# Good News Christians!



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2015)

Based on this do you in fact believe Science has discovered the Christian God?
Do you see any flaws in what he claims as proof?


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Based on this do you in fact believe Science has discovered the Christian God?


No



WaltL1 said:


> Do you see any flaws in what he claims as proof?


Yes. It fails to show that God is the true cause, instead of an infinite number of other possibilities. It commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Also, if science could indeed discover God, the God of the Bible would not exist.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 11, 2015)

> Also, if science could indeed discover God, the God of the Bible would not exist.



Not saying I disagree.  But could you expound on that a bit for me?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 11, 2015)

They could use that same satellite to take images of the earth and disprove the Christian God's word that the Earth was flat.
They could use Science to explain a rainbow to discredit God's Word. 
I don't see where one more explanation of God using science is necessary.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> No
> 
> 
> Yes. It fails to show that God is the true cause, instead of an infinite number of other possibilities. It commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
> ...


I agree with you. And this wasn't a trick question. I found several flaws in it and am basically checking myself that Im not viewing it through Agnostic "blinders".
Other things I questioned -
He basically stated as fact that something can be created from nothing. That in itself removes the need of a God to do anything.
He described the attributes of the "laws" and then assigned the name God to them. Those "laws" cant have a son or be a Trinity etc etc.
And worth mentioning is he didn't even hiccup when describing each of the vertical lines being another billion years and there were about a dozen vertical lines. Doesn't exactly line up with what is in the Bible. 


> Also, if science could indeed discover God, the God of the Bible would not exist.


I think I agree with that also. Science may discover the beginning or whether there even was a beginning or not etc but Im not sure how science would discover an actual God unless he is sitting up there in some physical form.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 11, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> They could use that same satellite to take images of the earth and disprove the Christian God's word that the Earth was flat.



Does the God of the Bible declare the earth is flat?



Artfuldodger said:


> They could use Science to explain a rainbow to discredit God's Word.



Not if your asking "how who dun it."



Artfuldodger said:


> I don't see where one more explanation of God using science is necessary.



See above comment.  Science and God are not incompatible.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 11, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Does the God of the Bible declare the earth is flat?
> 
> Not if your asking "how who dun it."
> 
> See above comment.  Science and God are not incompatible.



I agree that Science and God are compatible. I believe this with all my heart. In the Bible men believed and thought with their hearts. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                The Bible says the earth has four corners.  
Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is a circle. I guess it could be a flat circle or flat square or flat rectangle.
I've always been taught that early man thought it was flat. Christopher Columbus didn't think so.

God reveals mysteries and truths to us at different times in our history. A mystery is just something that hasn't been revealed yet. It has now been revealed that we think with our brains and that the earth is a oblate spheroid. 
Circles and ovals are 2-dimensional figures. 

One day all of the mysteries of the universe will be revealed by God. God might even uses science to reveal these mysteries as he did about thinking with our brains and how rainbows work.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Does the God of the Bible declare the earth is flat?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Talk about that one a little more if you would JB.
Im not sure I disagree but Im also having a hard time agreeing.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Feb 11, 2015)

No doubt science is making things very difficult for atheists.      Origin of Life folks are getting more and more frustrated as they learn there is no such thing as the fabled "simple cell".     Odds of life appearing by chance.....1 in 10 to the 150th power.  

Also, the fact that the universe looks to have had a beginning is something that atheists have to deal with.   Something has a beginning, it has a cause.   It would have been better if the  universe looked to have always been here.   

Missed you guys.....    good to see the AAA is alive and well. 

Bandy


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Talk about that one a little more if you would JB.
> Im not sure I disagree but Im also having a hard time agreeing.



It's the same concept I often discuss on here.  Scientific discovery is often viewed as a way to explain away the necessity of God.   You guys often say science elliminates the gaps that God fills.  I personally don't think God exists in the gaps, and I see science as a way of understanding the mechanics of creation.  I don't fear science for these reasons.  This is just how it's done.  My belief in God is on a very basic premise that this (existence) didn't happen on it's own because the natural order of everything is cyclical in nature, from beginning to end.

I look at it similar to my biologist friend (who declined my invite to come on here and share her perspective).  The more we learn about existence (scientific discovery), the more amazing creation becomes.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> No doubt science is making things very difficult for atheists.      Origin of Life folks are getting more and more frustrated as they learn there is no such thing as the fabled "simple cell".     Odds of life appearing by chance.....1 in 10 to the 150th power.
> 
> Also, the fact that the universe looks to have had a beginning is something that atheists have to deal with.   Something has a beginning, it has a cause.   It would have been better if the  universe looked to have always been here.
> 
> ...



The odds of life appearing by chance... 1 in 10 to the 150th power. 
AGREED!
For a ONE TIME TRY!
Now take billions of tries per hour in the right conditions for a couple billion years.

We all know jackpots have big odds but we also know when people hit them it can be on the 1st...50th....millionth try. They are not always on the last try of the odds given.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Feb 11, 2015)

lol   Bullet, I see you're still making the same logic mistakes.   There was no 'trying'....no purpose involved.   Life in its extreme complexity would have been pure luck.    chemicals had no desire to be anything but chemicals.

You do admit that it was all just incredible against-all-odds luck, right?


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> No doubt science is making things very difficult for atheists.      Origin of Life folks are getting more and more frustrated as they learn there is no such thing as the fabled "simple cell".     Odds of life appearing by chance.....1 in 10 to the 150th power.
> 
> Also, the fact that the universe looks to have had a beginning is something that atheists have to deal with.   Something has a beginning, it has a cause.   It would have been better if the  universe looked to have always been here.
> 
> ...


Apparently you didnt watch the video.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> It's the same concept I often discuss on here.  Scientific discovery is often viewed as a way to explain away the necessity of God.   You guys often say science elliminates the gaps that God fills.  I personally don't think God exists in the gaps, and I see science as a way of understanding the mechanics of creation.  I don't fear science for these reasons.  This is just how it's done.  My belief in God is on a very basic premise that this (existence) didn't happen on it's own because the natural order of everything is cyclical in nature, from beginning to end.
> 
> I look at it similar to my biologist friend (who declined my invite to come on here and share her perspective).  The more we learn about existence (scientific discovery), the more amazing creation becomes.





> I see science as a way of understanding the mechanics of creation.


I completely agree.
But to me that makes science and creation compatible.
Obviously you equate creation to God.
But science doesn't.
But yes I can see how you could say they are compatible.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 11, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Not saying I disagree.  But could you expound on that a bit for me?


The Bible says that "God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom".


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2015)

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal Godhead; so that they are without excuse.Rom.1:20


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   Bullet, I see you're still making the same logic mistakes.   There was no 'trying'....no purpose involved.   Life in its extreme complexity would have been pure luck.    chemicals had no desire to be anything but chemicals.
> 
> You do admit that it was all just incredible against-all-odds luck, right?



No actually I am not making any logic mistakes.
You are right that nothing was trying for life.  But you overlook that the chemicals and matter that were available on this planet at some point were in the right habitat or conditions. These things were here. They were here for billions of years and at some point conditions were ripe for them to produce something else.
There were large quantities of elements and chemicals and energy available for billions of years.

You have been gone a while so you missed the latest discussions on this subject.
But the case was made that life was not a miracle..it was inevitable.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal Godhead; so that they are without excuse.Rom.1:20



Evangelizing is a few floors up.
If verses meant anything to you wouldn't cherry pick to suit but follow them all to the T.
If verses meant anything to us we wouldn't have these discussions.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2015)

Life was a miracle.It was breathed into Adam by God Himself.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal Godhead; so that they are without excuse.Rom.1:20


Personally Im hoping you are going to use the brain God gave you at some point in these discussions.
You seem like a good guy but regurgitation of scripture doesn't tell us squat other than instead of thinking you regurgitate scripture.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Life was a miracle.It was breathed into Adam by God Himself.



I wish I could reply to that as I normally would in person or without censors on.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I wish I could reply to that as I normally would in person or without censors on.



Whoa.haha.no need to get all carnal on us now.ha


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> The Bible says that "God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom".



^This is being proven every day on this forum.^


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2015)

"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools"

"The fool hath said in his heart,'there is no God' "


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools"
> 
> "The fool hath said in his heart,'there is no God' "



You'll make multiple ignore lists soon if you can't converse.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2015)

bullethead said:


> You'll make multiple ignore lists soon if you can't converse.



^Oh well.^

"Answer a fool according to his folly"


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> ^Oh well.^
> 
> "Answer a fool according to his folly"



Best read the rules too.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> ^Oh well.^
> 
> "Answer a fool according to his folly"


Let me guess - you had love in your heart when you said this right?


