those two alone can create a explossion with a force strong enough to create billions and billions of galaxys. the big bang theory is supposed to discredit god but i think it only proves his existance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnochBethany Posted March 4, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 649 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 99 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 4, 2014 HOWEVER; ...if it's dealing with past events its not "science". It's.... hahaha...I now see why you have such a hard time with science. Anything we observe is in the past, so by your comment, there is no "science". It's kind of like looking at a picture of yourself when you were younger. lol... (btw, all pictures of yourself are pictures when you were younger). What is science but human knowledge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 it is my personal belief You've disqualified yourself from any science discussion in your first 5 words... No he hasn't. And you are not qualified to say who is or is not qualifed to participate in a discussion of science. YOU do NOT set the terms for the conversation. So get over yourself. Where would science be if everyone who practiced it was allowed to let their personal beliefs influence their observations? Leave your beliefs at the door when you are observing nature. There is not room for them in the lab. It appears you operate from the naive notion that scientists are purely rational automotons. There are a lot of things in science that are rooted in belief, not scientific experimentation. The Big Bang is rooted in belief/faith. It has never been proven or observed. Yet, it is treated as "fact." Same with Evolution. There a lot of things scientists claim that are based on personal belief IF people are willing to be honest about that fact. Scientists are human beings with strongly and passionately held beliefs and they have an emotional attachment to those beliefs. It's why they resort to blackballing and ridiculing anyone who has the courage to challenge them. Academic pride is a powerful emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnochBethany Posted March 4, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 649 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 99 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 4, 2014 Science and faith are not inconsistent. They are merely different types of confidence. Science can only legitimately attribute confidence (but never certainty) to claims about those phenomena which are currently, naturally occurring. If any truth claim is not naturally occurring, and/or is not currently available for direct scientific observation, then it is an unfalsifiable claim (and some - not me - would say therefore unscientific). Many unfalsifiable claims can be investigated using an indirect version of the scientific method - namely, by modelling the effects of the putative claim, then comparing current evidence to the model (i.e. not to the claim itself). This is how Standard Cosmology, Common Ancestry, the existence of God and creationism are investigated (i.e. all using the logically identical methodology). One simply has to be aware that consistency between the evidence and models does not logically equate to confirmation of the initial claim. That is, no scientific confidence can be legitimately attributed by this indirect method without committing the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. Faith is a claim of confidence (equating to certainty) that goes beyond what the scientific method can provide. All science relies upon confidence in unverifiable (and therefore faith) presupposition (including faith in the trustworthiness of observation, as well as faith that the universe is rationally ordered; such that experimentation has meaning). Faith also provides the philosophical paradigms that limit which interpretations of evidence can be considered legitimate by the individual interpreter. Science therefore requires an element of faith. And faith can be investigated through science. The only people who consider faith and science to be mutually exclusive are those who lack the self-awareness to recognise their own faith perspective (i.e. those people who detest the very idea that they too are operating on unverifiable faith presuppositions). Objective faith is just being convinced that something is so. Faith may be contrary to evidence, or based on no evidence, some evidence, much evidence, sufficient evidence, or absolute proof. It is all faith. But I put it to you that proper objective faith is being convinced that something is true based on the sufficiency of the evidence or the obviousness of the self-evident. What we usually call science is simply human knowledge of the physical world. And the accuracy of the knowledge varies from proposition to proposition. The knowledge may be merely a model that could explain something or it may be as certain as if A = B, the A + C = B + C. All of the propositions in a science textbook could be theoretically rated on a scale of 0-10 as to how accurate they are. A given person's faith in the accuracy of the propositions could also be rated on a scale. Only a fool would rate them all with a 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts