Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.

Joined: August 8th, 2009, 11:19 pm

July 12th, 2010, 6:25 am #1

I pulled out this quote earlier and it inspired a train of thought.

I knew you'd want to hear it.

I have previously commented on how I understand science and theism to be philosophically antithetical. That quote tends to encapsulate how the different "disciplines" go about collecting their truths.

central to science is the concept of observing a system, formulating a hypothesis about what is in fact happening and then testing that hypothesis in as many ways as possible trying to prove it wrong. A christian might call it "mocking your own hypothesis". Invite your peers to prove it wrong, try in as many ways as possible to disprove it, and if you cant.... then you can scientifically call it a truth, subject to someone else finding someway to disprove it down the track.

So all scientific facts are contingent on someone disproving it. Einstein did that to Newtons laws of motion, to his credit. Newton would have been pleased.

Scientists revel in myths dispelled and truth revealed even if it shoots their ideas down in flames.


Theism works the other way. You come up with a theory, ie Jehovah created the earth in 6 days, the bible is literally true. Then you look for all the evidence that tends to collaborate this hypothesis (faith is just a hypothesis after all?)

You talk to like minded people who agree with you, you listen to testimonies, you read the book in detail trying to find things that sound right. You revel in the mysteries, dismiss the contradictions, try to convince others that your hypothesis is better than theirs. You count the hits, ignore the misses, call people who dont agree liars, mockers and trolls. You look for the positive evidence and keep it, you avoid anything that puts questions to your hypothesis or threatens it in any way. In short, you put a castle around your hypothesis and try to defend it against all comers. Most of all you avoid doubting your belief yourself because only in that way can your belief ever be revealed as false.

Most of all you tell yourself that man cannot reveal the truth themselves, they are incapable. The silent and invisible friend is wiser than all those doubters who are looking for ways to prove him scientifically wrong. He is beyond that.

but in the end, there is only the scientific way of doubting until all avenues of doubt are dispelled, or the theistic way of forcing oneself to believe and demonising doubt until one can no longer conceive of flaws in your hypothesis.

The theistic method equally proves all gods to be true, all 14000 of them, which is logically not the case, whereas the scientific method says "there is no reason to believe this or that god is true." hence something approaching an atheistic point of view.

Now wonder creationists want to replace science with creationism in US science classes. one proves a god, one does not. But it is not a scientific proof.


anyway, so that is why I ask the questions I do. All valid, all according to any truth that I hold. For the record, in scientific fashion, I dont outright dispell the notion of magical/supernatural gods, in normal scientific fashion I conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the idea that a god is likely. Its just a contingent conclusion, subject to any future development.
____________________________________________

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzq0p ... o1_500.jpg






Zombie Jesus who sort of came back from the dead...

<i>Away in a graveyard, a stone overhead
The zombie lord Jesus is raised from the dead
The bones and the corpses are at his command
And rise like their master to swarm o'er the land!
The women are screaming, then running away
Poor Mary and Martha are gnawed where they lay
I fear thee, lord Jesus, your curséd undeath
With worms in your bowels and rot on your breath.
Have mercy, lord Jesus, don't eat me today
Next year I'll be bigger, I promise! I pray
Some shaman or rabbi or priestess or such
Will stake you and save us from your deadly touch.</i>

___________________________________

I know Bible literalists apologists have their explanations, but they are ultimately just <b><i>band aids over bull sh!t.</b></i>

Biblical Pitfalls .http://www.network54.com/Forum/660399/
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

July 12th, 2010, 6:36 am #2


The Scientist:

Here are the demonstrable facts, what conclusion can we derive from them?

The Creationist:

Here's the conclusion, what alleged facts can conjure up to justify it?



Utterings like "a theory is just that, a theory" show a misunderstanding of what a "theory" is. A (scientific) theory is not, "Hey, I've got a theory about where my sneakers are!" The meaning is completely and utterly different. A (scientific) theory is not "just a theory", rather, it is completely the opposite. A theory is a compilation of all the data, and when you have converging lines of (scientific) thought they merge to become a theory.

"Theory" does not mean random stabs in the dark, it means: an explanation of certain phenomena supported by a body of facts and often unifying similarly supported hypotheses such as atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, cell theory, some-people-are-dumb-as-dirt theory and so on.

