Faith In Science

Doveaman · Jul 5, 2010

Cabal said:
Creationism is not scientific and CANNOT ever be tested. The difference with scientific ideas is they CAN be tested. However, one does not necessarily have to personally test everything in order to make a scientific statement.

We've known that force = mass x acceleration for a few centuries now - does that mean anyone who wants to the make the claim needs to go do it themselves first? No, because the fact that you CAN test scientific ideas and the fact that these ideas HAVE been repeatedly tested means it is acceptable to posit a law of nature without having personally tested it.

That maybe true in some cases, but not in this case:

For the non-scientists to believe 4 +1 = 2, as in this case, requires faith.

Doveaman · Jul 5, 2010

3sigma said:
You are painting a misleading picture by restricting your discussion to individuals. It isnt just that individuals have no sound evidence supporting creationism. The difference between science and creationism is that there are masses of sound evidence supporting scientific findings whereas there is no sound evidence whatsoever supporting creationism. There has never been a single shred of sound evidence anywhere that your God created anything or that it even exists.

Scientific papers are not evidence per se that something happens; they contain the evidence. You actually have to read them to gain the evidence. However, having read them, you can verify that they are correct by repeating the same research yourself, if you have the intelligence and resources.

Which not everyone does or are interested in doing. Including some of you here. They are content to simply have faith in the scientists who do.

Once again, scientific findings are supported by masses of sound evidence whereas there is absolutely zero sound evidence supporting the beliefs that your God created anything or that it even exists. Such beliefs are the result of religious believers allowing their need for emotional comfort to override their reason.

Im not here trying do defend religion as a science. I accept religion on the basis of faith. But I also recognize there are many here who accept science on the basis of faith.

Doveaman · Jul 5, 2010

Naraoia said:
In the case of observations about the universe, they can be repeated again and again and again in the here and now.
Often, they can be repeated on demand (you can set up the same experiment and see whether you get the same results).

Has anyone been able to stretch space in the science lab, has that been repeated?

There is also a huge body of qualified researchers that agree (and sometimes, vehemently disagree) on the interpretations.

Why do they disagree if they are looking at the same thing? Is it because they have no faith in themselves? Or is it because they have too much faith in themselves?

Not having "faith" in established science amounts to not trusting the instruments, or spinning conspiracy theories about the scientists.

So you agree faith is involved?

Of course all cosmologists might be making the same mistake in their math, or all geologists might be misinterpreting this or that phenomenon in the same way. How likely is that, though? For the layperson, the best course of action is to trust the scientific consensus, if there is one.

Yep, you do agree faith is involved.

Well, if someone quotes a scientific paper, you can always go and read it. If you don't believe what's written in it, you can sometimes repeat the observations for yourself. If you can't, you can always check whether others have also made the same observations. It's not like you have to rely on the person's claim alone...

Weather you rely on one claim or many claims you are still exercising faith in those claims.

Do you know the difference between eyewitness reports of unique events, and reports of repeatable observations?

Yep. I also know there are scientific claims of which they are no eyewitnesses and that are not repeatable, such as inflation theory.

Doveaman · Jul 5, 2010

[FONT=&quot]

Split Rock said:
Scientific papers start with data, then analyze that data, and then draw conclusions from that analysis in comparison with similar papers. Therefore, you are wrong when you claim scientific papers are not evidence themselves. The rest of your statement falls apart.

[/FONT]If scientific papers are evidence, then so are the biblical papers.[FONT=&quot]

You want your pet creation idea to be on equal grounds with scientific theory. That is really the basis for this thread. You want parity. You have not earned parity.
Just making stuff up based on your biased and flawed interpretation of scripture and cherry-picking from the scientific literature to make it fit, does not give you a "theory" equal to any theory in science. Fail.

[/FONT]Im not pushing any pet theory here, Split Rock. Im just making an observation, which you are free to disagree with.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Pete Harcoff · Jul 5, 2010

Doveaman said:
But the non-scientists don’t even know how to test much of what is presented.

But the point is they can learn. If the barrier is lack of knowledge/understanding, then the solution is learning. And that's something a lot of people who don't "get" science need to understand. The only thing standing in their way is themselves. Anyone, if they have the time and willingness to put in the effort, can learn a scientific subject to the point where they can take a published research paper, read it, understand it, and even critique it.

Both the internet and libraries are full of the knowledge for those who want it. You can even watch entire university lectures on a whole host of subjects, free on YouTube. There's nothing stopping you.

