You know that it doesn't work that way.
Science doesn't need to prove the non existence of gods. Science is just going to ignore gods as irrelevant to explaining anything until they are proven to exist.
Put it this way, as a scientist most of us have not seen proof there really is no God. Some of it is faith indeed.
You know that it doesn't work that way.
Science doesn't need to prove the non existence of gods. Science is just going to ignore gods as irrelevant to explaining anything until they are proven to exist.
You know that it doesn't work that way.
Science doesn't need to prove the non existence of gods. Science is just going to ignore gods as irrelevant to explaining anything until they are proven to exist.
... As a scientist, you may or may not look at God as irrevelvant.
That's precisely what it should do. Science is a tool who's function is to describe that which can be known from physical examination. It's a great multi-tool. It's a lousy frying pan. There are things which are true and things which are false which will never be known. That does not mean they do not exist but science is not a substitute for religion nor is the reverse true. It's a lack of proper understanding of how things are meant to work which is a huge stumbling block in a discussion.
That's precisely what it should do. Science is a tool who's function is to describe that which can be known from physical examination. It's a great multi-tool. It's a lousy frying pan. There are things which are true and things which are false which will never be known. That does not mean they do not exist but science is not a substitute for religion nor is the reverse true. It's a lack of proper understanding of how things are meant to work which is a huge stumbling block in a discussion.
Yes, too many people treat science as if it is a religion...
Yes, too many people treat science as if it is a religion. Of course Aristotle was wrong, so were all who came after. Even our current theories are flawed in some manner, does that make them not useful? Science is flawed in the sense that it's a tool which describes human thought rather than nature, same with mathematics. How we perceive things is just a tool, not how things really are. Surely quantum has taught us this? God does not throw dice, quantum is just statistical manipulation of observations which means we just don't know.
At some level all knowledge breaks down. If you believe there's nothing else to learn then you stop learning. Satan would be disappointed.
So what?
Answer this question: How many people who opposed Spontaneous Generation, or the Transmutation of Species were told exactly the same thing?
My point is not that I will be proven correct, but history often repeats as someone thinking they have it right, just to be utterly proven wrong later on...and let's not forget the amounts of times people could have been called "wrongheaded", "unscientific" for opposing those theories.
You have to be careful here. There's very strong evidence that there are no "hidden variables" when it comes to quantum mechanical phenomena. Some events appear to be truly random and non-deterministic in nature. This also means that either locality (that information cannot move faster than the speed of light) or causality (that an action must be preceded by its cause) is flawed.
I agree with your general thesis, though. It is almost certain that our current scientific understanding of the universe is wrong, but it is the best explanation we have that is verifiable.
Going back to the pages in the OP, if Noah was tasked to take two of every animal/creature on the earth, and dinos were around then (which is what that "book" describes, why didn't Noah have dinosaurs on the Ark?
Going back to the pages in the OP, if Noah was tasked to take two of every animal/creature on the earth, and dinos were around then (which is what that "book" describes, why didn't Noah have dinosaurs on the Ark?
Evolution is a readily verifiable fact, the theory part is we derived from a common ancestor. Religion, as we see it, is easily refuted even biblical scholars point out the blatant errors in the bible. But to take a point and use it to refute the whole idea is a logical absurdity, OTOH given my view of reality it's all questionable so believe Santa Claus created all life 10 minutes ago. You're probably as close to the mark as the most advanced scientific theories on the planet if my view of life is correct.
The angels lead the dinosaurs on a charge to sink the Ark and they all drowned. This makes sense because God told Noah to build the Ark and angels clearly don't work for God. Angels also were too stupid to attack the Ark with Pterodactyls and aquatic dinosaurs. Since the aquatic dinosaurs couldn't have drowned, they must have either gotten too bored to continue living or perhaps were killed and eaten by roving pigeons.
I don't know. But I don't think it's right to directly compare non scientific ideas to scientific ones.
Can you provide a hypothetical observation that creationist theory rules out or says we should not find? That, if found, would show creationist theory to be wrong?
Science <> scientists. In science, you don't add God to any computations. As a scientist, you may or may not look at God as irrevelvant.
I can't think of any right at this moment.
poor Galileo
Evolution is a readily verifiable fact, the theory part is we derived from a common ancestor.
One of my pet peeves is the way that the word "theory" is misappropriated in popular culture. As far as science is concerned, the word "fact" does not exist. The idea of a "scientific fact" implies an element of absolute Truth that science cannot provide.
There is observation, hypothesis, and theory. Observations are measurements, either qualitative or quantitative. A hypothesis is an explanation for a set of observations that is fundamentally testable and verifiable. A theory is the hypothesis that provides the best and simplest explanation currently available. No topic graduates from this level of certainty, except to be deposed by a better theory. "Just a theory" is the best that science will ever provide. Gravity is just a theory, the standard model is just a theory. None of these are "facts" any more than anything else in science.
Now there's a fellow I have very little sympathy for.