The Theory of Evolution for instance, is the explanation of all the biological, physical and related lines of demonstrable data. If just one of these parts were to be proven false in some way, the entire theory would be subjected to intense scrutiny and revision. (The man-made global warming theory springs to mind here)

When was the last time you heard someone proclaim: a theory is just a theory, therefore, the Theory of Gravity is "just a theory"? (Silly, isn't it?)

Theories do NOT go on to be promoted as facts. They explain facts.

The Theory of Evolution will never be "proven" just like the Theory of Gravity will never be "proven". We don't "prove" theories. We support theories with facts. We don't have to "prove" the Theory of Gravity because things fall when you let them go. So we 'believe' in gravity.

Would it surprise you to know we're not sure why things fall? Oh, Newton had one idea, but then, Einstein had another. Did objects stop falling while it was figured out? No. Things kept on falling. That's evolution. We observe it.

The Theory of Evolution is about "how" things evolve. We may not be certain of all the "hows" yet, but we're certain that things do indeed evolve. No doubt at all there. None whatsoever. Evolution has been, and is being, tested and observed, in laboratories as in 'real life'.

So, when you want someone to come out and say "the theory is proven", well, that's not going to happen because that doesn't exist - and that's okay, because the empirical evidence of apples falling and seeds becoming full grown according to their like, is incontrovertible.

- - -

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (the theory) by which evolution (the fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory -natural selection- to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981


Didn't understand any of it? Then you are most likely able to produce this little gem: "... but if we share common ancestry with chimps, why are there still chimps?"

When it is pointed out for the same reason Americans share common ancestry with Europeans, but there are still Europeans, you cannot follow the logic - just too big a leap. It is not as if you are Evil Knievel (defying gravity), right?

Right.  <img alt="happy.gif" src="/images/happy.gif" width="14" height="14">


http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/m ... +Emotional
 


People : intrinsically intelligent.

When people turn together, they could become a herd.
When people turn a herd, they could become sheeple.
When people turn sheeple, they could become dumb animals.
When people turn dumb animals, they become treated as such.


<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... esmall.jpg">

New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... tworks.gif">

The human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in
Last edited by JVH on July 12th, 2010, 6:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 14th, 2010, 9:55 am

July 14th, 2010, 9:55 am #3

Silly or perhaps just an illusion ?



A Scientist Takes On Gravity

Click link for full article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/scien ... .html?_r=2

Its hard to imagine a more fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of life on the Earth than gravity, from the moment you first took a step and fell on your diapered bottom to the slow terminal sagging of flesh and dreams.


But what if its all an illusion,
a sort of cosmic frill,
or a side effect of something else going on at deeper levels of reality?



So says Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, whose contention that gravity is indeed an illusion has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists, or at least among those who profess to understand it. Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, he argued in a recent paper, titled On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton, that gravity is a consequence of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe the behavior of heat and gases.




For me gravity doesn't exist, said Dr. Verlinde, who was recently in the United States to explain himself. Not that he cant fall down, but Dr. Verlinde is among a number of physicists who say that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic, from which gravity emerges, the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or that elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms.

Looking at gravity from this angle, they say, could shed light on some of the vexing cosmic issues of the day, like the dark energy, a kind of anti-gravity that seems to be speeding up the expansion of the universe, or the dark matter that is supposedly needed to hold galaxies together.

Quote
Like
Share

Arthur dent
Arthur dent

July 14th, 2010, 11:47 am #4

but there seem to be a number of seemingly valid ways of looking at it.

Newton described it as a force with acceleration attached, which worked for him and the rest of humanity for hundreds of years, and then there was the Einsteinian way of seeing gravity more as a warping of the space time continuum where objects actually didnt accelerate or be affected by a force, which may be closer to the truth, but harder to calculate for someone who wants to plot an apples trajectory.

and there may be variations on that yet again. One things for sure, dont jump off a cliff on earth. You'll get splattered whether you are Newton fan, an Einstein buff, or a crazy creationist, the gods will not save you, no matter who you pray to.
Quote
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

July 14th, 2010, 2:56 pm #5

Silly or perhaps just an illusion ?



A Scientist Takes On Gravity

Click link for full article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/scien ... .html?_r=2

Its hard to imagine a more fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of life on the Earth than gravity, from the moment you first took a step and fell on your diapered bottom to the slow terminal sagging of flesh and dreams.


