Oh look, more "science" falls by the wayside..unethical study

[PoliticalChic]

But the op suggested that "scientist believe that science is infalliable".

No, the OP suggests that the public has been conditioned by the media and the educational cesspool that Scientists are infallible, the new priest class to never be questioned.

Idiots like Mullah Photo have simply substituted blind faith in the new priests for blind faith in the old ones. Nothing has changed, there is no thought nor intellectual curiosity, it's still unwavering adherence to dogma.



Ergo the observation that science is a process, not a result.



When a malleable public is conditioned to accept that which they are told, it is religion.



What is passed for science in this nation is mostly religion.

How is my flailing, by the way?

It's wild, man.

And yet, with every letter you type, you become more and more a hypocrite.

Well....since you bring up hypocrites...

When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained. Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion,” p. 143.


Again...Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.

 

[Photonic]

No, the OP suggests that the public has been conditioned by the media and the educational cesspool that Scientists are infallible, the new priest class to never be questioned.

Idiots like Mullah Photo have simply substituted blind faith in the new priests for blind faith in the old ones. Nothing has changed, there is no thought nor intellectual curiosity, it's still unwavering adherence to dogma.



Ergo the observation that science is a process, not a result.



When a malleable public is conditioned to accept that which they are told, it is religion.



What is passed for science in this nation is mostly religion.



It's wild, man.

And yet, with every letter you type, you become more and more a hypocrite.

Well....since you bring up hypocrites...

When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained. Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion,” p. 143.


Again...Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.

It may come as a shock to you but me and many of my colleagues do not accept the hypothesis of string theory because it is insubstantial.

I would also like to note that ionic bonds (electrostatic) are completely observable.

 

[amrchaos]

Hold on--are you saying that referring to fuctions that are twice differentiable is a sign of BS?

Understand that constants are infintely differentiable, and therefore at least twice differentiable (a.e.) and sits in the set of twice differentiable functions.

So does that mean anything referred to as constant is BS?

 

[PoliticalChic]

And yet, with every letter you type, you become more and more a hypocrite.

Well....since you bring up hypocrites...

When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained. Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion,” p. 143.


Again...Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.

It may come as a shock to you but me and many of my colleagues do not accept the hypothesis of string theory because it is insubstantial.

I would also like to note that ionic bonds (electrostatic) are completely observable.

Now, I'm not saying that you are insignificant...
...but within the context of this thread, you are insignificant.

Berlinski has it right. The kerfuffle is due to folks such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and Victor Stengler...

1. Richard Dawkins, in “The God Delusion,” makes no secret of his distain for those of faith, and contempt for theology. As in the case of many of our atheist scientists, they have hoped to discover laws of some final physical theory so powerful that they will explain the property of matter in all of its modes. “the most extreme hope for science,” Steven Weinberg has written, “is that we will be able to trace the explanation of all natural phenomena to final laws and historical accidents.”

2. Accidents? Well, some attempt to leave that to mathematics. MIT physicist Max Tegmark, physicist Edward Witten, and mathematician Alain Connes have written that the origins of creation are in some inexplicably austere and remote mathematical structure, one so powerful that from it space and time themselves may be derived.

a. Perhaps one should keep in mind that these ambitious speculations assign to mathematics a degree of agency that until now they don not seem to have possessed.

3. Dawkins, among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.

4. Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”


As Uncensored has indicated, scientist are often considered as infallible...and behave as the new 'priest-class,' yet are not subject to the same contumely.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh well, one cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Enjoy your brainwashed state, I bid you adieu.

You've been defeated and humiliated, slink off and lick your wounds.

 

[Woyzeck]

My response begins here:

This may come under the heading of 'try to teach an old dog new tricks...' but, please, try to learn how to use the quote function.

"It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really."

Here it is! The 'money quote'!

"It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really."

Not true.

Science isn't based on the scientific method and empircal evidence?

Either you did not read or understand the post...
...or, more likely, you have your eyes tightly closed and your hands pressed over your ears.

Oh snap. What a clever retort and insult! Surely you have thwarted me! All you have to do is say I didn't read the post, and provide some amusing narrative image of me acting like a child.

As one tries to do for slow learners, I'll comb out the parts you missed:
a. The Standard Model was considered to partially explain the forces, and, therefore partially unified the concepts of physics.

