2 proofs that nature was designed

[Speedwell]

And you have something else science can be replaced with?

The amusing thing is that people have been saying the same thing for over a hundred years.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are likewise different theories on the origin of the universe.

Strictly, different hypotheses. None of which make claims of 'truth', all of which are open to question.

I can assure you that we may never know if this unobservable universe is a 'natural universe'. That is a belief system and impossible to verify.

Any suggestion of an unobservable universe is a hypothesis, based on limited evidence and open to question, not a belief system. Science can only acquire supporting evidence for a hypothesis, but they can be falsified by contradictory evidence or if the theory they're based on is falsified.

Whether it is natural depends on your definition of 'natural'; it is not a well-defined scientific term.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am puzzled that scientists would believe in a singularity. A point of infinite density with no measured dimension. That is unsubstantiated and pure science fiction.

Scientists don't 'believe in' a singularity, it is a prediction of General Relativity, a very well-tested theory that is nevertheless known to be incomplete because it doesn't incorporate quantum mechanics, which has powerful effects in the situations where GR predicts a singularity.

The consensus is that singularities simply indicate that GR cannot describe that regime, and that when a full theory of quantum gravity is established, it will resolve the problem. Meanwhile, singularities are generally used as shorthand for the extreme regimes where the descriptive power of GR breaks down. Few, if any, physicists in cosmology really think that the infinities predicted are real.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are an empiricist. You believe in the philosophy of empiricism. Don't tell me your not a believer.What you claim to be data is not what I would regard as data. You believe that you can understand the universe through observation. I believe that you are chasing your own tail.

You're way too tied up with ideas of belief. Empiricism is a pragmatic tool, it is used because it produces useful results; belief is not necessary or helpful. It's clear that we can understand aspects of the universe sufficiently well to make productive use of them. How much we'll be able to understand, no-one knows.

 

[Frank Robert]

Science can only self correct when the hypothesis is understood as an invalid hypothesis.

What is your point? Are you suggesting that hypothesis modification is not possible?

When science progresses we reach eventually limitations.

When do you think we will reach limitations regarding the universe? My guess is not in our lifetime.

These limitations are already evident in sub atomic physics. We do not understood the current data from the Cern linear accelerator. So a tangible hypothesis is not currently available.

Again what is your point? Are you suggesting we will never understand the data?

Science deals with the observable and the universe is currently unobservable.

Glad to see you used the modifier currently.

 

[Frank Robert]

Alternatives to the singularity
Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces. (wikipedia)

You appear to be convinced that scientists believe that the big bang theory is truth and the last word in our scientific knowledge of the universe. In reality it is the leading theory. If and when loop quantum or the big bounces theory or any other alternative can better explain what is seen then that theory will replace the big bang theory. Science does not progress on belief.

 

[Speedwell]

You appear to be convinced that scientists believe that the big bang theory is truth and the last word in our scientific knowledge of the universe. In reality it is the leading theory. If and when loop quantum or the big bounces theory or any other alternative can better explain what is seen then that theory will replace the big bang theory. Science does not progress on belief.

Of course. How can scientific findings contradict the truth of his interpretation of scripture unless they are put forward as the truth themselves?

 

[Astrid]

You appear to be convinced that scientists believe that the big bang theory is truth and the last word in our scientific knowledge of the universe. In reality it is the leading theory. If and when loop quantum or the big bounces theory or any other alternative can better explain what is seen then that theory will replace the big bang theory. Science does not progress on belief.

Our creationists try to use
equivocations surrounding the words
"Faith" and "Belief" to assail science,
basically saying, see you are just like us.
Science is all assumptions and faith
and belief, therefore invalid.

Which is kind of weird, considering.

 

[klutedavid]

You appear to be convinced that scientists believe that the big bang theory is truth and the last word in our scientific knowledge of the universe. In reality it is the leading theory. If and when loop quantum or the big bounces theory or any other alternative can better explain what is seen then that theory will replace the big bang theory. Science does not progress on belief.

Where I have the problem is in what is not evident in your reply. To evaluate the evidence for a theory, means that you consider or even BELIEVE that the evidence is adequate. Others may not BELIEVE that the evidence is adequate to support the current theory.