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Let me guess - you had love in your heart when you said this right?



These are not my words.they were written by Solomon but inspired by God (your creator)


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> These are not my words.they were written by Solomon but inspired by God (your creator)


For what it is worth, I found it to be refreshing. After all, it is the Christian thing to say.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> These are not my words.they were written by Solomon but inspired by God (your creator)


Yes Im aware of where it came from. I definitely wasn't accusing you of having said something of your own.
But of all the things you could have replied you chose it.
And my mother and father are my creator and I can prove it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> For what it is worth, I found it to be refreshing. After all, it is the Christian thing to say.


It surely was.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 11, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> It has now been revealed that we think with our brains


I would take that challenge.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal Godhead; so that they are without excuse.Rom.1:20



Are you using this verse to support total depravity or election? 
If man can't use his own wisdom to know God why are we  without excuse?


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Are you using this verse to support total depravity or election?
> If man can't use his own wisdom to know God why are we  without excuse?



Neither. 
Art, you really should read the whole 1st chapter of Romans to get the whole context.
It's basicly saying that those things of creation,which are clearly seen of ALL people, which are being held or suppressed (vs.18).That the wrath of God will be revealed against those who suppress this truth (atheists who don't repent).


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Are you using this verse to support total depravity or election?
> If man can't use his own wisdom to know God why are we  without excuse?





welderguy said:


> Neither.
> Art, you really should read the whole 1st chapter of Romans to get the whole context.
> It's basicly saying that those things of creation,which are clearly seen of ALL people, which are being held or suppressed (vs.18).That the wrath of God will be revealed against those who suppress this truth (atheists who don't repent).



It's really just funny that you guys can have this discussion down here, where it absolutely doesn't belong, without the thread getting locked down.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It's really just funny that you guys can have this discussion down here, where it absolutely doesn't belong, without the thread getting locked down.



I think it is a tactic used to get threads locked down.
Break the rules and let everyone else suffer.
I'd rather see posts deleted or really, guys just make those posts in the forums where they are intended, instead of entire good threads being locked down.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It's really just funny that you guys can have this discussion down here, where it absolutely doesn't belong, without the thread getting locked down.


I actually think its a good thing.
If there is no name calling or threats or people losing their mind it shouldn't be locked down.
We cover a lot of ground in here under the heading of one subject and personally I think that leeway is a good thing.
We would have 20 different threads going on at once if we were sticklers about staying on specific topics.
However I do agree that the OP basically owns the thread and has the right to guide things back on topic or kill the thread etc.
That's my opinion but you know what they say opinions are like...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 12, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It's really just funny that you guys can have this discussion down here, where it absolutely doesn't belong, without the thread getting locked down.



In post 14 the discussion shifted towards if science could support God, if God and science were compatible? This was actually still part of the op.
Then is was suggested that man's wisdom even using science could not find God. This could be related to man being totally depraved. It's a basic Christian concept.
In post 16, Welderguy responds with Romans 1:20.
I didn't know how he was using it in relation to the OP but I'm guessing it had something to do with man's depravity, that even with science man will never find God.
If man is totally depraved, he will never find God even with science. This is related to the OP.
Romans 1:20 says that more or less the whole world knows God from the invisible things of his creation. This appears to contradict total depravity by saying "we are without excuse."

The OP is asking if Science proves God's existence.
Gem says man using science will never find God. To go one step farther, man will never find God.

(from the Judge; Ok, I'll allow it this time but watch it, your skating on thin ice counselor.)


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I think it is a tactic used to get threads locked down.
> Break the rules and let everyone else suffer.
> I'd rather see posts deleted or really, guys just make those posts in the forums where they are intended, instead of entire good threads being locked down.





WaltL1 said:


> I actually think its a good thing.
> If there is no name calling or threats or people losing their mind it shouldn't be locked down.
> We cover a lot of ground in here under the heading of one subject and personally I think that leeway is a good thing.
> We would have 20 different threads going on at once if we were sticklers about staying on specific topics.
> ...




I don't mind it too, too much.  It's good to see people discussing things without getting all bent out of shape.  It's just funny to me how they have found a place here amongst the heathens to be able to have such a discussion.  It makes me wonder what it is about upstairs that doesn't allow civil discussion. 



Artfuldodger said:


> In post 14 the discussion shifted towards if science could support God, if God and science were compatible? This was actually still part of the op.
> Then is was suggested that man's wisdom even using science could not find God. This could be related to man being totally depraved. It's a basic Christian concept.
> In post 16, Welderguy responds with Romans 1:20.
> I didn't know how he was using it in relation to the OP but I'm guessing it had something to do with man's depravity, that even with science man will never find God.
> ...



Don't get me wrong, I like that you guys are trying to sort out your beliefs in a rational, contemplative way.  I would encourage you to start a thread, down here of course, where you _rationally_ discuss with fellow believers some of the difficult issues you have with your faith.  

In the future, throwing competing Bible verses at each other isn't really Apologistic argument.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 12, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't mind it too, too much.  It's good to see people discussing things without getting all bent out of shape.  It's just funny to me how they have found a place here amongst the heathens to be able to have such a discussion.  It makes me wonder what it is about upstairs that doesn't allow civil discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> It's just funny to me how they have found a place here amongst the heathens to be able to have such a discussion.


Im pretty sure you know why that is.


> In the future, throwing competing Bible verses at each other isn't really Apologistic argument.


That's true. And as much as I hate the regurgitation of scripture I think having an atmosphere of open debate here is more important even if scripture is the method of doing it. 
AS LONG AS ITS THE METHOD OF BOTH PARTIES.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 12, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Im pretty sure you know why that is.
> 
> That's true. And as much as I hate the regurgitation of scripture I think having an atmosphere of open debate here is more important even if scripture is the method of doing it.
> AS LONG AS ITS THE METHOD OF BOTH PARTIES.



I don't think I do.  Why do you think it is?


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 12, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think I do.  Why do you think it is?


I was thinking along the lines of your aversion to the whole "don't think about it, don't question" atmosphere that sometimes rears its head upstairs. 
Where as down here its just the opposite.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 12, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I was thinking along the lines of your aversion to the whole "don't think about it, don't question" atmosphere that sometimes rears its head upstairs.
> Where as down here its just the opposite.



I thought that Art and Welder and Gem were talking about predestination, a topic that gets threads shut down in "The Land of Canaan" (upstairs).


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 12, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I thought that Art and Welder and Gem were talking about predestination, a topic that gets threads shut down in "The Land of Canaan" (upstairs).



I don't recall discussing predestination as being off limits upstairs. As a major part of Christianity it would take about half the threads out. 

The title of this thread is 'Good News Christians."
It's almost an invitation for Christians to respond.
Most Christians believe God predestined them to be born after this same God created the first man. They believe that God foretold or caused his creation and that God foretold or caused many things to happen from the beginning of time until the end of time.
Christians also like to use scriptures to back this up just as Atheist use secular literature. 

Now getting back to the OP, many Christians have a hard time with God using science. They see a conflict describing Biblical events with science. Some even think science is from Satan. Invented by him to confuse us.
For someone to use science to look for God or even to describe a rainbow is wrong in many Christians eyes.

This OP is seeking the Christian's viewpoint even if not intentional. The Christian's viewpoint uses scripture to respond. It's natural. It's actually one of the first places we are to look.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 12, 2015)

^^^I  agree with this^^^ 
I was thinking about saying the same exact thing but Art worded it far better than I could have.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 12, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I thought that Art and Welder and Gem were talking about predestination, a topic that gets threads shut down in "The Land of Canaan" (upstairs).


I haven't touched on it at all in this thread. I am pretty sure that I would disagree with both of them though.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't recall discussing predestination as being off limits upstairs. As a major part of Christianity it would take about half the threads out.
> 
> The title of this thread is 'Good News Christians."
> It's almost an invitation for Christians to respond.
> ...





> The title of this thread is 'Good News Christians."It's almost an invitation for Christians to respond.


That's exactly what it was. I was looking for your (Christians) point of view.
And to create discussion of course.


----------



## drippin' rock (Feb 12, 2015)

All I see here is ego.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 12, 2015)

> Originally Posted by Artfuldodger
> Now getting back to the OP, many Christians have a hard time with God using science. They see a conflict describing Biblical events with science. Some even think science is from Satan. Invented by him to confuse us.


Art, why do you think that is?
I'll be honest, the only reason I can think of is because science doesn't point to God (as of now). But that's not sciences fault. 
Is it fear that science will prove something other than there being a God?
Is it because man has no right to even be looking at other possibilities?
Some other reason(s)?