I didn't miss partially explain, in fact. I'm pretty sure I pointed out because it relates to our gaps in our knowledge of physics. But by all means, insult me and ignore what I said.

b. Of course, today, there is very little of said unity, and the two forces are distinct. The ‘proof’ has to be imagined...

c. . “The massless particles should have long range effects, but these effects are not seen in experiments.

d. the Standard Model is arbitrary in that it contains many numerical parameters- at least twenty-one, designating specific numerical properties of the model such that they cannot be derived from theory.

e. Above all, the Standard Model does not incorporate the force of gravity. General relativity stands apart, unreconciled.

"It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really."
If that's your myth...er, story...you just stick to it.

Congratulations, you've done nothing but repost. You've pointed out problems with the Standard Model, and most theoretical physicists would agree with you that those are the issues for the Standard Model. I even pointed out it also didn't account for dark matter/energy. No one is going to defend that it's the most perfect theory ever, but rather the best one we have currently.

It's also still has valid parts which are backed up by empirical evidence and observations. That was the point of don't throw the baby out with the bathwater comment.

Clearly, for those not wedded to the fabrication "scientific method and empircal evidence," it is proven that at the highest levels, theoretical physics, science requires the elememts of faith and belief that theology does.

Please reread my post, and actually respond besides simply acting like I didn't read anything you said.

To reprise my view, I have no problem with your acceptance of same...my argument is with a) atheistic scientists who claim to disparage religious believers who do exactly what they do.

Then grow thicker skin and stop acting like a victim.

b) folks like you, who pretend that my argument is not proven.

It wasn't. You just reposted criticisms of the Standard Model.

If I may amble into the realm of conjecture, I see a desire by folks who take your view to align themselves with those who they see as cognoscenti, and a huge dollop of fear that they will be seen as uneducated.

"Oh, from you're new favorite book of the week."
To clarify, it's usually four to six books a week.
I didn't think you 'smart' folks would have a problem with books....

Oh. Look. More insults, the only new parts of your reply.

 

[Photonic]

This thread is a farce, just let it die Woy.

 

[frazzledgear]

There are people who lie for money and career everywhere... even people of the cloth.... Human nature is human nature. Remember Jimmy Swaggart who cried "Lord, I have sinned against you"(after he was caught)... How about Jim Baker?

I mean, I understand... we must take things with a grain of salt when we hear them. To blindly believe in things without questioning them is folly.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson once wrote this to his Nephew about religion..."Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Good words... Question everything...even the existence of a God.

Now personally, I believe there is a God.... what I question is his intolerance. I have doubts about him being the boogeyman who wants to send us hopelessly flawed humans to hell for making our mistakes and never seeming to truly repent.... because repenting means not to sin again. I know I am unable to do that. I can and do easily confess my failings and ask for forgiveness... but I always fall short in the "not sinning again" part.

A reasonable and well-tempered post....

....but I don't believe that it hits the mark.
If I can presume to speak for koshergrl and the OP, it seems to me that it is geared toward those who use 'science' and 'scientists' as some sort of cudgel against religious folk, and theology.

The point is, as you suggest, scientists are merely people. Further, science itself uses faith and belief at its hightest levels to advance theories and hypotheses.

This, from chapter five of David Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion,"
"As a general explanation, arguments follow from assumptions, and assumptions follow from beliefs, and very rarely- perhaps never- do beliefs reflect an agenda determined entirely by the facts. No less than the doctrines of religious belief, the doctrines of quantum cosmology are what they seem: biased, partial, inconclusive, and largely in the service of passionate but unexamined conviction."

It seems, unfortunately, that there are those who are chagrined that others believe, have faith, but mistakenly attribute an undeserved greatness to science.
Thus the OP.

Most of us who are religious are not offended by those who are not...but there are those on the other side who never miss an opportunity to insult the community of faith.

Since you mention Jefferson, I find this quote germane:
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

I think the problem is when people forget scientists are mere mortals who are no less likely to succumb to temptation than anyone else -including lying, cheating and stealing -and yes, falsifying their findings for WHATEVER reason they use to justify doing so.

I object to those who insist Protestants and Catholic somehow oppose knowledge when in reality what they oppose is the leftist demand that we treat science as a religion -taking upon nothing but FAITH whatever the theory du jour happens to be! But especially if it a theory that has been grabbed up and politicized by the left. For example their constant demand that it is somehow incumbent upon ME to explain why I don't BELIEVE in global warming! I'm sorry, science is not a religion where I must just take upon FAITH what scientists have theorized about -but failed to indisputably prove! They OWE it to first PROVE it, then I accept what IS. I am NEVER required to just BELIEVE in some unproven and highly disputed theory, much less responsible for explaining my lack of worship at that altar!