For example, when Pluto was discarded as a bona fide planet. The final decision was made on the basis of a vote. It appears that the evidence slated was not sufficient in everyone's mind, as the verdict was not 100% supported. Obviously, this example reduces to what the majority BELIEVED to be sufficient evidence.

 

[klutedavid]

Our creationists try to use
equivocations surrounding the words
"Faith" and "Belief" to assail science,
basically saying, see you are just like us.
Science is all assumptions and faith
and belief, therefore invalid.

Which is kind of weird, considering.

You must believe that one can understand things using the tool of observation. I don't believe that you can plumb the depths of knowledge through observational criteria. We have a distinct difference in what we BELIEVE is the origin of knowledge.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, @klutedavid, since you claim that science will reach an end point, do you have anything that can replace science?

 

[Astrid]

You must believe that one can understand things using the tool of observation. I don't believe that you can plumb the depths of knowledge through observational criteria. We have a distinct difference in what we BELIEVE is the origin of knowledge.

Plumb the depths of knowledge.

 

[Astrid]

Where I have the problem is in what is not evident in your reply. To evaluate the evidence for a theory, means that you consider or even BELIEVE that the evidence is adequate. Others may not BELIEVE that the evidence is adequate to support the current theory.

For example, when Pluto was discarded as a bona fide planet. The final decision was made on the basis of a vote. It appears that the evidence slated was not sufficient in everyone's mind, as the verdict was not 100% supported. Obviously, this example reduces to what the majority BELIEVED to be sufficient evidence.

So, you are a believer.
We don't doubt that for a moment.
Rioters riot, farmers farm their land,
Skiers ski the slopes, believers believe things-
some very surprising things.

 

[Speedwell]

Where I have the problem is in what is not evident in your reply. To evaluate the evidence for a theory, means that you consider or even BELIEVE that the evidence is adequate. Others may not BELIEVE that the evidence is adequate to support the current theory.

For example, when Pluto was discarded as a bona fide planet. The final decision was made on the basis of a vote. It appears that the evidence slated was not sufficient in everyone's mind, as the verdict was not 100% supported. Obviously, this example reduces to what the majority BELIEVED to be sufficient evidence.

No, not even close. They were voting to change a classification of a natural object. Nothing about Pluto changed, nothing that science has discovered changed, just a change of classification in a man-made classification scheme.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You must believe that one can understand things using the tool of observation. I don't believe that you can plumb the depths of knowledge through observational criteria. We have a distinct difference in what we BELIEVE is the origin of knowledge.

That's a great example of equivocation of "believe".

 

[klutedavid]

So, @klutedavid, since you claim that science will reach an end point, do you have anything that can replace science?

Climb back into the trees where you belong. Your destroying the planet.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Climb back into the trees where you belong. Your destroying the planet.

Not an answer.

 

[Astrid]

Climb back into the trees where you belong. Your destroying the planet.

You're mangling the language.

 

[Frank Robert]

Where I have the problem is in what is not evident in your reply. To evaluate the evidence for a theory, means that you consider or even BELIEVE that the evidence is adequate. Others may not BELIEVE that the evidence is adequate to support the current theory.

You are jumping from "consider to believe." Even so, scientists do consider belief, whether from themselves or their subjects as a confounding variable which is why they use methods to decrease the impact of confounding variables on their research.

For example, when Pluto was discarded as a bona fide planet. The final decision was made on the basis of a vote. It appears that the evidence slated was not sufficient in everyone's mind, as the verdict was not 100% supported. Obviously, this example reduces to what the majority BELIEVED to be sufficient evidence.

This was a "decision" to reclassification" Pluto to a dwarf planet, not an "hypothesis" that could be tested.

 

[klutedavid]

You are jumping from "consider to believe." Even so, scientists do consider belief, whether from themselves or their subjects as a confounding variable which is why they use methods to decrease the impact of confounding variables on their research.

This was a "decision" to reclassification" Pluto to a dwarf planet, not an "hypothesis" that could be tested.

What was the classification based upon?