> Some even think science is from Satan


Whats interesting to me is that if God is going to be "proven", its science that's going to do it (unless of course God shows up and says hello). I know you guys don't need "proof" to believe but you are human so Im betting "proof" would be really nice to have in your pocket. It sure would shut the mouths of all those who don't believe what you do.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 12, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Art, why do you think that is?
> I'll be honest, the only reason I can think of is because science doesn't point to God (as of now). But that's not sciences fault.
> Is it fear that science will prove something other than there being a God?
> Is it because man has no right to even be looking at other possibilities?
> ...



Why do Christians use science at all? Why do Christians use science to describe the rainbow and birth?
Christians are slow to accept God's mysteries being revealed. Look at how they treated Galileo when he said the earth revolved around the sun. 

I guess the reasons could be pride, ignorance, admitting defeat, indoctrination.
It's like trying to get the Republicans and Democrats to agree. One has to sometimes put his pride aside and agree.
Many Christians feel like they would be in bed with the enemy if using science to prove creation or evolution. Especially to try and prove God's existence.
I'm not even sure I approve of that. I don't need that proof. I'm not seeking it.
Look how most Christians look at evolution. They do use science and are OK with mutations and natural selection but just don't use the word evolution.

Christians are stuck on taking the Bible literally. If God says he created Adam out of dust then it can't mean the Great Architect used amino acid dust from the soil and spiritually breathed life into it as a way to create life. The whole world being flooded is another example. The Ark of the Covenant is another example. Don't even think about why it would kill whoever touched it. Did God reach down and kill them or was it a giant battery or radioactive? Either way isn't it still God. If God kills me or strikes me dead with Ebola, isn't the results the same? God using science to kill me or divine intervention. Maybe he uses a little of each. He looks with his own eyes sometimes and at other times uses messengers to check things out. 

Some events are OK to explain with science and some events aren't. Which events are OK have changed over time as God reveals which mysteries will be revealed and when.

I figure God knew the intelligence of each generation and revealed what each generation was capable of learning. It wouldn't do any good to tell ancient man he thought with his heart and blood didn't carry all the things they thought it did. So God had man explain it the way other man could understand.

Now Gem and the election crowd don't agree with science because they don't believe man can find God. It's totally 100%  impossible for a lost person to find God.
They also believe God causes everything to happen. So in that way of thinking, the Great Architect makes the tree die, makes the car wreck, makes women pregnant, makes the sun come up, makes the sick well,  makes the grass grow, makes me do good deeds, makes the well sick, makes my pool turn green, and calls me to the grave on a predetermined day.
It's kinda hard to use science for pretty much anything believing as they do. I don't even understand why they let their kids take science in school. 

I would say that God might not reveal himself with science as having proof would take away from having faith. Unless even that is from God too.
Creation, yes
God himself, no
But in due time all will be revealed. This will be a time of great unity. I in you and you in me. God in me and me in God.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Now Gem and the election crowd don't agree with science because they don't believe man can find God.


Art, I am not anti-science. I just see the inherent irrationality that is built into its assumptions and method. I thoroughly enjoy science... until it claims too much for itself.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 12, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Art, I am not anti-science. I just see the inherent irrationality that is built into its assumptions and method. I thoroughly enjoy science... until it claims too much for itself.



Science can be a tool used to discredit God. I agree if someone says it's not from God because it's from science.

Most Christians aren't anti-science but only to a certain extent. Say someone died of cancer. They understand the scientific concept of why this person died. They also believe God had some control over this scientific event.
I agree that he did. Now why can God use science in death but not in creation?
Why can the birth of a baby be explained as a miraculous event  and a scientific event? Didn't God cause the birth using science?

Why do we need the sun? Why do we need water, air, dna, and a digestive system? We were made from dust.
Why does God use science?

Why can't God use science to do everything he does to the physical world? Even if he zapped someone dead with his powers, the person's heart(science) would stop beating. Their physical body will decay(science)


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 13, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Art, I am not anti-science. I just see the inherent irrationality that is built into its assumptions and method. I thoroughly enjoy science... until it claims too much for itself.


Does the fact that science also works to prove itself wrong gain any points with you?
What I get from your post is that science is "arrogant".


----------



## Israel (Mar 5, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Does the fact that science also works to prove itself wrong gain any points with you?
> What I get from your post is that science is "arrogant".


Science doesn't work, scientists do.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 5, 2015)

If a man follows a process, nay, adheres to a procedure, and that process yields consistent results. Could thouest sayeth the procedure worketh? 
Yay, I say unto thee, readeth between the lines.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 5, 2015)

Israel said:


> Science doesn't work, scientists do.


You can do better than that Israel. 
I hope.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 5, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> What I get from your post is that science is "arrogant".



I don't know about science, but scientists do have some arrogance about them......most folks who claim authority on any topic are.  The same could also be said for literature professors, preachers, lawyers, etc.

Science itself begins with humility.  It's when it assumes answers which are not, cannot be known that it kind-a loses touch with that aspect.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 5, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I don't know about science, but scientists do have some arrogance about them......most folks who claim authority on any topic are.  The same could also be said for literature professors, preachers, lawyers, etc.
> 
> Science itself begins with humility.  It's when it assumes answers which are not, cannot be known that it kind-a loses touch with that aspect.



One can always collect data to prove or disprove the end result of the process. I see this in religious discussions. Most aren't willing to find verses that discredit their view, only ones that support it.
It's the same with some scientist. They aren't willing to look at data that discredits their beliefs.
Religion begins with humility.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 5, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> One can always collect data to prove or disprove the end result of the process. I see this in religious discussions. Most aren't willing to find verses that discredit their view, only ones that support it.
> It's the same with some scientist. They aren't willing to look at data that discredits their beliefs.



Yea.....I added preachers to the list.  I was raised in a way that convinced me scripture can be found to support darn near any bias if one looks hard enough.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 5, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I don't know about science, but scientists do have some arrogance about them......most folks who claim authority on any topic are.  The same could also be said for literature professors, preachers, lawyers, etc.
> 
> Science itself begins with humility.  It's when it assumes answers which are not, cannot be known that it kind-a loses touch with that aspect.


First I agree assumption are merely that - assumptions.
But I think there are different levels of assuming. Some are based on evidence (doesn't necessarily make the assumption correct) and some are based on just about nothing. Of course evidence can be skewed to fit one's assumptions.
But it is true that in science assumptions stay assumptions until proven to be more than that.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 5, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> First I agree assumption are merely that - assumptions.
> But I think there are different levels of assuming. Some are based on evidence (doesn't necessarily make the assumption correct) and some are based on just about nothing. Of course evidence can be skewed to fit one's assumptions.
> But it is true that in science assumptions stay assumptions until proven to be more than that.



Would you say that inferring that Multiverses could exist _based on current maths and understanding of physical properties of matter_ is akin to looking at a leaf or a child, marveling at the complexity and then inferring a god?

Do you see a difference in the strength of the inferrences between the two examples and the position of absolute truth that's drawn (or not) from them?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 5, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Would you say that inferring that Multiverses could exist _based on current maths and understanding of physical properties of matter_ is akin to looking at a leaf or a child and and marveling at the complexity and then inferring a god?
> 
> Do you see a difference in the strength of the inferrence between the two examples and the position of absolute truth that's drawn (or not) from them?


I might need you to simplify or reword the question because Im not sure Im getting it but I think your questions might be covered by this -


> But I think there are different levels of assuming


Physical properties and matter are things that actually do exist so the inference is at least drawn from something real. That doesn't make the inference proven however.
Whereas -


> looking at a leaf or a child and and marveling at the complexity and then inferring a god?


Is strictly a matter of belief. There is nothing "real" between looking at the leaf or child and the inference of God.


> the position of absolute truth that's drawn (or not) from them?


I don't see how either one of them can be claimed to be a position of absolute truth as neither one has been proven to be true.
If my response is heading in the wrong direction please simplify the question(s) for me and I'll take another shot at it.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 5, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I might need you to simplify or reword the question because Im not sure Im getting it but I think your questions might be covered by this -
> 
> Physical properties and matter are things that actually do exist so the inference is at least drawn from something real. That doesn't make the inference proven however.
> Whereas -
> ...




Awwwww Walt.  You understood my question completely and answered it.  Thanks.


----------



## Israel (Mar 5, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You can do better than that Israel.
> I hope.



I think you know what's meant. Science as a method, can be made to sound as pure a concept and pursuit as men can attribute.
And, it's not the only one.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> If a man follows a process, nay, adheres to a procedure, and that process yields consistent results. Could thouest sayeth the procedure worketh?
> Yay, I say unto thee, readeth between the lines.