The left refuses to accept this -but they are in reality guilty of doing EXACTLY what they objected to the Catholic Church doing centuries ago when it rejected any science that even APPEARED to contradict religious doctrine. Except the left demands the immediate rejection of any science if it HAPPENS to support any religious doctrine! The left deliberately uses "creationism" interchangeably with the theory of intelligent design -because they know sticking the "creationist" term on it will immediately undermine the theory even before the science is examined. They want ANY science rejected that even APPEARS to support religious beliefs. But in fact the theory of intelligent design is NOT the same as "creationism" which isn't a scientific theory whatsoever!

Creationism is proposed by ministers, priests -people whose expertise is IN religion. It is a religious statement, not a scientific one. The theory of intelligent design is proposed by scientists themselves -and in every field of science without ANY religion or religious justification offered in support in ANY way. It is NOT been offered or even suggested it is the best explanation for everything -because it is NOT. It has only been offered for a few very, very highly specific scientific phenomena where it is science itself that leads to the proposition that the best possible explanation for that specific phenomenon is intelligent design.

For example -if you look at this picture, what is it that leads you to believe the way in which it came into existence is NOT the result of random, meaningless chance? Can science actually tell the difference between that which occurred due to random, meaningless chance and that which is extremely unlikely to have resulted from it? Of course it can -we TEACH people how to recognize that ALL THE TIME and in fact it is CRITICALLY important people learn to recognize it -even though we usually call it by different names and not "intelligent design". There are many factors that lead someone to recognize this statue as being of intelligent design -not just one.

:

Because scientists who have proposed the theory of intelligent design for some very specific phenomenon in their field of expertise are saying what they see is like looking at that picture above and insisting it came about by pure, random and meaningless chance. So unlikely as to be silly. They specifically document the scientific rationale and factors involved in coming to that theory. Unless they can do that, it isn't supported by science either -but they DO THAT. Yet the leftists are so convinced science should be able to prove God does NOT exist -they have gone to extremes demanding the IMMEDIATE rejection of any scientific theory if it happens to support any religious beliefs. Which is no less flawed, short sighted, ignorant and STUPID as insisting we must immediately reject any science that fails to support religious beliefs. BOTH are wrong and for the exact same reasons. And rejecting any scientifically supported theory for no reason but that it contradicts or supports religious beliefs only sets back human knowledge and discovery. The last time it set back human knowledge for CENTURIES -and demanding we do so again for the identical reason in reverse will do the same. BOTH are artificial and irrelevant to the science itself which can only BE what it is. No matter whether religions happen to disagree OR agree with it. Yet the left is demanding even louder than any religion that even well supported SCIENCE must be thrown into the trash for NO reason but the fact some religions may like it.

I am a religious person -but there is NO scientific discovery that can affect my faith whatsoever. Science cannot prove God exists and it cannot prove God does NOT exist -although the left seems convinced it can prove God doesn't exist, that just isn't true. I don't look to science for that. I expect science to help explain the natural world around me as much as human beings are able to comprehend, learn about and understand it. And I, like millions of others who share my faith, happen to think God heartily approves of that journey to discover EVERYTHING we can about our natural world. A science book will never replace my Bible -and likewise, I NEVER look to my Bible to explain the natural world around me. It isn't a science book and was never intended to be one either. But likewise, the demand we instantly reject any science that HAPPENS to agree with some religious belief is no less IGNORANT and detrimental. Creationism says "God created everything in 7 days -even though the measure of time is a man-made invention based on the rotation of the earth and its movements around the sun, neither of which even existed yet." That is a religious statement unsupported by any science whatsoever -because it wasn't derived from any science in the first place.

Creationism is not science and it CANNOT and SHOULD not EVER be taught as science -because the basis for it comes from a BIBLE and religious DOCTRINE. It is a religious statement -but it is not based on scientific observation and discovery WHATSOEVER!

