Posted: Jan 25, 2015 2:12 pm
by Nebogipfel
carl wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:
carl wrote:
BTW, will those studies actually claiming to confirm the origin of the universe (as if !) contain the words: "possibly", "maybe", "we propose", "it seems likely", "could", "should", "might", "in all likelihood", "theorize", etc.. ?

I doubt if any study will authoritatively claim to confirm the origins of the universe. We leave the delusions of 100% certainty to religion.

We need to discern what is speculative and what is confirmative.

We can and we do. It's called science. You should learn about it.

We ought never to confuse true science with speculation.

We don't, or at least those who understand what true science is, don't. True science is just the scientific method properly and conscientiously applied, and that turns out to be a great tool for distinguishing speculation that is on the right track from speculation that isn't.

For example, to put modern medicine alongside the theory of abiogenesis is very deceiving. It is a deceitful practice of many skeptics and atheists on the internet.

Modern medicine and abiogenesis research are underpinned by the same scientific methodology: formulation of a hypothesis (usually from speculation), making predictions from the hypothesis, confirming or disconfirming those predictions by means of experiement, peer review and reproduction of experimental results. If the predictions of your hypothesis are not confirmed by experiement, then you have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better hypothesis. There's no shame in this; this is how science works.

If you're going to reject evolutionary biology and cosmology as "false science", then you also have to reject the science that underpins you computer, your television, your microwave, the internal combustion engine in your car, your refrigerator, the prescription antibiotics you take when you get an infection, the surgical procedure you'll undergo if you have a burst appendix - that all relys on the same methodological framework, so they must also be "fake science" and unfounded speculation, right? Of course, they aren't, and niether is cosmology, evolutionary biology and all the rest of it.

Now, "we" don't know for sure how life arose on the Earth. But we do know that many of the basic building blocks of living things are just lying around in the solar system, or can be made by natural processes. So it's really not a huge leap of either imagination or credibility to envision Darwin's "warm little pool" on the early earth. It certainly makes a lot more sense than "goddidit". Why's that? Well, here are three short articles by Stephen Law that explain it quite well:

But it fits!
The Vision Thing and the Tinfoil Hat
The strange case of the car-stealing elves

This is what happens when we are overly impresses with those who have PhDs in some field of pseudoscience (not science) when they discuss their theory of abiogenesis, theory of evolution, theory of cosmology, theory of......

:picard: oh dear, red herring, straw man, smear and ad hom all rolled into one nasty bogey of fail :nono:

Do you actually know anything about evolutionary biology or cosmology which entitles you to smear those fields as pseudoscience?
Do you know actually know what the word pseudoscience means?
It means fake science, counterfeit science - stuff that pretends to be science, but does not follow the methodology.

This is a near-perfect description of creationism. All the effort that the folks at Answers in Genesis waste on trying to browbeat what true science has discovered about the age of the earth and the origin of species to fit what their religious ideology needs to be true about the world. They're no better than Lysenko

Here's the thing that you still don't seem to understand. "We" aren't impressed just because someone puts PhD after their name, or styles themselves "Professor". "We" are more impressed by what they have done to earn that title, and whether what they say makes sense and is supported by the evidence.

If you ask me, this is the fundamental difference between science and religion. Science knows when it's wrong. Science is happy to be wrong, because that's when it learns stuff.

Religion doesn't even know when it's wrong!. Religion can't even know when it's wrong.

Unfortunately, what we don't understand is that immense topics such as the origin of the universe or the origin of life are out of our reach to scientifically confirm,

You know this how?

leaving us with speculation about that which occurred in ancient history. There is no way to apply the scientific method - or any other scientific method - to confirm such theories, leaving us with the dubious position of placing our faith in those whom we listen to, with their grand theories and presuppositions.

This is quite simply rubbish. I'll repeat my previous advice: Learn something about the subject before you start spouting off about it. Try visiting your local library. There are any number of good books explaining different areas of science. Here's a very short and accessible one, if now a little dated.

This is why Jesus said: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Sound adivce. Try going through the narrow gate of learning something about what science has to say about the age of the earth and the origin of species, rather than taking the broad road of just accepting what some charlatan at Answers in Genesis say because it's what you want to hear.

The level of our education has nothing to do with the condition of our heart. We can have ten PhDs but if we're bent away from God, we're on the road to destruction, as well as those who foolishly listen to them.

You know this how?

NO faulty HUMAN BEING will ever be able to tell us, with CERTAINTY, the origins of our universe or origin of life, through ANY technology.

And yet you believe the faulty HUMAN BEINGS who tell you, with CERTAINTY, the origins of our universe or origin of life, based on the Bible. Why is that?

If they try to tell us so, they are not a braniac but a megalomaniac.

An apt description of charlatans like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort.

It should never cease to amaze us how much stretching of the truth, exaggeration, and extravagance of the claims we see in the media today. Every pseudoscientist wants to be in the limelight, and there are throngs of armchair science-fiction fans out there to satisfy their ridiculous egos.

Yes, which is why quacks, pseudoscientists and armchair science-fiction fans don't get published in Nature. The scientific method weeds them out.

The fact that you seem to regard the disciplines of cosmology, geology, genetics and evolutionary biology as pseudosciences practiced by charlatans just demonstrates that you don't even know how much you don't know.

Seriously, you are like a man at a busy airport smugly lecturing a group of pilots and aeronautical engineers on how heavier-than-air flight is a pseudosicence and it's practitioners are charlatans who are just in it for the money and the ego.

1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

Who are these megalomaniacs? Name names, and back up these smears with evidence. Or STFU.

Habakkuk 2
See, he is puffed up; his desires are not upright--but the righteous will live by his faith.

Psalm 10: The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God...

Yeah, we know you think people who don't follow your religion are bad people. Same old same old. Try reading more than one book. :coffee:

1 Timothy
Avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called...

Oh, for fuck's sake.. :nono:

Ach, you know, this constant smearing of people who disagree with your religion as being moral defectives is just getting nauseating now. I'm actually think the "no preaching" rule is a little harshly enforced on this board, but this constant regurgitation of Bible verses and smearing of people who are actually figuring out how the world really works is crossing the line.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—W. Kaempffert.

Oh, so you're impressed by scientists when they say stuff you agree with? Nice double standard you have there. :nono: