TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
Science is biased against bare claims without supportive evidence.
Religion just happens to fall in that category. No need to blame science for that.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Science is biased against religion/God. Always has been.
When science knows EVERYTHING and does not build upon itself over time, I will take that into consideration.Science is biased against bare claims without supportive evidence.
Religion just happens to fall in that category. No need to blame science for that.
Science is there to show 'what happened' and how things happened and relate it to facts.How so?
When science knows EVERYTHING and does not build upon itself over time, I will take that into consideration.
Is Pluto a planet again, per science? I know they go back and forth on what is what.
The problem though is that science does not get everything right that it presents as fact.One does not need to know everything (or even anything) to recognise bare claims for what they are.
The fact of the matter does not change.Pluto is what it is and its classification doesn't change its reality. Nore has classification of celestial objects anything to do with with making unsupported fantastical claims.
Science is there to show 'what happened' and how things happened and relate it to facts.
God cannot be proven, nor disproven
, so God if included puts a hole in everything.
So science tries to put the puzzle together without God because things about God are unknown or unproven.
The problem though is that science does not get everything right that it presents as fact.
I recognize sciences bare claims for what they are.
Because science excludes God as a possibility and teaches children to do the same.Actually, a more accurate description would that science is there to find out what happened and how.
Science is a method of inquiry. A very succesfull one, to get accurate answers to complex problems.
Indeed. Or even only supported, tested or falsified.
Exactly why science doesn't care about it. There is nothing "there" to investigate, study or test.
Why would science include parameters that can't be shown to be real or have any kind of impact on anything?
No. Rather, God if included adds nothing of any value.
E = mc² + god. Work it out and test it against reality and "god" then gains the value zero.
As far as testability, observation and experimentation goes, gods are indistinguishable from non-existance.
And the same goes for anything else your imagination can produce which is defined as undetectable without any kind of measureable manifestation.
Why is that a problem?
The fact of the matter does not change.
The fact is that science categorized as fact that Pluto is and was a planet for many, many years. And taught it as FACT.
Then science changed it's mind and decided Pluto was no longer a planet or they found MORE EVIDENCE to convince them of that and they changed Pluto from being a planet to not being a planet.
That is not a fantastical claim. That is the truth.
Because science excludes God as a possibility and teaches children to do the same.
No it;s not silly to create a catgegory for one. Science does it all the time.Pluto has always been kind of an "outsider" compared to the other planets. But it's silly to create a category for a set of "one". Then the outer belt of other such icy bodies was discovered. And Pluto happens to be much more like those icy bodies then it is like the other planets. So it was reclassified in light of new data.
I like how you 'try' to stick up for science. It is interesting reading all your theories.Classification is not a question of fact. It's a question of gathering objects under a label based on certain criteria.
Pluto has always been kind of an "outsider" compared to the other planets. But it's silly to create a category for a set of "one". Then the outer belt of other such icy bodies was discovered. And Pluto happens to be much more like those icy bodies then it is like the other planets. So it was reclassified in light of new data.
None of this has any relevance to religious claims being unscientific, though.
Again... classification is not a matter of claims or truth.
It is a matter of classification based on sensible criteria and it makes no sense to create an entire category for a set of "one".
Finding more Pluto-esque icy bodies justified the creation of a new category and the reclassification of Pluto in that new category.
Basically, you seem to be badmouthing science for making progress and gathering more knowledge. Kind of a strange thing to do.
Citation needed.Because science excludes God as a possibility and teaches children to do the same.
I stated what I stated, sorry it is not good enough for you or you need a citation. I stand by what I said.Citation needed.
No it;s not silly to create a catgegory for one. Science does it all the time.
I also don't care if Pluto was an outsider or not. Doesn't matter. They called Pluto a planet. that is a fact.
I didn't call Pluto a planet, science taught me in my youth it was a planet. Now they have changed their mind. That's not me, that's science. lol
I find your one sentence rebukes lacking. Seems you do not have much to say, IMHO.I quoted you directly, and you're still trying to pretend I'm making stuff up? Very interesting.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?