1 edit
Originally posted by e4chris
There is muslim science tho, the early muslims were brilliant at it. Also where science does not have an explanation god is valid, Hawking said something like that.
There is muslim science tho, the early muslims were brilliant at it
Yes, there was much science done by early Muslims that was brilliant (I assume that is what you meant by "muslim science"?) but not because they were Muslims but, rather, despite of them being theists. Theism really gets in the way of science.
Also where science does not have an explanation god is valid,
No, where science does not have an explanation, we have no explanation; and that's it; no need for superstition just because of ignorance of the truth.
There was a time when science had no explanation for the colours of the rainbow -was god 'valid' then? We now know the law of diffraction -no god involved.
When one does not know, it is stupid to explain it away with a god. Much more intelligent and honest to just humbly admit ignorance.
Hawking said something like that.
Actually, he didn't. Although he did make an awful lot of very silly quotes I admit.
Its interesting that this creationist debate seems less of a problem for muslims, I had a discussion with one and he was very creationist, 'look at your hand, how can that not be made by god' . but they have no problem with science and were always good at it, much better then christians to start with...
3 edits
Originally posted by e4chrisHell, Yes, it's always a healthy sign
I guess many of you will say no.
But to me the skeptisim they have of theories like evolution is healthy, dare i say it almost scientific, almost, a prove me wrong attitude can be good in science.
It says in a brief history of time that the universe sits on top of four turtles, so i think there is room for creationist ideas in science, you would have a hard time proving them but trying is healthy i think.
Anyway, your thoughts?
(without robust expression of contradictory
points of view, kiss freedoms good by).
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-31.html
.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyCreationists go beyond skepticism. They are out to destroy truth not find it. How could they possibly work in evolution when they *KNOW* the truth. They would ONLY be interested in shooting down evolution not advancing it.
[b]Hell, Yes, it's always a healthy sign
(without robust expression of contradictory
points of view, kiss freedoms good by).
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-31.html
.[/b]
Skepticism is a great thing for finding truth, eventually. It keeps people on their toes scientifically speaking, keeps hoaxers at bay, they get found out eventually.
If you think you have real data refuting some scientific principle, you pursue it. Creationists use old outdated information as if it were the latest thing, knowing full will in advance what they are doing, which is specifically a political game, convince people by BS arguments that lay persons cannot see through, thinking they must be telling the truth when in fact they knowingly twist facts to suit their sinister purposes. They ARE sinister you know. Sly is another word for them.
They would love nothing more than driving us back 200 years where that pesky evolution is outlawed, and geology is driven back to a time before Leonardo Da Vinci (he was the dude who started us on the road to figuring out continental drift among many other things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_inventions_of_Leonardo_da_Vinci#Geology)
Even Lenny knew the seashells he found in the mountains could not have come from da big ass flood creationists are so fond of touting.
Originally posted by sonhouseAs always, since several years ago, I respect you and your point of view.
Creationists go beyond skepticism. They are out to destroy truth not find it. How could they possibly work in evolution when they *KNOW* the truth. They would ONLY be interested in shooting down evolution not advancing it.
Skepticism is a great thing for finding truth, eventually. It keeps people on their toes scientifically speaking, keeps hoaxers at ba ...[text shortened]... in the mountains could not have come from da big ass flood creationists are so fond of touting.
3 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyOK its not perfect, but i think it unfair to pigeon hole certain people out of science for their beliefs. When i studied science at uni I quickly found out how little they know, It might of been a prank but they wheeled in this professor halfway through a lecture, who told us there was no proof of a chemical bond, the only thing they can tell is the atoms are close to one another. There are lots of theories but no proof (?)... Its not perfect but I'll work with it theories are very common in science..
[b]Hell, Yes, it's always a healthy sign
(without robust expression of contradictory
points of view, kiss freedoms good by).
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-31.html
.[/b]
Originally posted by e4chrisSorry but unsure I'm catching your drift.
OK its not perfect, but i think it unfair to pigeon hole certain people out of science for their beliefs. When i studied science at uni I quickly found out how little they know, It might of been a prank but they wheeled in this professor halfway through a lecture, who told us there was no proof of a chemical bond, the only thing they can tell is the atoms ar ...[text shortened]... but no proof (?)... Its not perfect but I'll work with it theories are very common in science..
Originally posted by e4chrisThere is no proof in science. Even the so called laws are just theories dressed up as cast iron laws. A theory can come to be accepted as being as close to proved as you like but that is just down to the weight of supporting evidence.
OK its not perfect, but i think it unfair to pigeon hole certain people out of science for their beliefs. When i studied science at uni I quickly found out how little they know, It might of been a prank but they wheeled in this professor halfway through a lecture, who told us there was no proof of a chemical bond, the only thing they can tell is the atoms ar ...[text shortened]... but no proof (?)... Its not perfect but I'll work with it theories are very common in science..