I’m not saying that faith in science is necessarily a bad thing. I’m simply showing that even those who believe in science, especially the non-scientists, often have to rely on faith in scientists who examine the evidence, since they themselves don’t know how to examine it.

There is no need for anyone to be ashamed to admit this. Or is there?

I already did admit this, but I qualified it a different type of faith than religious faith. And it's the same for a lot of professions, not just science.

If you take your car to a mechanic and don't know anything about cars, you put "faith" in their word when they tell you what the problem is. If you take your tax information to an accountant to prepare your taxes, you have "faith" that they know how to prepare your tax return properly. If you read a scientific paper on a new discovery in biochemistry, you have "faith" that the scientist who authored it knows something about the discovery.

If you want to equate this to your faith in Jesus, then by all means have at it. But you're putting accountants and mechanics and scientists on the same level as Jesus.

Split Rock · Jul 5, 2010

Doveaman said:
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]If scientific papers are evidence, then so are the biblical papers.[FONT=&quot]

Equivocation. I think you know what I mean by "evidence." I mean physical, empirical evidence.

Split Rock · Jul 5, 2010

Doveaman said:
I accept religion on the basis of faith. But I also recognize there are many here who accept science on the basis of faith. .

No.. it requires trust. If you would prefer, we can differentiate between "faith" (trust) and "Blind Faith" (religious faith). Is that what you want? Or do you wish to continue equivocating and pretend they are not apples and oranges?

Hespera · Jul 5, 2010

Pete Harcoff said:
But the point is they can learn. If the barrier is lack of knowledge/understanding, then the solution is learning. And that's something a lot of people who don't "get" science need to understand. The only thing standing in their way is themselves. Anyone, if they have the time and willingness to put in the effort, can learn a scientific subject to the point where they can take a published research paper, read it, understand it, and even critique it.

Both the internet and libraries are full of the knowledge for those who want it. You can even watch entire university lectures on a whole host of subjects, free on YouTube. There's nothing stopping you.

I already did admit this, but I qualified it a different type of faith than religious faith. And it's the same for a lot of professions, not just science.

If you take your car to a mechanic and don't know anything about cars, you put "faith" in their word when they tell you what the problem is. If you take your tax information to an accountant to prepare your taxes, you have "faith" that they know how to prepare your tax return properly. If you read a scientific paper on a new discovery in biochemistry, you have "faith" that the scientist who authored it knows something about the discovery.

If you want to equate this to your faith in Jesus, then by all means have at it. But you're putting accountants and mechanics and scientists on the same level as Jesus.

theu have faith that this "argument' that equates all possible definitions of 'faith" is somehow a winning argument.

it isnt

but that makes it a TEST of faith dont you know. worst thing a theocreo can do is lose faith, so, they are gonna hang on to it no matter what, for the duration.

Split Rock · Jul 5, 2010

Pete Harcoff said:
I already did admit this, but I qualified it a different type of faith than religious faith. And it's the same for a lot of professions, not just science.

If you take your car to a mechanic and don't know anything about cars, you put "faith" in their word when they tell you what the problem is. If you take your tax information to an accountant to prepare your taxes, you have "faith" that they know how to prepare your tax return properly. If you read a scientific paper on a new discovery in biochemistry, you have "faith" that the scientist who authored it knows something about the discovery.

If you want to equate this to your faith in Jesus, then by all means have at it. But you're putting accountants and mechanics and scientists on the same level as Jesus.

Well if you add carpenter to your list of professions......

Agonaces of Susa · Jul 5, 2010

Doveaman said:
If scientific papers are evidence, then so are the biblical papers.

Even if the scientific papers aren't evidence, the biblical papers would still be evidence.

Pete Harcoff · Jul 5, 2010

Split Rock said:
Well if you add carpenter to your list of professions......

Oh snap!

3sigma · Jul 5, 2010

Doveaman said:
Im not here trying do defend religion as a science. I accept religion on the basis of faith. But I also recognize there are many here who accept science on the basis of faith.

Again, you are being misleading. You are engaging in the fallacy of equivocation. The religious faith you and all other religious believers use is belief without any sound evidence or sound reasoning. It is the very antithesis of the trust people have in science. People trust scientific findings because the findings are supported by masses of sound evidence. There is absolutely zero sound evidence supporting the belief that your God exists.

Cabal · Jul 5, 2010

Doveaman said:
That maybe true in some cases, but not in this case:

For the non-scientists to believe 4 +1 = 2, as in this case, requires faith.