It worketh the fallacy of affirming the consequent.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 6, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> It worketh the fallacy of affirming the consequent.



Still better than most holy works.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 22, 2015)

Israel said:


> Science doesn't work, scientists do.



Yes indeed.

An interesting video, and it supports a long standing theory that I have. This scientist is obviously very intelligent, but he misunderstands science. It is a very common occurrence. Science doesn't prove or disprove anything. It does not discover anything either. People discover things, and use science to support or not support their hypotheses. When you make the leap to saying things like "prove" or "disprove", you have left the rails of science.

My answer to the op's question is, no, science has not proven the existence of God. It can't prove anything because of the nature of the definition of its process.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 22, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Yes indeed.
> 
> An interesting video, and it supports a long standing theory that I have. This scientist is obviously very intelligent, but he misunderstands science. It is a very common occurrence. Science doesn't prove or disprove anything. It does not discover anything either. People discover things, and use science to support or not support their hypotheses. When you make the leap to saying things like "prove" or "disprove", you have left the rails of science.
> 
> My answer to the op's question is, no, science has not proven the existence of God. It can't prove anything because of the nature of the definition of its process.





> When you make the leap to saying things like "prove" or "disprove", you have left the rails of science.


I'm not sure I agree but I'm definitely making no claims of having more than a basic understanding of science.
I agree that a person (not science) had an "idea" of a vaccine that would combat polio.
Exactly what would the process be called of injecting people and seeing if it worked or not if not scientific? And didn't the process do more than just support the idea that the vaccine would work but actually prove if it worked it or not?
Seems like attempting to separate scientist out from science is like separating the hierarchy out of the Church.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 22, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not sure I agree but I'm definitely making no claims of having more than a basic understanding of science.
> I agree that a person (not science) had an "idea" of a vaccine that would combat polio.
> Exactly what would the process be called of injecting people and seeing if it worked or not if not scientific? And didn't the process do more than just support the idea that the vaccine would work but actually prove if it worked it or not?
> Seems like attempting to separate scientist out from science is like separating the hierarchy out of the Church.



Science is actually pretty basic. It's when people add things that the scientific method does not include, like proof that it can get confusing. Proof is in our minds. We observe, and we believe, or not.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Science is actually pretty basic. It's when people add things that the scientific method does not include, like proof that it can get confusing. Proof is in our minds. We observe, and we believe, or not.



I'll take observe and believe or not over unable to observe and believe or not.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 22, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I'll take observe and believe or not over unable to observe and believe or not.



One person may observe what anther person is unable to observe. Timing, location, attention span, bias, acuteness of faculties, distractions and so on... might limit one's powers of observation. Not that mine are better or more correct, my statement is simply an example.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 23, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> One person may observe what anther person is unable to observe.



So true. Especially if one has Schizophrenia, or other mental illness that causes hallucinations,  and the other doesn't. 
Or, perhaps one is in need of Lasik.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> So true. Especially if one has Schizophrenia, or other mental illness that causes hallucinations,  and the other doesn't.
> Or, perhaps one is in need of Lasik.



I fish with a fella who is a way better fisherman than I am.  This dude "observes" things that are completely hidden to me.  Always catches more/bigger fish than I do fishing the same spot, same bait, everything.

Could be a patience thing, experience thing, any number of variables that are keeping me from seeing the things he sees.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Could be a patience thing, experience thing, any number of variables that are keeping me from seeing the things he sees.



Yes. Observation is a skill. Experience and knowledge can greatly improve that skill.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yes. Observation is a skill. Experience and knowledge can greatly improve that skill.



Yep.  I just wanted to point out that the schizophrenic aren't the only folks with insight


----------



## 660griz (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Yep.  I just wanted to point out that the schizophrenic aren't the only folks with insight



Gotcha. Except my example is of things that are actually not there but seen. Yours is things that may be there, you just can't see.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yours is things that may be there, you just can't see.



Yep.......a better example in this conversation, I do believe.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Yep.......a better example in this conversation, I do believe.



Annnnnd, we're out.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> It's when it assumes answers which are not, cannot be known that it kind-a loses touch with that aspect.



To follow up this post.....I was watching something about dinosaurs this weekend on one of the dinosaur channels.  The entire episode, while trying to educate the audience on dinosaurs, was entirely lacking in any scientific evidence beyond the size/shape of the dinos.

Seriously.....it went through this extensive discussion on how this one particular dino found mates.  Down to saying "it may have built nests in order to prove it's worth."    One assumption after the other, including a demo on what the mate-finding nest would ahve looked like, and what the calls sounded like.  Nothing but speculation.  It was entertainment disguised as science.  Which is a similar charge to what you guys throw at faith.

On that subject, why in the world does every single nature show have to discuss how the critter reproduces?  Just strange and somewhat disconcerting.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> "it may have built nests in order to prove it's worth."


 MAY have built nest.  





> It was entertainment disguised as science.  Which is a similar charge to what you guys throw at faith.


Yep. Exactly the same. Scientist study current reptiles. They find bones, age the bones, put the bones together to make the skeleton of an animal. Study the skeleton and make assumptions based on knowledge of muscle and skeletal make ups that we know about currently and then say, believe us or you will be tortured by fire for eternity. 



> On that subject, why in the world does every single nature show have to discuss how the critter reproduces?  Just strange and somewhat disconcerting.


 I think the keyword here is nature. That should explain it.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> I think the keyword here is nature. That should explain it.



Right.  But, I think folks get that critters reproduce.  Making up an entire backstory about how a female dino meets "the one" is a little awkward.  Particualrly since every single dang nature show has the same stuff, almost as if it's part of what they learn in "how to make a nature show" school.

Seriously, in this particular episode, the lady dino looked like a disney female critter.......strange, man.

Science ended when they discussed height, time frame, etc.  And entertainment began when they showed the dino eating parasites off a sleeping dinos belly right before going to a mountain and building a nest of sticks and mud in order to attact another dino.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> MAY have built nest.



.....as they show the critter, and several others, building a nest.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yep. Exactly the same. Scientist study current reptiles. They find bones, age the bones, put the bones together to make the skeleton of an animal. Study the skeleton and make assumptions based on knowledge of muscle and skeletal make ups that we know about currently and then say, believe us or you will be tortured by fire for eternity.



No, they blur the lines between entertainment and fact in order to sell something.  In this case, advertisement in between odd sequences of animated dinos mating.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

You know, there's still a debate on how much hunting T Rex did or whether or not it mostly scavenged.   Is it worthwhile to try to figure these thing out?  In my opinion, yes.  Is it worthwhile to say "well, we'll NEVER know for sure so we should just stop asking (leave it at the foot of the cross)?  In my opinion, no.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You know, there's still a debate on how much hunting T Rex did or whether or not it mostly scavenged.   Is it worthwhile to try to figure these thing out?  In my opinion, yes.  Is it worthwhile to say "well, we'll NEVER know for sure so we should just stop asking (leave it at the foot of the cross)?  In my opinion, no.



Oh.....I thought it was setteled on him being a scavenger?  The evidence is pretty strong in that direction.

Is it worthwile to try and figure it out?  Absolutely?  Is it absolutely ridiculous to speculate about these things and make female dinos look "female" while creating a stupid backstory about the lonely dino seeking dino?  Absolutely.

Can we at least admit that there is an entertainment aspect to this stuff which has less to do with science and more to do with viewership?

And.......seriously, the dang mating critters is getting old.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> No, they blur the lines between entertainment and fact in order to sell something.  In this case, advertisement in between odd sequences of animated dinos mating.




Remember when they used to show dinosaurs walking around dragging their tails?  They even had the replicas dragging their tails around in the museums.   Should they not have showed that because they didn't know for sure how they held their tails?  Should they not have fixed them to show how they carried their tails aloft?  Is there research to indicate that they carried their tails aloft?  How good is it?  Does it make a strong case?  Will we ever know for sure?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Remember when they used to show dinosaurs walking around dragging their tails?  They even had the replicas dragging their tails around in the museums.   Should they not have showed that because they didn't know for sure how they held their tails?  Should they not have fixed them to show how they carried their tails aloft?  Is there research to indicate that they carried their tails aloft?  How good is it?  Does it make a strong case?  Will we ever know for sure?



At the time I'm thinking best evidence indicated that was the position of the tail.  But, they knew they had tails.  

If you had seen what I am talking about, I am almost certain we would be on the same page here.  There was no evidence presented for 90% of the things animated.  Most ridiculous being the nests build out of mounded dirt and sticks sticking straight up.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> One person may observe what anther person is unable to observe. Timing, location, attention span, bias, acuteness of faculties, distractions and so on... might limit one's powers of observation. Not that mine are better or more correct, my statement is simply an example.


