My Boundary Challenge

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Once again, based on the evidence (no harm done) science should conclude that I shouldn't be upset, yet I was. How does science account for that?

Scientists won't say a darn thing since how you feel are for psychologists, not a biologists.

 

[quatona]

Once again, based on the evidence (no harm done) science should conclude that I shouldn't be upset, yet I was.

What makes you think science should conclude that?
Again, science doesn´t deal in prescriptions. That´s not science´s job.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What makes you think science should conclude that?
Again, science doesn´t deal in prescriptions. That´s not science´s job.

You have rightly identified one of science's boundaries.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You have rightly identified one of science's boundaries.

But is talking about a boundary between science and the Bible. It says it clearly in the first post.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He doesn't seem to believe that people don't have personal scientists.

Weird...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Once again, based on the evidence (no harm done) science should conclude that I shouldn't be upset, yet I was. How does science account for that?

It depends on the scope of the enquiry. Presumably the evidence assessed in the example you give was only for certain sorts of harm, not including psychological harm.

It's not unusual these days, for psychological harms to be taken into account in assessing events - because accumulated evidence suggests that this is important. Particularly in clearly shocking events, such as bombings and major accidents, both physical and psychological trauma are taken into account. But accounting for psychological damage is becoming more common even for relatively minor incidents - again because evidence has accumulated that even minor incidents can cause lasting psychological harm (and a litigious society has recognised the opportunities this presents).

In your example, if they did actually assess for psychological harm and concluded there was none when there was, presumably it was a faulty assessment.

 

[quatona]

You have rightly identified one of science's boundaries.

Thank you. It was implied in my initial post, though.
Now, what makes you think science should tell you whether or not to be upset, and what´s this "evidence" you keep talking about in this context?

 

[VirOptimus]

Science knows that people are evil, but they don't know why.

Evil is a metaphysical concept and therefore not in the realm of science.

 

[Kylie]

If you study something in school for most of your lifetime you will likely believe it. The Japanese people believed their emperor was a god because they were told he was. The German people were convinced that the Jews had caused their defeat in WWI. Evolution is taught without challenge in schools. It's not surprising to hear many parroting what they've been told. We were in those same classes. We heard the same lectures. We also heard a different message and we came to know that it is true; that God is Lord of the universe and that this life is only temporary.

Evolution is an attempt to explain our existence for people who don't know or refuse to believe the truth. The fact is, our actions matter and we will be judged for them. We are not the oft mutated offspring of a single cell that magically appeared. We were created by God. He created the universe in six days in its mature state and created also all living things in their mature state. He created trees bearing fruit and flocks of birds in the sky.

The uneducated ones are they who have not learned this. They continue to believe that they live in a purely physical world and the perfection of design evidenced in our world falls to blind eyes. God's miracles are neither rare nor explainable, but they remain hidden to the unsaved.

Of course, no one actually TESTED to see if the Japanese emperor was a God, and if they did, they would have found out that he wasn't.

Did the Germans TEST to see if the Jews really caused their defeat in WW2? I doubt it.

On the other hand, there is a wealth of information and evidence supporting the idea of evolution. If you don't believe me, that's fine. Evolution doesn't require propaganda to maintain itself, because if you doubt it, you can go and test it for yourself.

Interestingly enough, you then claim that it is truth that God is the lord of the universe. A story, no doubt, that you were told just in the same way that the Japanese were told that their emperor was a God, or the Germans were told that the Jews caused their downfall in WW2.

Funny, that.

 

[KWCrazy]

Evolution doesn't require propaganda to maintain itself, because if you doubt it, you can go and test it for yourself.

That's been tried many, many times by radiating fruit flies. It demonstrated that after hundreds of generations they remained fruit flies. Another poster mentioned mathematics. What we see from adaptation is that it is a conservative process where information is extinguished but not obtained. Mathematics teaches us that repeated subtraction never equals addition. Try it yourself. Start with 20 apples and see if you can eat your way to 25.

The disbelief of the atheist has no bearing on the truth. God is Lord of the universe and one day you will bow before Him and give account for your sins. I pray that you find the Savior before then.

 

[Kylie]

That's been tried many, many times by radiating fruit flies. It demonstrated that after hundreds of generations they remained fruit flies. Another poster mentioned mathematics. What we see from adaptation is that it is a conservative process where information is extinguished but not obtained. Mathematics teaches us that repeated subtraction never equals addition. Try it yourself. Start with 20 apples and see if you can eat your way to 25.

The disbelief of the atheist has no bearing on the truth. God is Lord of the universe and one day you will bow before Him and give account for your sins. I pray that you find the Savior before then.

You think this is subtraction, do you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

Or are you talking about stuff you don't actually understand?

 

[KWCrazy]

You think this is subtraction, do you?

Demonstrate it. Or are you talking about stuff you don't actually understand?
Genetic copy errors have never been shown to advance a species. Increasing complexity has never been observed. The only process we've been able to validate is the extinction of traits and the augmentation of traits. Evolution as it is touted has never been replicated or observed. Maybe instead of ridiculing people who are more knowledgeable about the subject than you it would be wise to actually consider what others are saying.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Anthropological evidence would be the results of inquiring into:
Do humans make up stories?
For what reasons?
What might compel us to invent the idea of the supernatural?
What desires are satisfied by belief in the supernatural?