The theory of intelligent design has been proposed to explain very highly specific phenomena in our natural world by scientists in every field of science as the best and most likely explanation for at least one very specific phenomenon in their particular field of science. Ones that experts in those fields say is as obvious to the well educated and well trained in their field as it would be to any archeologist that the statue above is the result of intelligent design if they came across it -and for the very same reasons. We TRAIN people to recognize our OWN intelligent design all the time even though we call it something else when we come across it. But then demand they ignore that if our own intelligent design must be ruled out -as if that somehow makes it "random and meaningless chance". Are there really ANY circumstances under which you would believe that stone statue above was far more likely to have been the result of random, meaningless forces of nature as opposed to intelligent design? Because if you say "yes" it only proves a total lack of common sense but it will never make it more "scientific" to pretend it was due to random chance. There is NO natural explanation for the existence of that stone statue that would be more likely than intelligent design. NONE. And we all know it -which is why we can even train people how to spot intelligent design and separate it from that which occurs as the result of random chance and the forces of nature.

But it is no coincidence that MORE scientists are coming forward proposing the theory of intelligent design as the most likely explanation for very specific phenomena in their particular field of science in the last 25 years when we have made THE greatest advancements in scientific discovery and knowledge. Scientists are more comfortable outright ADMITTING what they scientifically observe and measure with regard to VERY specific phenomena in their particular field is as highly unlikely to be the result of random chance as is the existence of that stone statue above. And because it is based entirely on scientific principles and the scientific rationale to explain that conclusion given just as any archeologist could give the scientific explanation for why that statue is the result of intelligent design and it is proposed to explain very specific phenomena only, it should not only be taken seriously, it can be scientifically tested just as any other theory. It is proven to be true by trying to prove it to be FALSE -which requires FAR more scientific investigation and research. NOT less. The minute another explanation is discovered for even one of the specific phenomena for which the theory has been proposed, it will immediately throw into doubt that it is the best explanation for ANY of them. It is a theory that BEGS for more scientific discovery -not less. It is the left that demands LESS scientific discovery -which is why they insist no theory which they have politicized can be allowed to even be challenged -even though challenging a theory and trying to prove it false -is how it is eventually proven to be TRUE! And of course they demand any theory that happens to even remotely support any religious beliefs must instantly be tossed in the trash as well no matter the fact it is sound science that led to it and supports it -it is actually the LEFT that stands in the way of scientific discovery far more than any religious people.

The left insists there is only a need to keep ministers and priests trying to pass off their religious expertise as "science" -but it is those with a POLITICAL AGENDA who cause the most damage to the field and interfere the most with the advancement of scientific knowledge -BY FAR. The Catholic Church and all but a handful of the hundreds of different Protestant churches accepted LONG ago that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and the Bible is not a science book. Scientists are INCAPABLE of making ANY scientific theory that could undermine Christianity whatsoever. And it is Christians themselves who know this best. I assure you the left fears where science will lead far more than the overwhelming vast majority of Christians.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My response begins here:

This may come under the heading of 'try to teach an old dog new tricks...' but, please, try to learn how to use the quote function.

"It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really."

Here it is! The 'money quote'!

"It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really."

Not true.

Science isn't based on the scientific method and empircal evidence?

Either you did not read or understand the post...
...or, more likely, you have your eyes tightly closed and your hands pressed over your ears.

Oh snap. What a clever retort and insult! Surely you have thwarted me! All you have to do is say I didn't read the post, and provide some amusing narrative image of me acting like a child.

As one tries to do for slow learners, I'll comb out the parts you missed:
a. The Standard Model was considered to partially explain the forces, and, therefore partially unified the concepts of physics.

I didn't miss partially explain, in fact. I'm pretty sure I pointed out because it relates to our gaps in our knowledge of physics. But by all means, insult me and ignore what I said.



Congratulations, you've done nothing but repost. You've pointed out problems with the Standard Model, and most theoretical physicists would agree with you that those are the issues for the Standard Model. I even pointed out it also didn't account for dark matter/energy. No one is going to defend that it's the most perfect theory ever, but rather the best one we have currently.

It's also still has valid parts which are backed up by empirical evidence and observations. That was the point of don't throw the baby out with the bathwater comment.



Please reread my post, and actually respond besides simply acting like I didn't read anything you said.



Then grow thicker skin and stop acting like a victim.

b) folks like you, who pretend that my argument is not proven.

It wasn't. You just reposted criticisms of the Standard Model.

If I may amble into the realm of conjecture, I see a desire by folks who take your view to align themselves with those who they see as cognoscenti, and a huge dollop of fear that they will be seen as uneducated.