I fully agree.  I have no problem using the observations of others, especially when they are able to accurately report their findings,test and re-test and still have repeatable outcomes and are also willing to report any changes along the way.
They can prove their claim.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Oh.....I thought it was setteled on him being a scavenger?  The evidence is pretty strong in that direction.



It is for the most part but there are hold outs that don't like mighty T Rex shown as a scavenger.  That's how it happens.  There will always be hold outs that want to cling to old ways for sentimental reasons.



JB0704 said:


> Is it worthwile to try and figure it out?  Absolutely?  Is it absolutely ridiculous to speculate about these things and make female dinos look "female" while creating a stupid backstory about the lonely dino seeking dino?  Absolutely.
> 
> Can we at least admit that there is an entertainment aspect to this stuff which has less to do with science and more to do with viewership?
> 
> And.......seriously, the dang mating critters is getting old.



If it's on TV it's for entertainment.  Is it wrong to speculate on how dinos might have done this or that?    I defend their right to take the evidence and present their theories in the same way that I defend their rights to color the dinos skin in ways that are based on GOOD inferences.  

Scientists never claim "this is EXACTY how it happens".  They know better than to do that by using the very same scientific method.  That's the beauty of the scientific method.   It allows for self correction.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Right.  But, I think folks get that critters reproduce.  Making up an entire backstory about how a female dino meets "the one" is a little awkward.  Particualrly since every single dang nature show has the same stuff, almost as if it's part of what they learn in "how to make a nature show" school.
> 
> Seriously, in this particular episode, the lady dino looked like a disney female critter.......strange, man.
> 
> Science ended when they discussed height, time frame, etc.  And entertainment began when they showed the dino eating parasites off a sleeping dinos belly right before going to a mountain and building a nest of sticks and mud in order to attact another dino.





> Making up an entire backstory about how a female dino meets "the one"





> the lady dino looked like a disney female critter



If you take a subject that we really couldn't know for sure about and "humanize" it, its a much easier sell.
Just like........ well you kmow


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I fish with a fella who is a way better fisherman than I am.  This dude "observes" things that are completely hidden to me.  Always catches more/bigger fish than I do fishing the same spot, same bait, everything.
> 
> Could be a patience thing, experience thing, any number of variables that are keeping me from seeing the things he sees.



He is able to use his skill to get observable results.
It is much better than saying I am a good fisherman and unable to produce any fish. While I doubt he is one boast on and on about his talents, he can obviously back up what you claim about him. You could video him outfishing everyone on regular occasions. Both you and he can back up the claim.
That is why it is more believable and credible than most claims.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> At the time I'm thinking best evidence indicated that was the position of the tail.  But, they knew they had tails.



From what I understand, they just assumed that the tails drug on the ground.  It kind of fit with the lumbering depictions of them in the current media forms.  Who would have thought then that they might have been so athletic; MIGHT HAVE BEEN.  The scientists back then would have been able to come to the same conclusions about tail position.   They knew enough about physiology.  They just hadn't thought to ask the question.



JB0704 said:


> If you had seen what I am talking about, I am almost certain we would be on the same page here.  There was no evidence presented for 90% of the things animated.  Most ridiculous being the nests build out of mounded dirt and sticks sticking straight up.



In the Chattanooga children's museum there's a replica of duck billed dinosaur skull.  The skull had a great big hollow crest connected to the air canal.  They made a replica of the hollow "tube" out of PVC and attached a bellows to it.  When you operate the bellows it produces a "Whoooonk!!!" sound like a giant goose.  Do they know for certain that the creature used that structoure to make that noise?  Is it wrong for them to present that display?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If you take a subject that we really couldn't know for sure about and "humanize" it, its a much easier sell.
> Just like........ well you kmow




There's some basis for their depictions.  It's probably based on the relative looks of modern birds and reptiles.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> If it's on TV it's for entertainment.  Is it wrong to speculate on how dinos might have done this or that?    I defend their right to take the evidence and present their theories in the same way that I defend their rights to color the dinos skin in ways that are based on GOOD inferences.



You and I would both defend their rights in this area.  Heck, I would even defend their right to get on there and say things they know are wrong......freedom means everybody gots to be free or nobody is.  The viewer is ultimately responsible for buying the product, and, if it's just a bunch of junk, then the market should sort it out.

"Good inferences?"  I seriously wish I could remember the show to post the link.......I absolutely believe we would all agree it was total garbage.

And, that's my point ^^^^.  Assumptions, stretches, and appealing to emotion are typical of people, and not limited to religious descriptions.  I am very thankful people a lot smarter than me like scientific exploration.  But, I also assign a similar amount of skepticism to the thoughts presented that I would a sermon where I know the preacher is going in directions that involve his imagination.  A good example is a sermon I once heard that discussed the possibilities of what Jesus wrote in the sand......


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> To follow up this post.....I was watching something about dinosaurs this weekend on one of the dinosaur channels.  The entire episode, while trying to educate the audience on dinosaurs, was entirely lacking in any scientific evidence beyond the size/shape of the dinos.
> 
> Seriously.....it went through this extensive discussion on how this one particular dino found mates.  Down to saying "it may have built nests in order to prove it's worth."    One assumption after the other, including a demo on what the mate-finding nest would ahve looked like, and what the calls sounded like.  Nothing but speculation.  It was entertainment disguised as science.  Which is a similar charge to what you guys throw at faith.
> 
> On that subject, why in the world does every single nature show have to discuss how the critter reproduces?  Just strange and somewhat disconcerting.



But....there WERE dinosaurs. We have the dinosaurs. They are trying to figure out how they lived their lives.
It is much better than describing a dinosaur and having no bones at all. The beauty of that study is that they will continue to observe specimens and report the findings. If they find one dead in a nest then they can lean more towards that theory.
Honestly isn't that better than claiming invisible dinosaurs still exist?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> There's some basis for their depictions.  It's probably based on the relative looks of modern birds and reptiles.



The female dino had disney "girl critter" eyes.  See the female lions in Lion King for an example.

This does not happen with any modern creature other than humans.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

bullethead said:


> But....there WERE dinosaurs. We have the dinosaurs. They are trying to figure out how they lived their lives.



Yes, there were dinos.  But, they weren't trying to figure out how the dinos lived their lives.  It was an exercise in imagination based in zero scientific fact.  Perhaps there were nests........how does that relate to 10 male dinos sitting on a ridge yelping to the valley from behind their "nest" while the lovely lady dinos slowly walk their direction.....with an expression that could only be described as a smile.



bullethead said:


> Honestly isn't that better than claiming invisible dinosaurs still exist?



Better?  Maybe, but no more useful.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> There's some basis for their depictions.  It's probably based on the relative looks of modern birds and reptiles.


Sure there are differences in some male and female animals.
But strictly going off of JB's descriptions (I didn't see the show) it sounds like they added some personality traits (finding "the one") and depicting the female as a Disney character like way, that would make the person relate and therefor be more "acceptable" to a subject that is mostly based off of best guesses.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> ..... it sounds like they added some personality traits (finding "the one") and depicting the female as a Disney character like way, that would make the person relate and therefor be more "acceptable" to a subject that is mostly based off of best guesses.



There was a lengthy discussion as to how in nature, the female chooses her mate, and the animation kind-a played into the whole male tryin to impress stand-offish female description.

While, in general, this may be true......what I ahve witnessed in nature seems a little more like the female being victimized by the situation.  Anybody who has ever watched ducks during mating season knows what I'm talking about.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

I wish I could remember the name of the show and channel so y'all could see what I'm talking about.  I think we would find concensus.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> There was a lengthy discussion as to how in nature, the female chooses her mate, and the animation kind-a played into the whole male tryin to impress stand-offish female description.
> 
> While, in general, this may be true......what I ahve witnessed in nature seems a little more like the female being victimized by the situation.  Anybody who has ever watched ducks during mating season knows what I'm talking about.


Hence the term "bucks chasing does". Im guessing she aint running just to be "coy".


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, there were dinos.  But, they weren't trying to figure out how the dinos lived their lives.  It was an exercise in imagination based in zero scientific fact.  Perhaps there were nests........how does that relate to 10 male dinos sitting on a ridge yelping to the valley from behind their "nest" while the lovely lady dinos slowly walk their direction.....with an expression that could only be described as a smile.
> 
> 
> 
> Better?  Maybe, but no more useful.



It could have happened this way; kind of like how penguins choose mates.  Or......



