Science isn’t always the answer.

[Hollie]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ya? Except most of you don't ACTUALLY use the scientific method and I know over the last 30 years CONSENSUS not tests and verifiable experiments have been how climate change has been approached. We have numerous examples of scientists caught fabricating stuff on Climate Change and making statements like "it is good to scare them".

Yes the scientific method has been used. And consensus is, in the end, the highest level of certainty that science ever achieves since science itself by definition can never be fixed. Everything is always open to new insights.
Claiming otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

Yes, what is taught in science (i.e. what is popular) changes such that older scientific literature is out of date. The same is true of our literature - our older literature is out of date. And the reasons are the same, namely:

Research and the humility to change one's beliefs when research demands it. That is one reason my religion is not tradition bound.

The remarkable thing is that the Bible is much older yet is infallible!

However, that is only true when the observation is accurate or the translation is accurate - i.e. the interpretation is accurate.

What nonsense. Evidence of science truths has nothing to do with popularity but where the evidence points.

What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how frantic and bankrupt they have become.

They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward finding some claimed minor discrepancy or some alleged inconsistency in scientific findings and using that as proof of supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.

The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.

 

[Andylusion]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

That science has yet to determine the origins of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’

As Christians, that is what we believe.

I would not expect you to come to the same conclusion.

However, I do think that those who wish it to not be true, at least be more humble about what they do know, and don't know.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually they do. It's called the hypothesis.

They don't assume the hypothesis is true. They test the truth of it.

How do you test any hypothesis of origins? It is not possible to test a theory of origins. You can claim for example that cosmic noise should exist, and test for the noise.

But the test only proves..... there is noise. Not where it came from, or that it is in fact from the origins of the Universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

nothing to do with popularity but where the evidence points.

He seems to have the entire, 5 or 6 strong toolbox of the ID conmen.

I always get a chuckle out of them trying to speciously use existing research to prove their magical nonsense...then 5 minutes later trying to imply scientific research cannot be trusted, because scientists are liars and cheaters.

 

[forkup]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ya? Except most of you don't ACTUALLY use the scientific method and I know over the last 30 years CONSENSUS not tests and verifiable experiments have been how climate change has been approached. We have numerous examples of scientists caught fabricating stuff on Climate Change and making statements like "it is good to scare them".

Yes the scientific method has been used. And consensus is, in the end, the highest level of certainty that science ever achieves since science itself by definition can never be fixed. Everything is always open to new insights.
Claiming otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

Yes, what is taught in science (i.e. what is popular) changes such that older scientific literature is out of date. The same is true of our literature - our older literature is out of date. And the reasons are the same, namely:

Research and the humility to change one's beliefs when research demands it. That is one reason my religion is not tradition bound.

The remarkable thing is that the Bible is much older yet is infallible!

However, that is only true when the observation is accurate or the translation is accurate - i.e. the interpretation is accurate.

What nonsense. Evidence of science truths has nothing to do with popularity but where the evidence points.

What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how frantic and bankrupt they have become.

They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward finding some claimed minor discrepancy or some alleged inconsistency in scientific findings and using that as proof of supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.

The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.

Absolutely correct. When I first started here I once spend months talking to a creationist. I thought it would be fun. It wasn't, it was incredibly tedious. I used testing methods from every field in science, from astronomy to math, genetics, biology, physics, archeology, etc. etc. He just kept on refusing to acknowledge how untenable his position was and never ever presented anything even remotely resembling a coherent counter-argument.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How do you test any hypothesis of origins?

Of what...the universe? You look at hypothesized initial conditions and what they predict we would see now. Then you go out and look and see if those things are there.

Like, the CMB. If what you find is consistent with the hypothesis, the hypothesis lives another day and you perform more tests.

 

[forkup]

Actually they do. It's called the hypothesis.

They don't assume the hypothesis is true. They test the truth of it.

How do you test any hypothesis of origins? It is not possible to test a theory of origins. You can claim for example that cosmic noise should exist, and test for the noise.

But the test only proves..... there is noise. Not where it came from, or that it is in fact from the origins of the Universe.

Cosmic background noise was theorized before it was found showing an attribute that faith cannot provide. It's predictive. It's also not the only test we have. You can, for instance, look out at the cosmos, and not only will you see that it's expanding but it's expanding in all directions at the same speed.

What science does is provide what is the most likely explanation. It will not ever say it's certain. Only faith claims certainty.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually they do. It's called the hypothesis.

They don't assume the hypothesis is true. They test the truth of it.

How do you test any hypothesis of origins? It is not possible to test a theory of origins. You can claim for example that cosmic noise should exist, and test for the noise.

But the test only proves..... there is noise. Not where it came from, or that it is in fact from the origins of the Universe.

Cosmic background noise was theorized before it was found showing an attribute that faith cannot provide. It's predictive. It's also not the only test we have. You can, for instance, look out at the cosmos, and not only will you see that it's expanding but it's expanding in all directions at the same speed.

What science does is provide what is the most likely explanation. It will not ever say it's certain. Only faith claims certainty.

Well said. Proofs are for mathematics.

