wow....

[LouisBooth]

"2. Clearest example of what?"

"religious" aderence to an idea.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Science is open to all questions, no matter how outrageous."

Not really. There are certain things 1. science simply cannot answer

Of course.  And those are things that science does not attempt to answer.  However, that's not the point.  Science itself is open to question.  That's why it's so useful.  If science says something, that can be questioned and tested.  That's how it works.

and 2. scientists detest and scoff at evolutionary theory being the clearest example.

Scientists detest and scoff at the ToE?  They do?  That's a new one.

You've probably been told this on innumerable occasions, Louis, so I suspect that you don't accept it, but the ToE has been tested and tested and tested.  Every time new evidence comes to light the ToE undergoes testing.  Admittedly it underwent its most serious testing over 100 years ago, but nonetheless still has to stand up to current findings.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Admittedly it underwent its most serious testing over 100 years ago, but nonetheless still has to stand up to current findings."

Yes, by SOME of the data it does stand up, but that is just one interpreation of the data.

"If science says something, that can be questioned and tested. That's how it works. "

I agree, when physicality is only involved it seems to be the best tool available.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"can any other system make that claim?"

Huh? People were doing this long before "science" was founded....?

"no forbidden questions."

Not so sure about that....

What questions do you consider "forbidden"?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"2. Clearest example of what?"

"religious" aderence to an idea.

The religious adherence occurs far more often on the side of Creationists. I have yet to see credible evidence that disproves evolution.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Admittedly it underwent its most serious testing over 100 years ago, but nonetheless still has to stand up to current findings."

Yes, by SOME of the data it does stand up, but that is just one interpreation of the data.

"If science says something, that can be questioned and tested. That's how it works. "

I agree, when physicality is only involved it seems to be the best tool available.

That's why science limits itself to the physical world.

Some scientists try to push science beyond the physical world, but they are actually pursuing philosophy/metaphysics, not science.

 

[Morat]

  Louis, do you have some sort of degenerative finger disease? Do you have chronic fatigue syndrome? Is English not your primary language? Are you a poor typer?

   I mean, is there a reason you don't bother to write enough details to actually get a point across on the first post?

   I mean, I still don't know what you're referring to about the man/ape thing.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"And how is a debate about whether or not a fossil is human or not, a hoax?"

well it turns out its not human at all, or that it was 2 different fossils together.

LouisBooth, you didn't answer my question. Are you actually referring to any fossil-related hoaxes specifically, or are you just making generalizations?

 

[LouisBooth]

"What questions do you consider "forbidden"?"

well for starters, the things science can't prove.

"I have yet to see credible evidence that disproves evolution"

Again, then it would be a law by all means and practices. Some evidience evolution can't explain, some it does, thus why it is a theory.

"That's why science limits itself to the physical world."

I totally agree! Though any part of physical world that has been or is effected by a nonphysical element also has a problem.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"What questions do you consider "forbidden"?"

well for starters, the things science can't prove.

Science, by definition, deals with the natural world. Asking science to explain the supernatural is like asking music theory to explain how your car works. It's nonsensical.

"I have yet to see credible evidence that disproves evolution"

Again, then it would be a law by all means and practices. Some evidience evolution can't explain, some it does, thus why it is a theory.

Laws are very concise. Theories aren't. Hence, evolutionary theory will always remain a theory.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Asking science to explain the supernatural is like asking music theory to explain how your car works. It's nonsensical. "

Exactly!!!!

"Laws are very concise. Theories aren't. Hence, evolutionary theory will always remain a theory."

Exactly, yet again, and I would also tack on, its not correct either

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Asking science to explain the supernatural is like asking music theory to explain how your car works. It's nonsensical. "

Exactly!!!!

However, this doesn't mean there aren't natural (scientific) explanations to things that some people consider to be supernatural.

"Laws are very concise. Theories aren't. Hence, evolutionary theory will always remain a theory."

Exactly, yet again, and I would also tack on, its not correct either

"Not correct"? Do we have to start going into what scientific theories are?

 

[LouisBooth]

"explanations to things that some people consider to be supernatural."

I agree, and it also means that there are not answers to things science says there are

"Do we have to start going into what scientific theories are?"

*sigh* no thanks, I know exactly what a theory is, its a current thought that can be wrong. It explains some of the evidience but not all of it, thus why it is a theory. Even now some of the theories are being "rethunk" by the leaders in science.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
I agree, and it also means that there are not answers to things science says there are

Like what?

 

[TheBear]

Anyone here using the computer right now? Anyone ever have to see a doctor? Anyone here ever fly in an airplane? Anyone here been transported by an engine powered vehicle?

The point I am making is that science seems to be okee-dokee and just fine, as long as the findings don't conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

WOW!!!!

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"What questions do you consider "forbidden"?"

well for starters, the things science can't prove.

"I have yet to see credible evidence that disproves evolution"

Again, then it would be a law by all means and practices. Some evidience evolution can't explain, some it does, thus why it is a theory.

The distinctions between theory, hypothesis, and law are to a certain extent arbitrary. Some things that are called theories are better grounded than things we call laws. Often, it is just the traditional naming that sticks regardless of the later assuredness of the theory.

Also, physicists have been working on quantum mechanics and general relativity for almost a century now. Does the fact that they can't explain everything yet make them doubt these fields of study? No. In the same way, gaps in our understanding of evolution, which has had only fifty or so years since the discovery of DNA, should not be taken as a reason to doubt it.

"That's why science limits itself to the physical world."

I totally agree! Though any part of physical world that has been or is effected by a nonphysical element also has a problem.

The problem is, you can't test God. One can't study miracles by asking God to miraculously cure people on demand so that their doctors can document and study the process. Science can offer alternative explainations for a miracle and test their probabilities based on available evidence, but if it really was a miracle, the cause will remain beyond our grasp.

 

[LouisBooth]

"The point I am making is that science seems to be okee-dokee and just fine, as long as the findings don't conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible. "

Whatever you say bear, whatever you say.


"Often, it is just the traditional naming that sticks regardless of the later assuredness of the theory."

Wow, so you'er saying sceince isn't consistant?

"In the same way, gaps in our understanding of evolution, which has had only fifty or so years since the discovery of DNA, should not be taken as a reason to doubt it."

so now you're telling me that we should "fill in the gaps" with evolution and we dont know yet? That's kinda funny because that's EXACTLY what christians get critized for when they claim the same thing...*wonders if there is any consistancy at all in this forum* I haven't seen a single person question you on this yet, though you did only post it about 20 or so hours ago.

"The problem is, you can't test God. "

Sceintifically, no, but you can't "test" love either, nor can you justice, or a slew of other things.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

Maybe so, but it might take longer then you're alive for it to happen...scary huh?

Really? Name just one that took so long to happen. Please give a reference.

I notice that you failed to elaborate on your "ape man fossil" thing, and ignored repeated request for clarification and references. Way to provide evidence, Louis.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

Whatever you say bear, whatever you say.

I believe Louis has trumped TheBear with his superior reasoning and this piece of indefeatable evidence. The evolutionists have lost to your reasoning skills.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

*sigh* no thanks, I know exactly what a theory is, its a current thought that can be wrong. It explains some of the evidience but not all of it, thus why it is a theory. Even now some of the theories are being "rethunk" by the leaders in science. [/B]

Apparently, yes we do need to explain to you what a theory is when we're talking about science. Here's what AiG has to say about it:

#

‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye-Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin-Landau/Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.