JB0704 said:


> There was a lengthy discussion as to how in nature, the female chooses her mate, and the animation kind-a played into the whole male tryin to impress stand-offish female description.
> 
> While, in general, this may be true......what I ahve witnessed in nature seems a little more like the female being victimized by the situation.  Anybody who has ever watched ducks during mating season knows what I'm talking about.




....it could have happened that way.  It's an "artists depiction".  You've seen that term in paleontology books before I'm sure.  

I can clearly picture what you're describing and I'm certain that I would call bull poop on it too.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Hence the term "bucks chasing does". Im guessing she aint running just to be "coy".



That's my thoughts too.  I was a little surprised at the documentary making it seem as if natural reproduction was driven by female choice.  What I ahve seen in critters, through a very uneducated observation, invovled very little choice on the female part.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I can clearly picture what you're describing and I'm certain that I would call bull poop on it too.



 

That's all I was getting at.  There's plenty of bull poop out there on plenty of sides.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> That's my thoughts too.  I was a little surprised at the documentary making it seem as if natural reproduction was driven by female choice.  What I ahve seen in critters, through a very uneducated observation, invovled very little choice on the female part.




Most of the time in the avian kingdom, the males can do little more than strut in attempts to lure a female, ducks and their gang rape I believe are the exception.  Don't take my word for it.  You can look it up.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> That's my thoughts too.  I was a little surprised at the documentary making it seem as if natural reproduction was driven by female choice.  What I ahve seen in critters, through a very uneducated observation, invovled very little choice on the female part.


Probably why man figured out long ago its a lot easier if you get them drunk.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2015)

This is the science that I find fascinating.
http://news.yahoo.com/humans-butchered-elephants-500-000-years-ago-ancient-114443463.html


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Probably why man figured out long ago its a lot easier if you get them drunk.



I just lol'd in my cubicle......now everybody knows I'm not working


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

bullethead said:


> This is the science that I find fascinating.
> http://news.yahoo.com/humans-butchered-elephants-500-000-years-ago-ancient-114443463.html



That stuff is very interesting.  I wish I was better at finding artifacts.  There's a few folks on this forum who are excellent at it.  I have only found 3 arrowheads in my entire life, and I am constantly watching the ground looking for them.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Most of the time in the avian kingdom, the males can do little more than strut in attempts to lure a female, ducks and their gang rape I believe are the exception.  Don't take my word for it.  You can look it up.


That is true that there a lot of examples in nature where the male does all kinds of things to impress the female but she has the choice of whether to be impressed or not.
Matter of fact I saw a show last night that showed how male river porpoises pick up large rocks in their mouth off the bottom and swim up to the surface and hold the rocks up out of the water to, its surmised, show off their strength. Only the males do it and they only do it during the breeding season when females are present.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> That's all I was getting at.  There's plenty of bull poop out there on plenty of sides.



Not to belabor the point but that they made nests is true. That they had skin that had some kind of color is true.  Inferences about the nature of the nests and the color of the skin are unsubstantiated but based on real things.  

That Jesus walked on water is not provable to be true and there is no physical evidence of it, indeed there's no reason to believe that such a thing is possible.  Therefor it's kind of pointless to discuss the physical phenomena of how he did it (except for entertainment value, which no one seems to appreciate besides myself).


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> That is true that there a lot of examples in nature where the male does all kinds of things to impress the female but she has the choice of whether to be impressed or not.
> Matter of fact I saw a show last night that showed how male river porpoises pick up large rocks in their mouth off the bottom and swim up to the surface and hold the rocks up out of the water to, its surmised, show off their strength. Only the males do it and they only do it during the breeding season when females are present.



Kooky critters.....There's also alot of gang rape.  Dolphins do it.

I always imagined the rampant chaos that might ensue if humans had a breeding season.  If there were only a couple weeks a year when women went into estrous.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Not to belabor the point but that they made nests is true. That they had skin that had some kind of color is true.  Inferences about the nature of the nests and the color of the skin are unsubstantiated.



Sure.  I know that.  My entire point is surrounding the ridiculous "it could'a been like this" scenarios.  There are seriously endless possibilities if we are going to start calling what-if scientific.



ambush80 said:


> That Jesus walked on water is not provable to be true and there is no physical evidence of it, indeed there's no reason to believe that such a thing is possible.  Therefor it's kind of pointless to discuss the physical phenomena of how he did it (except for entertainment value, which no one seems to appreciate besides myself).



I think we once considered the possibility of canoe-shoes......


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> That stuff is very interesting.  I wish I was better at finding artifacts.  There's a few folks on this forum who are excellent at it.  I have only found 3 arrowheads in my entire life, and I am constantly watching the ground looking for them.



In that article we have tools made by humans 500,000 years ago in the area of the world exactly where the stories of the Bible take place. One seems to be more accurate than the other as to when humans existed.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Sure.  I know that.  My entire point is surrounding the ridiculous "it could'a been like this" scenarios.  There are seriously endless possibilities if we are going to start calling what-if scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we once considered the possibility of canoe-shoes......



Sweet!!!!  That's what I'm talking about


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Sure.  I know that.  My entire point is surrounding the ridiculous "it could'a been like this" scenarios.  There are seriously endless possibilities if we are going to start calling what-if scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we once considered the possibility of canoe-shoes......



That's part's called a theory.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That's part's called a theory.



Right, but the honest approach, if the reproduction had to be discussed, would have involved the duck method and the turkey method.

They went with the human method which I thought was just silly.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> That stuff is very interesting.  I wish I was better at finding artifacts.  There's a few folks on this forum who are excellent at it.  I have only found 3 arrowheads in my entire life, and I am constantly watching the ground looking for them.


My Dad is a civil war buff and we use to take metal detectors out and look for stuff at places he would research. Found some bullets, parts of buckles and other equipment and even an old cross that was worn around the neck. Of course a bazillion people have already looked in these same places so you generally don't find much. Its interesting though.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

When I was a kid I looked hard for CW stuff.  Had a real cheap metal detector.  The coolest thing I ever found was an old horseshoe.  The only CW bullets I have were purchased in those cheesy gift shops, and are generally dug up at old rifle ranges, and are likely fakes.   

One of these days I'll buy a "real" metal detector and get serious about finding something.  One mini-ball would be worth it to me.  There just seems to be a difference between those fired at a range and those fired in battle......if that makes sense.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> When I was a kid I looked hard for CW stuff.  Had a real cheap metal detector.  The coolest thing I ever found was an old horseshoe.  The only CW bullets I have were purchased in those cheesy gift shops, and are generally dug up at old rifle ranges, and are likely fakes.
> 
> One of these days I'll buy a "real" metal detector and get serious about finding something.  One mini-ball would be worth it to me.  There just seems to be a difference between those fired at a range and those fired in battle......if that makes sense.


Yup makes sense. With the bullets we found my Dad had his little map out of where a skirmish took place. We were standing on a ridge where the Rebels were. Down the hill is where the Yankees were. So we went down the hill and started detecting and sure enough found a couple bullets. Far more exciting knowing we found them exactly where fighting had occurred.
The bullets we found were .58 cal which would have been fired out of a Pattern 1853 3 band Enfield which was the South's primary rifle used.


> The Confederates imported more Enfields during the course of the war than any other small arm, buying from private contractors and gun runners. It has been estimated that over 900,000 P53 Enfields were imported to America and saw service in every major engagement from the Battle of Shiloh (April, 1862) and the Siege of Vicksburg (May 1863), to the final battles of 1865. The gun was highly sought after in the Confederate ranks. According to a survey taken by British officials during the early stages of war on the arms of the Western Confederate Forces, nearly 70% were armed with smoothbore arms, such as the Model 1842 Springfield, among others. Later in the war the same survey was taken, they found that more than 75% had attained a rifle and most being the Pattern 1853 Enfield.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 23, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I fully agree.  I have no problem using the observations of others, especially when they are able to accurately report their findings,test and re-test and still have repeatable outcomes and are also willing to report any changes along the way.
> They can prove their claim.