And it is weird to watch people of faith attack science this way. What they are trying to do is equate evidence based determinations with faith. But people of faith claim 100% certainty, without evidence. Evidence based determinations are just bets, with a degree of confidence based on available evidence. And that degree is never really 100%. There is just no comparison. These methods do not overlap and are fundamentally incompatible.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually they do. It's called the hypothesis.

They don't assume the hypothesis is true. They test the truth of it.

How do you test any hypothesis of origins? It is not possible to test a theory of origins. You can claim for example that cosmic noise should exist, and test for the noise.

But the test only proves..... there is noise. Not where it came from, or that it is in fact from the origins of the Universe.

Cosmic background noise was theorized before it was found showing an attribute that faith cannot provide. It's predictive. It's also not the only test we have. You can, for instance, look out at the cosmos, and not only will you see that it's expanding but it's expanding in all directions at the same speed.

What science does is provide what is the most likely explanation. It will not ever say it's certain. Only faith claims certainty.

And again, it still does not prove the noise was from the big bang. In fact it proves nothing, except that there is noise.

As for faith not being predictive, I would say the Bible is.

And yes, faith does provide certainty. I am absolutely certain of my faith, and that G-d exists. There is no question in my mind whatsoever. He is as real to me, as you are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually they do. It's called the hypothesis.

They don't assume the hypothesis is true. They test the truth of it.

How do you test any hypothesis of origins? It is not possible to test a theory of origins. You can claim for example that cosmic noise should exist, and test for the noise.

But the test only proves..... there is noise. Not where it came from, or that it is in fact from the origins of the Universe.

Cosmic background noise was theorized before it was found showing an attribute that faith cannot provide. It's predictive. It's also not the only test we have. You can, for instance, look out at the cosmos, and not only will you see that it's expanding but it's expanding in all directions at the same speed.

What science does is provide what is the most likely explanation. It will not ever say it's certain. Only faith claims certainty.

And again, it still does not prove the noise was from the big bang. In fact it proves nothing, except that there is noise.

As for faith not being predictive, I would say the Bible is.

And yes, faith does provide certainty. I am absolutely certain of my faith, and that G-d exists. There is no question in my mind whatsoever. He is as real to me, as you are.

Of course, your subjective belief likewise proves nothing.

And that your faith might ‘provide certainty’ to you doesn’t mean your faith is in anyway ‘certain.’

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And again, it still does not prove the noise was from the big bang

Nobody says it does. You aren't undermining science to say this and, in fact, you are betraying a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

Science works from the preponderance of evidence. So when all the evidence is consistent and mutually supportive (in this case, background radiation, expansion, ratios of elements contained in stars and galaxies vs. their ages, apparent ages of galaxies and stars, and more), then scientists will say something like this:

"All the available evidence points to the likelihood that there was an early inflationary period in our universe."

And there you have it. There is your big "dictation of absolute truth" that you are imagining is something else. So, try to assail it, instead of whatever strawmen you are inventing.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually they do. It's called the hypothesis.

They don't assume the hypothesis is true. They test the truth of it.

How do you test any hypothesis of origins? It is not possible to test a theory of origins. You can claim for example that cosmic noise should exist, and test for the noise.

But the test only proves..... there is noise. Not where it came from, or that it is in fact from the origins of the Universe.

Cosmic background noise was theorized before it was found showing an attribute that faith cannot provide. It's predictive. It's also not the only test we have. You can, for instance, look out at the cosmos, and not only will you see that it's expanding but it's expanding in all directions at the same speed.

What science does is provide what is the most likely explanation. It will not ever say it's certain. Only faith claims certainty.

And again, it still does not prove the noise was from the big bang. In fact it proves nothing, except that there is noise.

As for faith not being predictive, I would say the Bible is.

And yes, faith does provide certainty. I am absolutely certain of my faith, and that G-d exists. There is no question in my mind whatsoever. He is as real to me, as you are.

Of course, your subjective belief likewise proves nothing.

And that your faith might ‘provide certainty’ to you doesn’t mean your faith is in anyway ‘certain.’

Right, I'm not trying to prove anything to you.

And my faith is entirely certain. Whether you think it is or not, doesn't matter to me. I know it is. I know G-d is real. I'm not trying to get your approval... I'm telling you what I know for a fact to be true.
What you make of that, is your business. Not mine.

 

[Andylusion]

And again, it still does not prove the noise was from the big bang

Nobody says it does. You aren't undermining science to say this and, in fact, you are betraying a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

Science works from the preponderance of evidence. So when all the evidence is consistent and mutually supportive (in this case, background radiation, expansion, ratios of elements contained in stars and galaxies vs. their ages, apparent ages of galaxies and stars, and more), then scientists will say something like this:

"All the available evidence points to the likelihood that there was an early inflationary period in our universe."

And there you have it. There is your big "dictation of absolute truth" that you are imagining is something else. So, try to assail it, instead of whatever strawmen you are inventing.

Right, I get that. The problem is, people make a leap from "all the evidence suggests" to.... "This is scientifically proven fact". No, it's not proven fact. You have a theory, and your interpretation of the data, supports your theory.

But that does not prove anything.

And don't tell me, that people are not saying such and such is proven... they do it all the time.