And clearly you missed the point of my post where I said these things CAN be personally empirically checked.

Biblical claims cannot.

Michael · Jul 6, 2010

LifeToTheFullest! said:
Yes. It's been observed. Yes. We can observe the effects of CBR.

Isn't that a bit like claiming "Yes God exists, and yes, we see God's effect on human beings? How do you know inflation did it?

Educating yourself on the matter is highly suggested.

Again, that's a bit like a theist telling an atheist to "get educated on God". Where did inflation come from?

Agonaces of Susa · Jul 6, 2010

Cabal said:
And clearly you missed the point of my post where I said these things CAN be personally empirically checked.

Spoken like a true fundamentalist who worships at the altar of science without knowing the nature of their god.

"In physics [sic] as ordinarily set forth [i.e. math+religion], there is much that is unverifiable: there are hypotheses as to (a) how things would appear to a spectator in a place where, as it happens, there is no spectator; (b) how things would appear to a spectator in a place when, in fact, they are not appearing to anyone; (c) things which never appear at all." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1914

Biblical claims cannot.

Have you ever heard of archaeology?

Check it out, it's an empirical science that the Darwinist Dictatorship conceals from children at a very young age and monitors them so that they never see actual scientific evidence that contradicts the Darwinist faith: Bible History & Archaeology Published by the Biblical Archaeology Society | Biblical Archaeology Review

P.S. Egypt and the Pharaohs are real. So are Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar. Persia, Cyrus the Great, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes.

All these Biblical claims have proven science wrong.

Therefore the Bible is the Word of God and not fiction.

Michael · Jul 6, 2010

Split Rock said:
1. Inflation is based on emperical observations: e.g. the red shift of distant galaxies.

Unless you can show a cause/effect relationship between redshift and inflation I simply have to *ASSUME* (have faith) that "inflation did it".

2. Inflation theory has made predictions that have been verified: e.g. the CBR

No, the CBR has nothing at all to do with inflation since you've never demonstrated any cause/effect relationships between redshift and inflation or redshift and "Godflation".

3. The continued acceptance of Inflation theory is contingent upon further observations, and is held as tentative. If it is falsified, it will be abandoned.

Couldn't the same be said of the topic of God? How would one "falsify" something that has never been "verified" in the first place?

In science we cannot test every theory with a laboratory experiment. We cannot put a star or a volcano into a test tube. Nor can we recreate a hurricane or an earthquake in a petri dish.

No, but we can simulate many of these things in the lab. Where do I even get "inflation" to play with on *ANY* scale?

Cabal · Jul 6, 2010

Agonaces of Susa said:
Spoken like a true fundamentalist who worships at the altar of science without knowing the nature of their god.

*snip*

Yup, an irrelevant quote mine and a logical fallacy. On form as usual, AoS - run along now.

Agonaces of Susa · Jul 6, 2010

Cabal said:
Yup, an irrelevant quote mine and a logical fallacy. On form as usual, AoS - run along now.

Can I please borrow your magic crystal ball, your scrying bowl, or your time machine so I can travel back in time to empirically check the Big Bang and evolution? Thanks in advance.

"In physics [sic] as ordinarily set forth [i.e. math+religion], there is much that is unverifiable: there are hypotheses as to (a) how things would appear to a spectator in a place where, as it happens, there is no spectator; (b) how things would appear to a spectator in a place when, in fact, they are not appearing to anyone; (c) things which never appear at all." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1914

Cabal · Jul 6, 2010

Agonaces of Susa said:
Can I please borrow your magic crystal ball, your scrying bowl, or your time machine so I can travel back in time to empirically check the Big Bang and evolution? Thanks in advance.

Ah, one of those "direct-observation-only" inconsistent types.

So you think all criminals convicted on forensic evidence should be freed and no more should be convicted on that basis until time machines become standard police equipment?

Agonaces of Susa · Jul 6, 2010

Cabal said:
Ah, one of those "direct-observation-only" inconsistent types.

So you think all criminals convicted on forensic evidence should be freed and no more should be convicted on that basis until time machines become standard police equipment?

Can I borrow them to empirically check? Yes or no?

Because I don't need a crystal ball or a scrying bowl in order to prove the Bible to be true. I just need to go to Egypt and look at Pharaohs pyramids.

Faith In Science

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Junior Member

Conflation of Blathers

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

Well-Known Member

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

Similar threads