Proof is in the eye/mind of the beholder. Today at work I went outside for a break. I was staring at the shadow of a tree in the ground. I saw another shadow of a bird light in the tree. I thought to myself, "that is a mockingbird.", purely based on the observation I made of the shape of its shadow. My assumption had little to do with science, and everything to do with what I have previously observed, and what I thought and felt about what I observed. I looked up, and indeed it was a mockingbird. I doubt I could reproduce that situation. The proof was however in the pudding. The truth should be scrutinized, but science is sometimes a poor method for that scrutiny.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It is for the most part but there are hold outs that don't like mighty T Rex shown as a scavenger.  That's how it happens.  There will always be hold outs that want to cling to old ways for sentimental reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When a scientist says "proof", they are saying "this is exactly how it happens". The scientific method is indeed beautiful, I just wish more scientists understood it.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 23, 2015)

bullethead said:


> This is the science that I find fascinating.
> http://news.yahoo.com/humans-butchered-elephants-500-000-years-ago-ancient-114443463.html



This article embodies my point. At least they had the decency to caveat most of their wild assumptions. I found the picture of the stone tools hilarious. You would think after so many years (a million) that humans would have gotten better at making things. I laughed out loud at the COMPELLING examples in the picture. Ain't no doubt those were finely crafted human made tools! No doubt at all! Perhaps an elephant died on a pile of rocks and the sun melted the fat from its rotting corpse on to the "stone tools". Nah, what you got right there is proof positive!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I just lol'd in my cubicle......now everybody knows I'm not working



Careful, the IT guy knows...


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> This article embodies my point. At least they had the decency to caveat most of their wild assumptions. I found the picture of the stone tools hilarious. You would think after so many years (a million) that humans would have gotten better at making things. I laughed out loud at the COMPELLING examples in the picture. Ain't no doubt those were finely crafted human made tools! No doubt at all! Perhaps an elephant died on a pile of rocks and the sun melted the fat from its rotting corpse on to the "stone tools". Nah, what you got right there is proof positive!


Yeah yeah yeah..and the wind blew the bones across the sharp edges on the tools and just so happened to score the bones like it happens when butchering and then and earthquakes shook the piles of bones that sat atop the stone cutting tools splitting the bones letting the marrow out making it look AS IF a human used those tools to sit down and actually do it themselves.
Yeah...those particular scientists missed those possibilities...they need to have their Star Trek membership cards ripped up for those gross oversight blunders.

Look at the undeniable proof that today after thousands of years of advancement after advancement Nobody still uses a metal knife for their cutting chores because it doesn't work well for the tasks and Leatherman Laser Beams are so readily available that the steel knife is obsolete.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> This article embodies my point. At least they had the decency to caveat most of their wild assumptions. I found the picture of the stone tools hilarious. You would think after so many years (a million) that humans would have gotten better at making things. I laughed out loud at the COMPELLING examples in the picture. Ain't no doubt those were finely crafted human made tools! No doubt at all! Perhaps an elephant died on a pile of rocks and the sun melted the fat from its rotting corpse on to the "stone tools". Nah, what you got right there is proof positive!


The Vatican is in need of a few good scientists.
Wanted: Scientists that are able to deny the evidence in front of them and twist it to suit a religious agenda.
Ted I don't know if you are looking to switch jobs,but I think you might be a perfect fit.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 23, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Yeah yeah yeah..and the wind blew the bones across the sharp edges on the tools and just so happened to score the bones like it happens when butchering and then and earthquakes shook the piles of bones that sat atop the stone cutting tools splitting the bones letting the marrow out making it look AS IF a human used those tools to sit down and actually do it themselves.
> Yeah...those particular scientists missed those possibilities...they need to have their Star Trek membership cards ripped up for those gross oversight blunders.
> 
> Look at the undeniable proof that today after thousands of years of advancement after advancement Nobody still uses a metal knife for their cutting chores because it doesn't work well for the tasks and Leatherman Laser Beams are so readily available that the steel knife is obsolete.



Not sure I undrestand your point there BH.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 23, 2015)

bullethead said:


> The Vatican is in need of a few good scientists.
> Wanted: Scientists that are able to deny the evidence in front of them and twist it to suit a religious agenda.
> Ted I don't know if you are looking to switch jobs,but I think you might be a perfect fit.



I understand your point here, and it is pretty sad. Pointless personal attack with no basis. I am not talking about religion at all. I am talking about science and the abuse/misunderstanding thereof. Besides, I am not catholic. The Vatican wouldn't have me.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Yup makes sense. With the bullets we found my Dad had his little map out of where a skirmish took place. We were standing on a ridge where the Rebels were. Down the hill is where the Yankees were. So we went down the hill and started detecting and sure enough found a couple bullets. Far more exciting knowing we found them exactly where fighting had occurred.
> The bullets we found were .58 cal which would have been fired out of a Pattern 1853 3 band Enfield which was the South's primary rifle used.



Very cool.  Im gonna price out some metal detectors now.  Most CW battle field are now parks, but I may be able to get onto something near where I live......I'm right down the road from a series of sites.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> I understand your point here, and it is pretty sad. Pointless personal attack with no basis. I am not talking about religion at all. I am talking about science and the abuse/misunderstanding thereof. Besides, I am not catholic. The Vatican wouldn't have me.


Sorry you take a friendly ribbing for a personal attack.
I guess that is why things are interpreted differently.
I should have used an animated emoticon at the end.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Not sure I undrestand your point there BH.



Point is there was more evidence than just animal fat on flint.
And when a tool works so well that no improvement is necessary for a million years that "if it ain't broke don't fix it" really applies.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> When a scientist says "proof", they are saying "this is exactly how it happens". The scientific method is indeed beautiful, I just wish more scientists understood it.




There's a long scientific tradition of trying to find "proof" wrong.  That's what keeps it charging forward.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> There's a long scientific tradition of trying to find "proof" wrong.  That's what keeps it charging forward.



Did you make that up? Because it is totally wrong. Science does not, and historically has not aspired to disprove anything.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 24, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Point is there was more evidence than just animal fat on flint.
> And when a tool works so well that no improvement is necessary for a million years that "if it ain't broke don't fix it" really applies.



So why do people have their gall bladders vaporized wth lasers nowadays? The knife worked fine to remove them for along time. No need to improve on that in the last 50 years.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 24, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Sorry you take a friendly ribbing for a personal attack.
> I guess that is why things are interpreted differently.
> I should have used an animated emoticon at the end.



Yeah, I "misconstrued" your blatant blast. Whatever dude. Does that bike go backwards when you pedal it backwards?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 24, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Did you make that up? Because it is totally wrong. Science does not, and historically has not aspired to disprove anything.



The whole purpose of science - as it has been nicely written down by Karl Popper - is to falsify the current theories of science.
 The physicists are not trying to prove the standard model of particle physics with the LHC at CERN, they are trying to find evidence that it is wrong!"


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> So why do people have their gall bladders vaporized wth lasers nowadays? The knife worked fine to remove them for along time. No need to improve on that in the last 50 years.


Because it took all this time, the past million years or so, to advance enough to find a more efficient knife and even with that laser capability we still use knives. The laser is a specialty tool in specialty areas with none available for hunters to butcher animals with.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Yeah, I "misconstrued" your blatant blast. Whatever dude. Does that bike go backwards when you pedal it backwards?



When I make blatant blasts they are better than " the Vatican is looking for a scientist". I thought you were ready to take the training wheels off of your bike and ride with bigger kids. Maybe one day.
(Emoticon deleted)


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2015)

660griz said:


> The whole purpose of science - as it has been nicely written down by Karl Popper - is to falsify the current theories of science.
> The physicists are not trying to prove the standard model of particle physics with the LHC at CERN, they are trying to find evidence that it is wrong!"




...Or a very least make sure that they are true.  And it never stops.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 24, 2015)

660griz said:


> The whole purpose of science - as it has been nicely written down by Karl Popper - is to falsify the current theories of science.
> The physicists are not trying to prove the standard model of particle physics with the LHC at CERN, they are trying to find evidence that it is wrong!"



This is true, just a strange way of saying it. It would like to think science would be trying to disprove science.
Unless I'm reading this wrong. I think that scientists of today should challenge the science of yesterday, either to disprove it is wrong or to verify it is right.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> This is true, just a strange way of saying it. It would like to think science would be trying to disprove science.
> Unless I'm reading this wrong. I think that scientists of today should challenge the science of yesterday, either to disprove it is wrong or to verify it is right.



Explain that to Ted.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 24, 2015)

bullethead said:


> When I make blatant blasts they are better than " the Vatican is looking for a scientist". I thought you were ready to take the training wheels off of your bike and ride with bigger kids. Maybe one day.
> (Emoticon deleted)



Two for two BH. Nicely done.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> This is true, just a strange way of saying it. It would like to think science would be trying to disprove science.
> Unless I'm reading this wrong. I think that scientists of today should challenge the science of yesterday, either to disprove it is wrong or to verify it is right.



The scientific method does not include the words "disprove" or "verify".


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 24, 2015)

660griz said:


> The whole purpose of science - as it has been nicely written down by Karl Popper - is to falsify the current theories of science.
> The physicists are not trying to prove the standard model of particle physics with the LHC at CERN, they are trying to find evidence that it is wrong!"