Now if every single scientist, and every single supporter of those theories, said exactly what you said here..... "points to the likelihood"... then I would never have an argument.

Fact is, many say "This proves", and the answer is.. no it does not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The problem is, people make a leap from "all the evidence suggests" to.... "This is scientifically proven fact".

Proofs are for mathematics. Science can't prove anything. It can just lead us to accept things as facts when any other idea would be absurd or magical. These are bets that we make.

For example, evolution. We can safely accept it as a fact, just as we can safely accept as fact that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. For brevity and in the interest of getting to the ends of our sentences, we can safely call these things facts instead of, "All but proven, extremely likely, supported by all of the mutually supportive evidence across every field of science", etc.

But this is colloquialism. You wont find them called "facts" in a scientific research paper.

 

[Andylusion]

The problem is, people make a leap from "all the evidence suggests" to.... "This is scientifically proven fact".

Proofs are for mathematics. Science can't prove anything. It can just lead us to accept things as facts when any other idea would be absurd or magical. These are bets that we make.

For example, evolution. We can safely accept it as a fact, just as we can safely accept as fact that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. For brevity and in the interest of getting to the ends of our sentences, we can safely call these things facts instead of, "All but proven, extremely likely, supported by all of the mutually supportive evidence across every field of science", etc.

But this is the colloquialism. You wont find them called "facts" in a scientific research paper.

For example, evolution. We can safely accept it as a fact

No. Show me one clear transition species. In fact you should be able to show me millions of transitional species, but you can't.

Earth is about 4.54 billion years old

No. Prove it.

extremely likely, supported by all of the mutually supportive evidence across every field of science

No. It's either fact, or it isn't.
If I take a DNA sample, of you and a baby, I can prove conclusively, that you are, or are not the father.

Can you prove conclusively the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Show me one clear transition species

Define what one would look like, first. Be very specific, so you don't waste my time.

. Prove it.

Oops, you did it again. We don't "prove" these things. We gather evidence until any other explanation is absurd or magical. And there is so much evidence of the determined age of the earth that no other, viable explanation exists that is not magical. You are free to contradict that by forming and testing your own hypothesis. Do you have one that explains the observations? I will wager that you do not.

So again, your demands for "proof!" notwithstanding, what evidence would compel you to determine the earth is 4.54 billion years old? Again, be very specific, so that you don't waste my time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The problem is, people make a leap from "all the evidence suggests" to.... "This is scientifically proven fact".

Proofs are for mathematics. Science can't prove anything. It can just lead us to accept things as facts when any other idea would be absurd or magical. These are bets that we make.

For example, evolution. We can safely accept it as a fact, just as we can safely accept as fact that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. For brevity and in the interest of getting to the ends of our sentences, we can safely call these things facts instead of, "All but proven, extremely likely, supported by all of the mutually supportive evidence across every field of science", etc.

But this is the colloquialism. You wont find them called "facts" in a scientific research paper.

For example, evolution. We can safely accept it as a fact

No. Show me one clear transition species. In fact you should be able to show me millions of transitional species, but you can't.

Earth is about 4.54 billion years old

No. Prove it.

extremely likely, supported by all of the mutually supportive evidence across every field of science

No. It's either fact, or it isn't.
If I take a DNA sample, of you and a baby, I can prove conclusively, that you are, or are not the father.

Can you prove conclusively the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old?

We can prove it is more then 6 or 7 thousand years old. Science does that. Anyone claiming the earth is only 6 or 7 thousand years old based on a Mans interpretation of the bible is a babbling idiot. As for conclusive NO science does not prove much it assumes things and some appear to be true and some do not. The problem I have with climate change being man made is the simple fact NO one has ACTUALLY done anything to prove it they claim things they have not done testing or experiments for all based on flawed things like computer models, EVERY single computer model has been PROVEN to be false. More importantly according to the scientific method if a computer model could accurately determine the future of climate change then you could go back and show that it aligns with what happened in the past and NO ONE can do that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We can prove it is more then 6 or 7 thousand years old. Science does

False. Science just produces so much evidence that we are compelled to accept that as true and move on. The evidence it is 4.54 bil years old is just as robust.

NO science does not prove much

Science doesn't "prove" anything. When you claim it does, you disqualify yourself from the discussion as fundamentally and completely misunderstanding science and its method.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We can prove it is more then 6 or 7 thousand years old. Science does

False. Science just produces so much evidence that we are compelled to accept that as true and move on. The evidence it is 4.54 bil years old is just as robust.

NO science does not prove much

Science doesn't "prove" anything. When you claim it does, you disqualify yourself from the discussion as fundamentally and completely misunderstanding science and its method.

LOL and yet YOU never correct your buddies when ever they make the claim science proves shit. there are tons of lefties on this board that have stated that science PROVES things like global warming is man made that the earth is x years old, that the life began because of and so on and YOU have NEVER ONCE told them they are wrong EVER.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LOL and yet YOU never correct your buddies when ever they make the claim science proves shit.

False. I wold correct anyone who is saying science proves something, when it is germane to their arguments. Complaining about me doesn't advance your position or lend any credibility to your false claims.