Personal testimonies like:
Remote sensing of loved one's perils.
Personal foreshadowing.

I'm sorry for the delay replying, I missed this one.

Humans obviously do make up stories.

For many reasons, but perhaps importantly because they're a good way to understand and give meaning to what happens in the world by explaining events through their relations to one-another, and they are memorable.

The idea of the supernatural in terms of superstition and magical thinking (magic, paranormal powers, psychic powers, etc.), is rooted in our poor intuitive understanding of probability - particularly coincidence, statistics (randomness, regression to the mean, etc.), unreliable heuristics, numerous cognitive biases (e.g. confirmation bias), social validation & reinforcement, wishful thinking, and a general ignorance of natural law (science and scientific principles).

The inclination towards belief in supernatural entities is proposed to be a consequence of our hyperactive attribution of agency, evolved during our long period of hunter-gatherer lifestyle, where attributing agency (especially malevolent agency) to unexplained noises and movements in the bush would have a selective advantage over ignoring them when predators were a threat. This tendency, together with magical thinking, territorialism, and the 'theory of mind' that allows us to project and model external minds, resulted in an imaginative panoply of spirits of things and places, and various kinds of unseen 'little people' (fairies, pixies, elves, etc). And so-on.

Personal testimonies like 'remote sensing of loved one's perils' can be explained by coincidence, priming (expectation), misattribution, confirmation bias, unreliable memory, confabulation, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'personal foreshadowing'...

 

[durangodawood]

I'm sorry for the delay replying, I missed this one.

Humans obviously do make up stories.

For many reasons, but perhaps importantly because they're a good way to understand and give meaning to what happens in the world by explaining events through their relations to one-another, and they are memorable.

The idea of the supernatural in terms of superstition and magical thinking (magic, paranormal powers, psychic powers, etc.), is rooted in our poor intuitive understanding of probability - particularly coincidence, statistics (randomness, regression to the mean, etc.), unreliable heuristics, numerous cognitive biases (e.g. confirmation bias), social validation & reinforcement, wishful thinking, and a general ignorance of natural law (science and scientific principles).

The inclination towards belief in supernatural entities is proposed to be a consequence of our hyperactive attribution of agency, evolved during our long period of hunter-gatherer lifestyle, where attributing agency (especially malevolent agency) to unexplained noises and movements in the bush would have a selective advantage over ignoring them when predators were a threat. This tendency, together with magical thinking, territorialism, and the 'theory of mind' that allows us to project and model external minds, resulted in an imaginative panoply of spirits of things and places, and various kinds of unseen 'little people' (fairies, pixies, elves, etc). And so-on.

Personal testimonies like 'remote sensing of loved one's perils' can be explained by coincidence, priming (expectation), misattribution, confirmation bias, unreliable memory, confabulation, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'personal foreshadowing'...

Yeah, thats^^^ exactly what I'm talking about. We cant really examine the supernatural scientifically, but we can examine the behavior of human beings. And that reveals a real tendency to invent stories of the supernatural.

Personal foreshadowing is my term for the sense that something bad is going to happen, to oneself or even to a remote loved one.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yeah, thats^^^ exactly what I'm talking about. We cant really examine the supernatural scientifically, but we can examine the behavior of human beings. And that reveals a real tendency to invent stories of the supernatural.

Yes.

Personal foreshadowing is my term for the sense that something bad is going to happen, to oneself or even to a remote loved one.

IOC. Yes, we all get anxieties and forebodings from time to time.

If something bad does happen it's tempting to see the anxiety or foreboding immediately prior to it as a premonition of it; and, of course, something bad always does happen sooner or later, so whether we think we've had a premonition may depend on whether we remember the last foreboding and how recent it was (with contributions from hindsight bias, illusory correlation, confirmation bias, etc).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Demonstrate it. Or are you talking about stuff you don't actually understand?
Genetic copy errors have never been shown to advance a species. Increasing complexity has never been observed. The only process we've been able to validate is the extinction of traits and the augmentation of traits. Evolution as it is touted has never been replicated or observed. Maybe instead of ridiculing people who are more knowledgeable about the subject than you it would be wise to actually consider what others are saying.

Here's a paper you may find informative - it's a bit old (2003), but it explains the appearance of new traits via gene duplication and gives examples: Evolution by Gene Duplication.

 

[KWCrazy]

Here's a paper you may find informative - it's a bit old (2003), but it explains the appearance of new traits via gene duplication and gives examples: Evolution by Gene Duplication.

I know the theory. Show me the testable results. Increasing complexity is a pipe dream.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know the theory. Show me the testable results. Increasing complexity is a pipe dream.

Did you read the paper?

 

[KWCrazy]

Did you read the paper?

Yes, and I've seen the claims before.
Radiating fruit flies was supposed to prove evolution. It proved evolution doesn't happen.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, and I've seen the claims before.
Radiating fruit flies was supposed to prove evolution. It proved evolution doesn't happen.

No, but the fossils from God's creation do.
But evolution is not the point of this thread. This thread is about the question on where the boundary is between science and the Bible.