Karl rejected the classic model of the scientific method. He made up his own method of falsification.


----------



## Israel (Mar 25, 2015)

A believer has this perspective. All the _world_ is in reaction _against_ the Word of God. It is not happenstance, not the result of an unbiased pursuit of truth, not the odd falling out of circumstance in its development and assumed progress. It is a system wholly devoted to one thing, the denial of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. To this all is skewed against.
And, all of the world, just ain't enough.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> The scientific method does not include the words "disprove" or "verify".


Why would the METHOD includes those words? They aren't part of the method/process.
The method for changing a flat tire wouldn't include 
"now get in and drive" either. The method would be simply the steps taken for changing of the tire.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 25, 2015)

Israel said:


> A believer has this perspective. All the _world_ is in reaction _against_ the Word of God. It is not happenstance, not the result of an unbiased pursuit of truth, not the odd falling out of circumstance in its development and assumed progress. It is a system wholly devoted to one thing, the denial of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. To this all is skewed against.
> And, all of the world, just ain't enough.



People don't rise from the dead.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2015)

Israel said:


> A believer has this perspective. All the _world_ is in reaction _against_ the Word of God. It is not happenstance, not the result of an unbiased pursuit of truth, not the odd falling out of circumstance in its development and assumed progress. It is a system wholly devoted to one thing, the denial of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. To this all is skewed against.
> And, all of the world, just ain't enough.





> It is a system wholly devoted to one thing, the denial of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead.


Sounds like a flaw in the creation of the system if the intended purpose of the system was the opposite.
Kind of like a fire extinguisher that shoots out flames. Not a great design for the intended purpose. 
Somebody would probably lose their job over that one.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Why would the METHOD includes those words? They aren't part of the method/process.
> The method for changing a flat tire wouldn't include
> "now get in and drive" either. The method would be simply the steps taken for changing of the tire.



I am not quite sure I understand Walt, so help me out if this goes astray. Science is a little different than changing a flat tire. There are different methods to changing a flat tire (some more effective than others), but it is a physical task. If you get the new tire on and can drive away, then you have succeeded. You don't have to defend your method. Science may have some physical elements, but it is largely an intellectual task. The method is critical to be able to defend that what you have done is science. There isn't any wiggle room in the scientific method (if done correctly). Lots of people, scientists included, as evidenced by the video you shared in the OP, make the leap of off the rails of science and include their opinions in the reporting/findings/conclusions. Then they make claims like, "science proves the existence of God.", or they make dinosaur cartoons of pretty eyed female dinosaurs wooing their nest building male mates. Those activities just aren't scientific.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> I am not quite sure I understand Walt, so help me out if this goes astray. Science is a little different than changing a flat tire. There are different methods to changing a flat tire (some more effective than others), but it is a physical task. If you get the new tire on and can drive away, then you have succeeded. You don't have to defend your method. Science may have some physical elements, but it is largely an intellectual task. The method is critical to be able to defend that what you have done is science. There isn't any wiggle room in the scientific method (if done correctly). Lots of people, scientists included, as evidenced by the video you shared in the OP, make the leap of off the rails of science and include their opinions in the reporting/findings/conclusions. Then they make claims like, "science proves the existence of God.", or they make dinosaur cartoons of pretty eyed female dinosaurs wooing their nest building male mates. Those activities just aren't scientific.





> Lots of people, scientists included, as evidenced by the video you shared in the OP, make the leap of off the rails of science and include their opinions in the reporting/findings/conclusions.


I will go along with that. Its true that data can be manipulated to say what you want it to say.


> or they make dinosaur cartoons of pretty eyed female dinosaurs wooing their nest building male mates. Those activities just aren't scientific.


I will go along with that too. While the concept may have scientific theory behind it (female attracting a male) it would seem they took a "Hollywood", not scientific, approach to conveying it.
As for the rest of it I think I was being more simplistic or basic than how you are reading it. My point was -


> Originally Posted by ted_BSR View Post
> The scientific method does not include the words "disprove" or "verify".


The method wouldn't include the words disprove or verify. Those would come after the method or process was completed. Separate from the method. Maybe we are saying the same thing.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I will go along with that. Its true that data can be manipulated to say what you want it to say.
> 
> I will go along with that too. While the concept may have scientific theory behind it (female attracting a male) it would seem they took a "Hollywood", not scientific, approach to conveying it.
> As for the rest of it I think I was being more simplistic or basic than how you are reading it. My point was -
> ...



How is there something additional to the method? If it were meant to be included in the method, or post method, it would have been. The method is complete. People add to it to in order to infiltrate their opinion into it. After the method is complete, people are outside of the method, and are on a path other than science.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 25, 2015)

Walt- thanks for the stimulating conversation. It is refreshing to find that here on this forum. I appreciate it!


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 26, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Walt- thanks for the stimulating conversation. It is refreshing to find that here on this forum. I appreciate it!


Thanks for hanging in there with me and my questions!


----------



## 660griz (Mar 26, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to think science would be trying to disprove science.



That is exactly what it is trying to do.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 26, 2015)

660griz said:


> That is exactly what it is trying to do.



Can you show me where in the scientific method it says this?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 26, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Can you show me where in the scientific method it says this?



I don't recall ever mentioning scientific method.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 26, 2015)

660griz said:


> I don't recall ever mentioning scientific method.



Perhaps you should check it out.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 30, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Perhaps you should check it out.



I have but, since I was not defining science or the scientific method, it is not relevant.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2015)

660griz said:


> I have but, since I was not defining science or the scientific method, it is not relevant.



Ok. What were you doing then?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 31, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Ok. What were you doing then?



I thought the quote from Popper would have made it obvious. 
A philosophical view of the purpose or aim of science. 

Like these:
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve."

"Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification."

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude."


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 31, 2015)

660griz said:


> I thought the quote from Popper would have made it obvious.
> A philosophical view of the purpose or aim of science.
> 
> Like these:
> ...



I'm sorry. I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you clarify it for me?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 1, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> I'm sorry. I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you clarify it for me?



I don't think so. I looked back at all the post. I don't think I could make it any more clear.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 1, 2015)

660griz said:


> I don't think so. I looked back at all the post. I don't think I could make it any more clear.



I guess we are done then. I too went back and read the entire thread to try and work it out, to no avail.

Anyone else know what he is trying to say? Maybe there is a work around.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 2, 2015)

Ted: 





> Science does not, and historically has not aspired to disprove anything.



Some folks that disagree with you:





> The whole purpose of science - as it has been nicely written down by Karl Popper - is to falsify the current theories of science.
> The physicists are not trying to prove the standard model of particle physics with the LHC at CERN, they are trying to find evidence that it is wrong!"



Artfuldodger:





> It would like to think science would be trying to disprove science.


Me:





> That is exactly what it is trying to do.



Ted:





> Can you show me where in the scientific method it says this?


Me: 





> I don't recall ever mentioning scientific method.



Ted: 





> The scientific method does not include the words "disprove" or "verify".
> Karl rejected the classic model of the scientific method. He made up his own method of falsification.


 (Good to know but, still a method of falsification.) Not really relevant since Popper was not the only quote used. AND, you seem the only one dragging the discussion into a scientific method discussion AFTER you made a broad general statement about science, 
I'll replay it for you: 





> Science does not, and historically has not aspired to disprove anything.


I then showed basically that myself and others don't agree with that opinion and you started asking about the scientific method. 
Once again, not relevant.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 2, 2015)

660griz said:


> Ted:
> 
> Some folks that disagree with you:
> 
> ...



Thank griz! I get it now. I agree on a lot of your points, we are all individuals with different opinions, and different sources of information that we use to defend those opinions. In my opinion, which may or may not be relevant, science is a clearly defined thing that isn't open to interpretation. Humans invented it, we defined it. Alternative methods exist, but they are not science.

So, my overall point in all of this is...
The "scientist" in the video in the OP, did not follow the method, and jumped to conclusions about whether or not science has proved that God exists.


----------



## Goodoleboy01 (Jul 5, 2015)

I would suggest you all read some of Steve Chapman's books, like, 
A view of Life from a Deerstand, he also has another called ,The Hunters Cookbook. Great recipes in there.
He has a great way of sharing his experiences in the deer stand and discussing the wonders of nature he has spent so much time in through his life. 
Yes, it is my opinion, in my whipersnapper 40's, that this earth is put together so well, so unique, and so darn complex, it was definitely designed that way.
May each of you have a great time making up your own minds on that one. Thank God for His Son and fish, and deer, and hogs, and birds,Amen, I like to say~


----------