"Oh, from you're new favorite book of the week."
To clarify, it's usually four to six books a week.
I didn't think you 'smart' folks would have a problem with books....

Oh. Look. More insults, the only new parts of your reply.

1. You are free to pretend that the argument is not proven, i.e., that science, physics, cosmology, does not use the same mechanisms that theologians use, that would be faith and belief, same has been documented throughout the thread.

2. When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion,” p. 143.

3. "Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality," Richard Feynman remarked in his lectures on turbulence. The remark has been widely quoted. lt is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted: "We cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all hold strong opinions either way."Same source.
That is the argument, right there.

4. And, for you....the 'Tareq and Michaele Salahi Uninvited Appearance ' Award!
I just know you'll be back...or just admit the truth.
You'll be in good company.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread is a farce, just let it die Woy.

I assume that this is your attempt to 'advance to the rear'.

Wise tactic.




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzDjYWKPkog]ADVANCE TO THE REAR (Original Theatrical Trailer) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

My response begins here:

This may come under the heading of 'try to teach an old dog new tricks...' but, please, try to learn how to use the quote function.

"It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really."

Here it is! The 'money quote'!

"It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really."

Not true.

Science isn't based on the scientific method and empircal evidence?

Either you did not read or understand the post...
...or, more likely, you have your eyes tightly closed and your hands pressed over your ears.

Oh snap. What a clever retort and insult! Surely you have thwarted me! All you have to do is say I didn't read the post, and provide some amusing narrative image of me acting like a child.



I didn't miss partially explain, in fact. I'm pretty sure I pointed out because it relates to our gaps in our knowledge of physics. But by all means, insult me and ignore what I said.



Congratulations, you've done nothing but repost. You've pointed out problems with the Standard Model, and most theoretical physicists would agree with you that those are the issues for the Standard Model. I even pointed out it also didn't account for dark matter/energy. No one is going to defend that it's the most perfect theory ever, but rather the best one we have currently.

It's also still has valid parts which are backed up by empirical evidence and observations. That was the point of don't throw the baby out with the bathwater comment.



Please reread my post, and actually respond besides simply acting like I didn't read anything you said.



Then grow thicker skin and stop acting like a victim.



It wasn't. You just reposted criticisms of the Standard Model.

If I may amble into the realm of conjecture, I see a desire by folks who take your view to align themselves with those who they see as cognoscenti, and a huge dollop of fear that they will be seen as uneducated.

"Oh, from you're new favorite book of the week."
To clarify, it's usually four to six books a week.
I didn't think you 'smart' folks would have a problem with books....

Oh. Look. More insults, the only new parts of your reply.

1. You are free to pretend that the argument is not proven, i.e., that science, physics, cosmology, does not use the same mechanisms that theologians use, that would be faith and belief, same has been documented throughout the thread.

2. When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion,” p. 143.

3. "Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality," Richard Feynman remarked in his lectures on turbulence. The remark has been widely quoted. lt is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted: "We cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all hold strong opinions either way."Same source.
That is the argument, right there.

4. And, for you....the 'Tareq and Michaele Salahi Uninvited Appearance ' Award!
I just know you'll be back...or just admit the truth.
You'll be in good company.

This absolutely true,the evidence is interpreted from ones presuppositions even though some have a problem admitting it.

 

[Photonic]

This thread is a farce, just let it die Woy.

The logic is finally sinking in.

Logic is contextual, reason is not.

This thread is unreasonable and even the author knows she is just building a massive strawman in the face of overwhelming physical evidence.

 

[Photonic]

Oh snap. What a clever retort and insult! Surely you have thwarted me! All you have to do is say I didn't read the post, and provide some amusing narrative image of me acting like a child.



I didn't miss partially explain, in fact. I'm pretty sure I pointed out because it relates to our gaps in our knowledge of physics. But by all means, insult me and ignore what I said.



Congratulations, you've done nothing but repost. You've pointed out problems with the Standard Model, and most theoretical physicists would agree with you that those are the issues for the Standard Model. I even pointed out it also didn't account for dark matter/energy. No one is going to defend that it's the most perfect theory ever, but rather the best one we have currently.

It's also still has valid parts which are backed up by empirical evidence and observations. That was the point of don't throw the baby out with the bathwater comment.



Please reread my post, and actually respond besides simply acting like I didn't read anything you said.



Then grow thicker skin and stop acting like a victim.



It wasn't. You just reposted criticisms of the Standard Model.