Bearing this in mind, chemical bonds have not been proved to exist. The evidence supports the theory that chemical bonds exist but you could just as easily suggest that very small goblins are holding the atoms close together. How you would find evidence to support that theory would be the problem. To start with you would have to find evidence for goblins!
1 edit
Originally posted by KeplerYes thats what Hawking says... saying goblins are holding together chemical bonds, and the universe sits on four turtles is fine because in truth science has nothing better on those subjects
There is no proof in science. Even the so called laws are just theories dressed up as cast iron laws. A theory can come to be accepted as being as close to proved as you like but that is just down to the weight of supporting evidence.
Bearing this in mind, chemical bonds have not been proved to exist. The evidence supports the theory that chemical bonds ex ...[text shortened]... ort that theory would be the problem. To start with you would have to find evidence for goblins!
11 edits
Originally posted by Kepler(my post here is really for e4chris because all of the below would probably be all just trite to you) -
There is no proof in science. Even the so called laws are just theories dressed up as cast iron laws. A theory can come to be accepted as being as close to proved as you like but that is just down to the weight of supporting evidence.
Bearing this in mind, chemical bonds have not been proved to exist. The evidence supports the theory that chemical bonds ex ...[text shortened]... ort that theory would be the problem. To start with you would have to find evidence for goblins!
Excluding mathematical/deductive proofs, I would agree there is no absolute proofs in science but there is still scientific proofs for when the weight of evidence for a theory is such that no completely rational or sane person knowing the evidence would think there was more than a vanishingly small probability of it being wrong then such evidence is scientific proof by definition.
Examples of such proven theories are: the Earth is round and not flat; evolution; CO2 global warming; the existence of chemical bonds; the law of diffraction.
Only a person who is either ignorant of the relevant evidence or a less than completely rational could think any of the above theories has more than a vanishingly small probability of being wrong thus they are scientifically proven theories.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyYou can't put chemical bonds in with the world being round , they are definately not proved in that way... no one has ever seen one, its pretty much impossible to do so. Its taken for granted they exist yes, but the proof is sketchy, as with most things in science where you can't see it...
Excluding mathematical/deductive proofs, I would agree there is no absolute proofs in science but there is still scientific proofs for when the weight of evidence for a theory is such that no completely rational or sane person knowing the evidence would think there was more than a vanishingly small probability of it being wrong then such evidence ...[text shortened]... han a vanishingly small probability of being wrong thus they are scientifically proven theories.
and trite? backing up simple ideas is an important thing, most people just take them for granted. in business, fraud i did quite well just backing up simple ideas.
2 edits
Originally posted by e4chrisRubbish! Indirect observation can and often is proof!
You can't put chemical bonds in with the world being round , they are definately not proved in that way... no one has ever seen one, its pretty much impossible to do so. Its taken for granted they exist yes, but the proof is sketchy, as with most things in science where you can't see it...
You don't have to see it with your very eyes for it to be scientific proof.
Any sane person would no that. I have never directly seen with my own eyes the round Earth -only pictures of it. And prior to some people going into space, nobody else did either. And yet it was a proven scientific fact that the Earth was round and not flat well before the first person actually directly saw it with his own eyes thanks to indirect observations proving it round. Do you deny this?
2 edits
Originally posted by humyMaybe I'm not a sane person, but i do have to see something with my own eyes to believe it, anything else is just a theory, quite possibly a lie, and again that has served me quite well.
Rubbish! Indirect observation can and often is proof!
You don't have to see it with your very eyes for it to be scientific proof.
Any sane person would no that. I have never directly seen with my own eyes the round Earth -only pictures of it. And prior to some people going into space, nobody else did either. And it was a proven scientific fact that the ...[text shortened]... it with his own eyes thanks to indirect observations proving it round. Do you deny this?
I'm not saying a chemical bond does not exist, a professor told us that. I would of probably took them for granted had he not.
2 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
Maybe I'm not a sane person, but i do have to see something with my own eyes to believe it, anything else is just a theory, quite possibly a lie, and again that has served me quite well.
I'm not saying a chemical bond does not exist, a professor told us that. I would of probably took them for granted had he not.
but i do have to see something with my own eyes to believe it, anything else is just a theory,
Have you seen the round earth with your own eyes rather than just pictures? If not, is a round-Earth “just a theory”? (i.e. not scientifically proven)
I'm not saying a chemical bond does not exist, a professor told us that.
A “ professor told us that” is not seeing it with your own eyes -so is chemical bonds existing “just a theory”? (i.e. not scientifically proven)