mymistake Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 So as long as I have been posting my belief in the Christian faith here, it has been dismissed because it cannot be verified by science or evidence. Now I'm being told by many of you that science cannot prove anything. The subtly is lost on you because you were brainwashed to think faith is evidence, religious propaganda is proof and facts are a test of your faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted September 23, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted September 23, 2015 Now I'm being told by many of you that science cannot prove anything. It is confusing, isn't it? http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Exactly, Ironhorse! Hebrews 11 : 1 "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." How can unseen things (accepted as real by faith, not evidence) be absolutely proven by evidence...? How can unseen things (accepted as real by faith, not evidence) be proven to any level of confidence by evidence...? How can these evidence-free (unseen) things be accepted as real by anything other than faith...? . . . Now please honor sdelsolray's and my request and prove just one thing absolutely with science. (not math) No fudging. No equivocation. No dodging. No, "I disagree." Absolute 100% proof. . . . We're waiting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 So as long as I have been posting my belief in the Christian faith here, it has been dismissed because it cannot be verified by science or evidence. ... Your attempt to revise the history of responses to your posts on this forum is noted. You make claims. Others ask you to provide evidence which supports those claims. For example, you have made the claims, "God created sex", and "God created the universe". Others asked you to provide evidence of these bald assertions. You didn't. This pattern has been repeated there dozens and dozens of times. You make a mere assertion. Others ask for evidence. You don't. This deals with rational thinking does not directly involve science. Your claims are dismissed because you provide no evidential support for them. That's the way rational thinking works. Please tell us which branch of science is involved when dealing with your religious faith claims? Biology, physics, geology? For sure, some can indirectly deal with science. For example, if you make the claim, "My God caused a worldwide flood that killed all humans (except eight) about 5,000 years ago", others may present evidence to you that (i) evidence from the geological record indicates that no such flood occurred (because if it did certain other evidence would need to be present in the geological record) or (ii) the fossil, anthropological and genetic record indicates that humans have existed in large numbers uninterrupted on many parts of the planet for hundreds of thousands of years. This same evidence is used to support certain scientific theories, such as plate tectonics, climate history and human population migration, among others. So, besides rejecting your mere assertions because you provide no evidential support, some provide evidence that contradict your claims. Again, that's not science, but rational discourse in operation. ... Now I'm being told by many of you that science cannot prove anything. ... You seem surprised. You have consistently been informed from posters on this forum that science doesn't prove things, but only attempts to provide the best explanation of all available evidence, that it is subject to revision or falsification upon the introduction of new evidence, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 "Science does not prove anything, Ironhorse. It explains to the best fit of the existing evidence. (The S&T article does not talk about proof!)" ~BAA Science can prove and verify many things as absolute fact in our world and universe. You disagree? Please provide one example, just one. And, of course, explain how "science" proves and verifies it. Second request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 So as long as I have been posting my belief in the Christian faith here, it has been dismissed because it cannot be verified by science or evidence. Over and over I have been asked for proof. Now I'm being told by many of you that science cannot prove anything. "Saying "science proves things" is equivalent to saying "Ford is better than Chevy" elsewhere." No, that would be expressing an opinion, not a fact. Science has never proven the existence of the universe. There is certainly evidence to support it, but not proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 I'm with sdelsolray, Ironhorse. Prove just one thing absolutely with science. (Not math) No fudging. No equivocation. No, "I disagree." Absolute 100% proof. *bump* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 “Prove just one thing absolutely with science. (Not math)” This reminds me of the thread where we could not agree on the definition of epicurean. My mistake was using the word absolute. So on this one, I will grant BAA and others here victory in tangling the Christian in a web of a precise play of words. Interesting read on this… .Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything? http://www.ted.com/conversations/18256/truths_and_facts_does_science.html There is a great deal of interest of us in examining claims of ‘truths’ and ‘facts’. In such examination there is a noticeable stress on scientifically proven facts which can be taken as fundamentally true. This is possibly because mathematics is the language of Science and we make mistake thinking mathematical proofs to be reflecting the essence of scientifically proven facts. Does science necessarily prove anything? The way mathematics proves a proposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 My mistake was using the word absolute. No, I think you used it in post #42. Edit: Looks like I got confused by my own name. I now realize you were taking responsibility rather than referring to me. My bad. /edit Anyway wouldn't you agree that the Harry Potter series is not evidence that magic is real? And the Egyptian Book of the Dead is not evidence of an afterlife? Why would the Bible be the word of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 "Why would the Bible be the word of God?" What I view as evidence (this planet and life for example) and the explanation ( I think) the Bible gives for this life and its meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 "Why would the Bible be the word of God?" What I view as evidence (this planet and life for example) and the explanation ( I think) the Bible gives for this life and its meaning. Just about every primitive culture has a creation story. Earth and life would be equal evidence for all of those stories. So every religion is equally valid. Brahma created the ocean. He grew an egg which he split into the sky and earth. P'an Ku lived for 18,000 years in a cosmic egg. When the egg hatched the shell became the earth and sky. These stories must be true because we have all seen the sky and the Earth. Odin killed Ymir and formed the Earth from Ymir's body. It must be true because we know Earth is real. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 “Prove just one thing absolutely with science. (Not math)” This reminds me of the thread where we could not agree on the definition of epicurean. My mistake was using the word absolute. So on this one, I will grant BAA and others here victory in tangling the Christian in a web of a precise play of words. ... It's not so much of a mistake (on your part) as it is a lack of understanding (on your part) of the purview of both (i) rational thinking and (ii) science. Even if you remove the word "absolute" from you prior claim, you still end up with this: "Science can prove and verify many things as fact in our world and universe." This statement still demonstrates a lack of understanding of rational thinking and science. You need to actually study rational thinking and science if you wish to challenge either convincingly. ... Interesting read on this… . Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything? http://www.ted.com/conversations/18256/truths_and_facts_does_science.html There is a great deal of interest of us in examining claims of ‘truths’ and ‘facts’. In such examination there is a noticeable stress on scientifically proven facts which can be taken as fundamentally true. This is possibly because mathematics is the language of Science and we make mistake thinking mathematical proofs to be reflecting the essence of scientifically proven facts. Does science necessarily prove anything? The way mathematics proves a proposition? That weblink is quite uninteresting, IMO. It certainly provides no support for your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 "Why would the Bible be the word of God?" What I view as evidence (this planet and life for example) and the explanation ( I think) the Bible gives for this life and its meaning. Have you ever considered that the Bible is a collection of books gathered by people that had a common goal? You think you have final "Word of God" but what you have is what was decided on when people didn't have the knowledge that we have today. What was it that determined that your Bible is canon? The council of Nicea or something? If you want to restrict yourself to what others thought all those years ago, why limit yourself to the Bible? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 "Why would the Bible be the word of God?" What I view as evidence (this planet and life for example) and the explanation ( I think) the Bible gives for this life and its meaning. And you have be asked (many times) to specify what this (your) evidence is and every time you fail to do so, refuse to do so or couch it in as vague as terms as you can. As per above. Stop dodging and get specific. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 https://curiosity.com/paths/where-did-earths-water-come-from-minuteearth/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_term=0400&utm_content=link&utm_campaign=20150926fbearthswater#where-did-earths-water-come-from-minuteearth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 From where did Enceladus' water come from? https://richarddawkins.net/2015/09/nasa-confirms-that-enceladus-has-a-subsurface-ocean/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 27, 2015 Share Posted September 27, 2015 “Prove just one thing absolutely with science. (Not math)” This reminds me of the thread where we could not agree on the definition of epicurean. My mistake was using the word absolute. So on this one, I will grant BAA and others here victory in tangling the Christian in a web of a precise play of words. Interesting read on this… . Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything? http://www.ted.com/conversations/18256/truths_and_facts_does_science.html There is a great deal of interest of us in examining claims of ‘truths’ and ‘facts’. In such examination there is a noticeable stress on scientifically proven facts which can be taken as fundamentally true. This is possibly because mathematics is the language of Science and we make mistake thinking mathematical proofs to be reflecting the essence of scientifically proven facts. Does science necessarily prove anything? The way mathematics proves a proposition? A re-read of Ironhorse's message leaves me staggered and shocked at what's implied here. . . . That it's not up to him to know the precise meaning of the words he uses. That he will grant us victory for catching him in his imprecise use of words. That provided we don't catch him out like this, it's ok for him to use words any which way he likes. . . . Un...