Oh. Look. More insults, the only new parts of your reply.

1. You are free to pretend that the argument is not proven, i.e., that science, physics, cosmology, does not use the same mechanisms that theologians use, that would be faith and belief, same has been documented throughout the thread.

2. When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion,” p. 143.

3. "Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality," Richard Feynman remarked in his lectures on turbulence. The remark has been widely quoted. lt is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted: "We cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all hold strong opinions either way."Same source.
That is the argument, right there.

4. And, for you....the 'Tareq and Michaele Salahi Uninvited Appearance ' Award!
I just know you'll be back...or just admit the truth.
You'll be in good company.

This absolutely true,the evidence is interpreted from ones presuppositions even though some have a problem admitting it.

She's building a strawman, and your cognitive bias makes you blind to reason.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Altering ones mental state with the use of chemicals is a crime against intelligence.

So in your case, there would be no crime committed....

Of course, since you don't have any to speak of, one miht posit that you have done a significant amount of mental alteration in your time.

Son, if that's your idea of wit, you merely confirm that you're about as bright as a quantum singularity.

Oh well, one cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Enjoy your brainwashed state, I bid you adieu.

You believe things that have never been observed how are you not brainwashed by your reasoning ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

1. You are free to pretend that the argument is not proven, i.e., that science, physics, cosmology, does not use the same mechanisms that theologians use, that would be faith and belief, same has been documented throughout the thread.

2. When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion,” p. 143.

3. "Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality," Richard Feynman remarked in his lectures on turbulence. The remark has been widely quoted. lt is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted: "We cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all hold strong opinions either way."Same source.
That is the argument, right there.

4. And, for you....the 'Tareq and Michaele Salahi Uninvited Appearance ' Award!
I just know you'll be back...or just admit the truth.
You'll be in good company.

This absolutely true,the evidence is interpreted from ones presuppositions even though some have a problem admitting it.

She's building a strawman, and your cognitive bias makes you blind to reason.

I am a very reasonable person and at the same time rational.

 

[Photonic]

So in your case, there would be no crime committed....



Son, if that's your idea of wit, you merely confirm that you're about as bright as a quantum singularity.

Oh well, one cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Enjoy your brainwashed state, I bid you adieu.

You believe things that have never been observed how are you not brainwashed by your reasoning ?

I assume you are speaking (out of your ass) about evolution. Ever had flu medication?

 

[Photonic]

This absolutely true,the evidence is interpreted from ones presuppositions even though some have a problem admitting it.

She's building a strawman, and your cognitive bias makes you blind to reason.

I am a very reasonable person and at the same time rational.

Everyone who is wrong generally thinks they are right in their assertion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. You are free to pretend that the argument is not proven, i.e., that science, physics, cosmology, does not use the same mechanisms that theologians use, that would be faith and belief, same has been documented throughout the thread.

2. When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion,” p. 143.

3. "Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality," Richard Feynman remarked in his lectures on turbulence. The remark has been widely quoted. lt is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted: "We cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all hold strong opinions either way."Same source.
That is the argument, right there.

4. And, for you....the 'Tareq and Michaele Salahi Uninvited Appearance ' Award!
I just know you'll be back...or just admit the truth.
You'll be in good company.

This absolutely true,the evidence is interpreted from ones presuppositions even though some have a problem admitting it.

She's building a strawman, and your cognitive bias makes you blind to reason.

Poor, poor Lightweight....

....the bete noire is standing to his left, and he is afraid of it...so he looks to his right!
That's the basis of his not dealing with item #2 above.

And this guy claims to have gone to college....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh well, one cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Enjoy your brainwashed state, I bid you adieu.

You believe things that have never been observed how are you not brainwashed by your reasoning ?

I assume you are speaking (out of your ass) about evolution. Ever had flu medication?

So, having been thoroughly thrashed on physics, you would like to try your hand at the theory of evolution?

 

[Photonic]

This absolutely true,the evidence is interpreted from ones presuppositions even though some have a problem admitting it.

She's building a strawman, and your cognitive bias makes you blind to reason.

Poor, poor Lightweight....

....the bete noire is standing to his left, and he is afraid of it...so he looks to his right!
That's the basis of his not dealing with item #2 above.

And this guy claims to have gone to college....

This is a bad joke, you two are either really good trolls and I've been an idiot for following along, or you two are serious and my hope in humanity dies a little more.