But what if its all an illusion,
a sort of cosmic frill,
or a side effect of something else going on at deeper levels of reality?



So says Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, whose contention that gravity is indeed an illusion has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists, or at least among those who profess to understand it. Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, he argued in a recent paper, titled On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton, that gravity is a consequence of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe the behavior of heat and gases.




For me gravity doesn't exist, said Dr. Verlinde, who was recently in the United States to explain himself. Not that he cant fall down, but Dr. Verlinde is among a number of physicists who say that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic, from which gravity emerges, the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or that elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms.

Looking at gravity from this angle, they say, could shed light on some of the vexing cosmic issues of the day, like the dark energy, a kind of anti-gravity that seems to be speeding up the expansion of the universe, or the dark matter that is supposedly needed to hold galaxies together.
The Theory of Evolution will never be "proven" just like the Theory of Gravity will never be "proven". We don't "prove" theories. We support theories with facts. We don't have to "prove" the Theory of Gravity because things fall when you let them go. So we 'believe' in gravity.

Would it surprise you to know we're not sure why things fall? Oh, Newton had one idea, but then, Einstein had another. Did objects stop falling while it was figured out? No. Things kept on falling. That's evolution. We observe it.

The Theory of Evolution is about "how" things evolve. We may not be certain of all the "hows" yet, but we're certain that things do indeed evolve. No doubt at all there. None whatsoever. Evolution has been, and is being, tested and observed, in laboratories as in 'real life'.

So, when you want someone to come out and say "the theory is proven", well, that's not going to happen because that doesn't exist - and that's okay, because the empirical evidence of apples falling and seeds becoming full grown according to their like, is incontrovertible.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/m ... 278916605/

Science+has+proof+without+any+certainty.+Creationists+have+certainty+without+any+proof.


____________________________________

it is as it is, it goes as it goes
if you feel it isn't, then that is how it is
if you feel it doesn't, then that is how it goes

People : intrinsically intelligent.

However .....

When people turn together, they could become a herd.
When people turn a herd, they could become sheeple.
When people turn sheeple, they could become dumb animals.
When people turn dumb animals, they become treated as such.




New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!

The human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in

ardent believers -in whatever- confronted with incontestables either go silent; more illogical; in denial, turn dishonest; personal; abusive; absurd even
or any combination thereof, and cannot seem to help themselves but advertise such, therewith granting the courtesy of instant clarification
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

July 14th, 2010, 3:00 pm #6

but there seem to be a number of seemingly valid ways of looking at it.

Newton described it as a force with acceleration attached, which worked for him and the rest of humanity for hundreds of years, and then there was the Einsteinian way of seeing gravity more as a warping of the space time continuum where objects actually didnt accelerate or be affected by a force, which may be closer to the truth, but harder to calculate for someone who wants to plot an apples trajectory.

and there may be variations on that yet again. One things for sure, dont jump off a cliff on earth. You'll get splattered whether you are Newton fan, an Einstein buff, or a crazy creationist, the gods will not save you, no matter who you pray to.
<em>But what if its all an illusion, a sort of cosmic frill, or a side effect of something else going on at deeper levels of reality? So says Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam
</em>

<em>Dr. Verlinde is among a number of physicists who say that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic, from which gravity emerges, the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or that elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms.

Looking at gravity from this angle, they say, it could shed light on some of the vexing cosmic issues of the day, like the dark energy, a kind of anti-gravity that seems to be speeding up the expansion of the universe, or the dark matter that is supposedly needed to hold galaxies together.</em>

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/m ... %26quot%3B


____________________________________

it is as it is, it goes as it goes
if you feel it isn't, then that is how it is
if you feel it doesn't, then that is how it goes

People : intrinsically intelligent.

However .....

When people turn together, they could become a herd.
When people turn a herd, they could become sheeple.
When people turn sheeple, they could become dumb animals.
When people turn dumb animals, they become treated as such.




New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!

The human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in

ardent believers -in whatever- confronted with incontestables either go silent; more illogical; in denial, turn dishonest; personal; abusive; absurd even
or any combination thereof, and cannot seem to help themselves but advertise such, therewith granting the courtesy of instant clarification
Quote
Like
Share