****ing...believable! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted September 27, 2015 Share Posted September 27, 2015 “Prove just one thing absolutely with science. (Not math)” This reminds me of the thread where we could not agree on the definition of epicurean. My mistake was using the word absolute. So on this one, I will grant BAA and others here victory in tangling the Christian in a web of a precise play of words. Interesting read on this… . Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything? http://www.ted.com/conversations/18256/truths_and_facts_does_science.html There is a great deal of interest of us in examining claims of ‘truths’ and ‘facts’. In such examination there is a noticeable stress on scientifically proven facts which can be taken as fundamentally true. This is possibly because mathematics is the language of Science and we make mistake thinking mathematical proofs to be reflecting the essence of scientifically proven facts. Does science necessarily prove anything? The way mathematics proves a proposition? A re-read of Ironhorse's message leaves me staggered and shocked at what's implied here. . . . That it's not up to him to know the precise meaning of the words he uses. That he will grant us victory for catching him in his imprecise use of words. That provided we don't catch him out like this, it's ok for him to use words any which way he likes. . . . Un...****ing...believable! It's quite believable given Ironhorse's track record on this forum. His "play of words" feint involves his use of the word "absolute" as an adjective. No one objected to his definition of that word, or to its use as an adjective. What folks challenged was the mere assertion of his entire sentence: "Science can prove and verify many things as absolute fact in our world and universe." I pointed out above that if the word "absolute" is removed, we are still left with this bald claim: "Science can prove and verify many things as fact in our world and universe." This claim is still worthy of the exact same challenge. And, not surprisingly, Ironhorse has once again ran away and disappeared from this thread and subtopic. So, Ironhorse, after your read this, please provide one example of a fact which science can prove and verify, just one. First request (or third request, depending on how you look at it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 "Science can prove and verify many things as fact in our world and universe."This claim is still worthy of the exact same challenge. And, not surprisingly, Ironhorse has once again ran away and disappeared from this thread and subtopic.So, Ironhorse, after your read this, please provide one example of a fact which science can prove and verify, just one.First request (or third request, depending on how you look at it)." ~ sdelsolray If I hold an apple in my hand and let go, it will fall to the ground. I consider that a fact. Do you deny that scientists do use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested over and over so many times that there is no longer a reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 "Science can prove and verify many things as fact in our world and universe." This claim is still worthy of the exact same challenge. And, not surprisingly, Ironhorse has once again ran away and disappeared from this thread and subtopic. So, Ironhorse, after your read this, please provide one example of a fact which science can prove and verify, just one. First request (or third request, depending on how you look at it)." ~ sdelsolray If I hold an apple in my hand and let go, it will fall to the ground. I consider that a fact. ... OK. You have provided one example of what I would agree is a "fact" (I'll leave aside situations where the apple would not fall to the ground at all, e.g., you are on the ISS, the planet Jupiter is hovering 10 feet above your head, etc.). That's a start. It's an observation. Now finish the matter. How does science prove and verify this fact? ... Do you deny that scientists do use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested over and over so many times that there is no longer a reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples? You don't get to ask questions until you have fully responded. That's how rational discourse works. And a heads up, an explanation is not equivalent to an observation. Explain how science proves or verifies an observed fact. You seem to suggest that because science attempts to explain the fact (e.g., gravity regarding the falling, biochemistry regarding the apple), science therefore proves or verifies the fact. Wrong. The fact is assumed to be true for all scientific purposes (subject to the rule of falsification). Therefore, no need exists for science to "prove" or "verify" the fact. Again, it is assumed to be true in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted October 26, 2015 Author Share Posted October 26, 2015 There's water on the Moon. How did it get there? hmmmm..... http://www.space.com/7328-official-water-moon.html Sorry about the delay, been busy. You absolutely right, I never did consider that water could be another chemical composition than H20. According to the article, "The findings of all three spacecraft "provide unambiguous evidence for the presence of hydroxyl or water," "The Deep Impact observations of the Moon not only unequivocally confirm the presence of [water/hydroxyl] on the lunar surface, but also reveal that the entire lunar surface is hydrated during at least some portion of the lunar day," the authors wrote in their study." I guess they landed at the wrong time of the day, mudding in the space rover would have been a blast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts