DNA Code Indicates Creator

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science is biased against religion/God. Always has been.

Science is biased against bare claims without supportive evidence.

Religion just happens to fall in that category. No need to blame science for that.

 

[Jimmy D]

Science is biased against religion/God. Always has been.

How so?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Science is biased against bare claims without supportive evidence.

Religion just happens to fall in that category. No need to blame science for that.

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.

 

[ToBeLoved]

How so?

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When science knows EVERYTHING and does not build upon itself over time, I will take that into consideration.

One does not need to know everything (or even anything) to recognise bare claims for what they are.

Is Pluto a planet again, per science? I know they go back and forth on what is what.

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.

 

[ToBeLoved]

One does not need to know everything (or even anything) to recognise bare claims for what they are.

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.

 

[ToBeLoved]

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.

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science is there to show 'what happened' and how things happened and relate it to facts.

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.

God cannot be proven, nor disproven

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?

, so God if included puts a hole in everything.

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.

So science tries to put the puzzle together without God because things about God are unknown or unproven.

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?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem though is that science does not get everything right that it presents as fact.

It's called learning and making progress.

I recognize sciences bare claims for what they are.

Please... you wouldn't recognise valid science if it came up and hit you upside the head.

 

[ToBeLoved]

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?

Because science excludes God as a possibility and teaches children to do the same.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because science excludes God as a possibility and teaches children to do the same.

Science does no such thing.

 

[ToBeLoved]

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.

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

 

[ToBeLoved]

Science does no such thing.

Your opinion, I disagree. We will leave it at that.

 

[ToBeLoved]

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.

I like how you 'try' to stick up for science. It is interesting reading all your theories.

 

[KCfromNC]

No.

I quoted you directly, and you're still trying to pretend I'm making stuff up? Very interesting.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because science excludes God as a possibility and teaches children to do the same.

Citation needed.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Citation needed.

I stated what I stated, sorry it is not good enough for you or you need a citation. I stand by what I said.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it;s not silly to create a catgegory for one. Science does it all the time.

Really? Then you should have no problem giving a few examples.

I also don't care if Pluto was an outsider or not. Doesn't matter. They called Pluto a planet. that is a fact.

Yes. And I explained why. If you're just going to ignore it, why bother replying?

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

Yes. What is the problem?
Would you prefer science to uphold the status quo and not make any progress?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I quoted you directly, and you're still trying to pretend I'm making stuff up? Very interesting.

I find your one sentence rebukes lacking. Seems you do not have much to say, IMHO.