Originally posted by EladarAs predicted.
If you believe it is true, but it has not been demonstrated to be true, then you rely on something other than direct observation.
But it has been demonstrated to be true. And I did rely on observation. (yes I saw you try to slip in 'direct'. ha ha.)
A true scientist who only bases beliefs on what can be seen must limit belief to what can only be seen.
You are mistaken about the meaning of the word 'observation'. It does not mean 'to be seen'.
And no, 'true scientists' do not solely base their beliefs on what can be seen, but rather on what can be observed, and what can be deduced from those observations.
Such a person would say "according to the theory of evolution this animal evolved over time" as opposed to "this animal evolved over time". One statement attributes the observation to the theory then other makes a statement of fact.
But the theory is fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed,
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadScience is direct observation with repeatable results. If you can't repeat it and you can't do it for yourself it is not science.
As predicted.
But it has been demonstrated to be true. And I did rely on observation. (yes I saw you try to slip in 'direct'. ha ha.)
[b]A true scientist who only bases beliefs on what can be seen must limit belief to what can only be seen.
You are mistaken about the meaning of the word 'observation'. It does not mean 'to be seen'.
And no, ' ...[text shortened]... orld that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed,[/quote][/b]
Science may contain unproven theories which can be tested. I say that's great and as long as they produce what we want, keep using it.
Once you dabble in things that can't be tested, any belief that it is true is just that, belief. Only the self deluded can't see it.
09 Dec 16
Originally posted by twhitehead...Thank you for answering. I admit some surprise, and am chastised.
The only reasonable definition I can come up with is something that is not of this universe. ....
My question now does not directly involve the current discussions here, but is important to me. Let's say that the biosphere of earth is sufficient substrate to give rise to mind. We talking supernatural?
09 Dec 16
12 edits
Originally posted by EladarNope. I (and others here) obviously make no such assumption and no such assumption is needed to conclude there is evolution just as no assumption that there is no God or gods is needed to explain how lions hunt in packs.
My point is that you base that belief on the assumption God does not exist.
The theory of evolution is derived from the evidence alone and its derivation has nothing to do with there being or not being a God or gods and has nothing to do with there being or not being a tooth fairy or ghosts.
+ , providing you are not talking about the usual crazed Christian fundamentalist kind of God, it is logically possible to have and believe without self-contradiction or any kind of logical inconsistency that there is BOTH God (or gods) and evolution, no problem. Why not?
There are many Christians that believe both that there is evolution and God and believe God guides the evolution process. Obviously, I don't personally think a God guides anything (so-far no evidence for this. If and when there is evidence for this, then I will believe this) and that includes evolution, but that's missing the point; you can believe both there is a God and there is evolution without the two contradicting each other nor being in conflict with each other in any way whatsoever.
There may be good logical reasons to think God or gods are unlikely to exist; but evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with those reasons.
So now I have shown you so-called 'point' to be a falsehood merely by pointing out the obvious; yes, I believe from the evidence alone, and NOT from there being no God or gods or tooth fairy (none of which has anything to do with it), that evolution is true. So what?
09 Dec 16
13 edits
Originally posted by EladarWe know evolution is true because we can, and actually do in this case, repeat the observations of the same fossils and other evidence again and again and we still always rationally conclude each time evolution is true; repeatable results from observation. Your point?
Science is direct observation with repeatable results. If you can't repeat it and you can't do it for yourself it is not science.
...
Science is direct observation with .......
actually, not quite, why "direct" observation only? The observation can be as massively indirect as you like and it would still be perfectly scientific providing the conclusion is still logically implied from the observation thus how "direct" or "indirect" the observations are is irrelevant.
...oh, I know why you insist it must be "direct" observation only; you are hoping that that restricting it to just direct observation would prevent science contradicting your unscientific beliefs; Sorry! Science allows indirect observations! And to accept science you must accept indirect observation, no matter how indirect.
If you can't repeat it and you can't do it for yourself it isn't science
Are you saying if you, the layperson who isn't a scientist , hasn't either the intellectual ability or the physical ability to do the science to repeat the same results, then those results are not scientific? Really? Well, if so, then that means because you personally don't know how to make a rocket to observe the far side of the moon, the claim that there exists craters on the other side of the moon isn't science.
Don't be stupid; the only requirement for the results to be repeatable is for SOMEONE to be able to repeat it; it does have to be EVERYONE and it certainly doesn't have to be the science-ignorant layperson like yourself that needs to repeat it.
09 Dec 16
Originally posted by EladarNonsense. That is not what science is. What gave you that ridiculous idea?
Science is direct observation with repeatable results. If you can't repeat it and you can't do it for yourself it is not science.
Once you dabble in things that can't be tested, any belief that it is true is just that, belief.
Actually any belief that is true, is true.
Only the self deluded can't see it.
The problem is that you are not making sense.
09 Dec 16
12 edits
Originally posted by apathistno scientific evidence required to just accept the commonly accepted English dictionary meaning of the word "supernatural" (or any other English dictionary word for that matter) so you aren't making any sense at all. Commonly accepted definitions and meanings don't require science to justify those definitions and meanings; they only merely require a general common agreement of what the word or term means, that is all.
Make a case that the concept is stupid. I assume you have scientific evidence.
Do we need scientific evidence to justify the usual commonly accepted meaning of the word "dog" or "is" or "natural"?
If not, then THAT reason for that is the reason why we don't need scientific evidence to justify the usual commonly accepted meaning of the word "supernatural". What would scientific evidence have to do with it anyway?
And how on earth are you defining the word 'supernatural' in such a way that it implies that if a mind comes to exist in the biosphere then that indicates the existence of something 'supernatural'? -please show us this definition and explain the inference that goes from that definition and the evidence of a mind coming to exist in the biosphere to the conclusion that there is a supernatural...
09 Dec 16
Originally posted by humyWasting time on the blind and arrogant but who knows...
Nope. I (and others here) obviously make no such assumption and no such assumption is needed to conclude there is evolution just as no assumption that there is no God or gods is needed to explain how lions hunt in packs.
The theory of evolution is derived from the evidence alone and its derivation has nothing to do with there being or not being a God or gods ...[text shortened]... gods or tooth fairy (none of which has anything to do with it), that evolution is true. So what?
Lets assume that God created the world. Is it possible that he did so with a world that has age? Could God have created a world with the fossil record in place to mislead the arrogant?
Was Adam, the first man, created with speem and egg? He was created with age. Why do you assume the earth and Universe would not?
09 Dec 16
Originally posted by EladarWhy would God make it appear so that he doesn't exist just so his followers can bash "arrogant" people who aren't convinced by the non-existent evidence in favour of his existence? If God is anything like he's portrayed in the Bible - vain, jealous and petty - you'd expect him to leave evidence all over the place.
Wasting time on the blind and arrogant but who knows...
Lets assume that God created the world. Is it possible that he did so with a world that has age? Could God have created a world with the fossil record in place to mislead the arrogant?
Was Adam, the first man, created with speem and egg? He was created with age. Why do you assume the earth and Universe would not?
09 Dec 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraTo make the wise foolish.
Why would God make it appear so that he doesn't exist just so his followers can bash "arrogant" people who aren't convinced by the non-existent evidence in favour of his existence? If God is anything like he's portrayed in the Bible - vain, jealous and petty - you'd expect him to leave evidence all over the place.