- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Well, we can test black holes, to a degree. But the more funky stuff about them is beyond any test we have nowadays.
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.
Well, we can test black holes, to a degree. But the more funky stuff about them is beyond any test we have nowadays.We have come up with a number of things that are not particularly testable, generally because they fit in with the data that we have.
Take black holes for example: we have theories about them because they work within a theory we already had, the general theory of relativity. We can't test black holes but because they fit into the theory and there are other theories that have been created based on it, we can use that as evidence.
There are other ways of finding evidence than direct testing.
We have video documentation amongst other empirical evidence of the existence of the Mariana Trench including radar mapping of the whole ocean floor of the earth's oceans. On the other hand the Gospels were written 300 years after the death of Christ. Hardly a first hand account of what happened and certainly not empirical evidence. Your turn
Source? I agree that the four gospels were written in the first century CE, but what is your source for the figure of 19,000 quotations?Actually, the gospels were written in the first century because people known to have written in the early 2nd century quoted nearly the entire New Testament. Something like 19,000 quotations.
I'm not saying that something is unscientific if it is not directly testable. There's nothing wrong with a hypothesis that makes predictions which are conceivably testable.Because they are inferred by ideas that are testable. We have never empirically detected a spacetime continuum, but its existence is inferred because it is predicted by a theory that is empirically tested. Evidence by proxy, you might say.
Well, we can test black holes, to a degree. But the more funky stuff about them is beyond any test we have nowadays.
You seem to be rocking the boat for the sake of rocking the boat. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
Most people here seem to think the word skeptical means "Just say no to science, kids". Science is essentially a framework for being skeptical, so saying that people are wrong to trust science and encouraging them to be more skeptical is practically a contradiction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq5j6cRtR1g
lots tiny steps make big steps Lots of micro evolution makes macro-evolution. This is a demonstrable fact that you cannot refute with science. Nor would any respectable theologian use the bible to try and refute that as well.
Except for evolution as the mechanism for turning dust into critters.
Nobody is not allowed to doubt that. Or so say the 10 people who
write about evolution.
Evolution is already proven.Not a fact. And really hard to demonstrate given the time needed. It's merely a possible model. We have tried. We've been trying to change fruit flies for years using selective breeding but run into a brick wall where they just "refuse" to change any further. The researchers defense is they aren't trying. Sure, why would anybody want to prove that evolution works?
On the other hand, my dog was created in about 100 years. No mutations needed at all.
Not a fact. And really hard to demonstrate given the time needed. It's merely a possible model. We have tried. We've been trying to change fruit flies for years using selective breeding but run into a brick wall where they just "refuse" to change any further. The researchers defense is they aren't trying. Sure, why would anybody want to prove that evolution works?
On the other hand, my dog was created in about 100 years. No mutations needed at all.
On the other hand, my dog was created in about 100 years. No mutations needed at all.
How can we attain knowledge if we excise perfectly plausible (though perhaps not probable) explanations? No matter how untestable a hypothesis it may be, God may, in fact, have done it. If that is the case, we do ourselves no favours by rejecting such an idea outright.
I consider falsifiability to be extremely useful, both pragmatically and theoretically, but I don't consider it vital for something to be considered scientific. If science is the pursuit of knowledge, then it should be open to knowledge no matter what it is.
Not a fact. And really hard to demonstrate given the time needed. It's merely a possible model. We have tried. We've been trying to change fruit flies for years using selective breeding but run into a brick wall where they just "refuse" to change any further.
We have "proven" it beyond reasonable doubt. We use our knowledge of evolution to create better medicines and in agriculture. Evolution is one of the best supported theories in science.The researchers defense is they aren't trying. Sure, why would anybody want to prove that evolution works?
What breed? Many dog breeds have mutations acquired over the many thousands of years of artificial selection.On the other hand, my dog was created in about 100 years. No mutations needed at all.
Evolution isn't a mechanism, it's a description of what happened, natural selection is the mechanism.Except for evolution as the mechanism for turning dust into critters.
Nobody is not allowed to doubt that. Or so say the 10 people who
write about evolution.
Source? Fruit flies have already been speciated dozens of times. If you think we're trying to change them from one thing into another, pre-determined thing, you severely misunderstand what they're actually doing, and how evolution works.Not a fact. And really hard to demonstrate given the time needed. It's merely a possible model. We have tried. We've been trying to change fruit flies for years using selective breeding but run into a brick wall where they just "refuse" to change any further.
Source?The researchers defense is they aren't trying.
Your dog contains many new mutations. That's simply a fact.On the other hand, my dog was created in about 100 years. No mutations needed at all.
Source? I agree that the four gospels were written in the first century CE, but what is your source for the figure of 19,000 quotations?
Study done by Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction, p. 431Following them, the church fathers of the second to fourth centuries made some 36,289 citations from the New Testament, including every verse except for eleven of them! This included 19,368 citations from the Gospels, 1,352 from Acts, 14,035 from Paul's Epistles, 870 from the General Epistles, and 664 from Revelation.
We can know that the writings were early because they are quoted by people writing just after the turn of the first century, such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement, etc.The church fathers in the second century alone cited from every major book of the New Testament and all but one minor one (3 John, which they simply may have had no occasion to cite.
How can we attain knowledge if we excise perfectly plausible (though perhaps not probable) explanations? No matter how untestable a hypothesis it may be, God may, in fact, have done it. If that is the case, we do ourselves no favours by rejecting such an idea outright.
I consider falsifiability to be extremely useful, both pragmatically and theoretically, but I don't consider it vital for something to be considered scientific. If science is the pursuit of knowledge, then it should be open to knowledge no matter what it is.
And here I am thinking that "reality" was the same for all Atheists who rely so heavily on "evidence".I have to side with Nostromo here. Science has a very specific method of gathering information and your use of the word 'knowledge' is extremely broad and vague. I could do LSD or make up random words and gain 'knowledge' that way, as well. However, science isn't about just plain ol' knowledge; It's about gathering verifiable, useful information that explains our universe. So, no. I do not think you can remove verifiability from science and that includes testability, falsifiability, or verifiability through independent lines of evidence.
And like I said before:No. I’m asking you to provide a single instance, ever, where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all.
Indeed. Hopefully you won't make such demonstrably false presumptions and stereotypes in the future.And here I am thinking that "reality" was the same for all Atheists who rely so heavily on "evidence".
My bad.
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?