|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science is Revealed Truth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Revealed Truth
What is "truth" ... (excerpted from definition below):
What does it mean to be "revealed" ... (also excerpted from definition below):
The process of science (scientific method) is the only known process that we have to find/uncover/reveal new facts/verity/truths.
Enjoy Definitions:
Edited by RAZD, : modified titleby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
And besides all truths have to be connected and joined, no truth stands alone, but leads to other truths. Indeed, knowledge leads to knowledge, and science builds on previous science.
True scientists are not swayed by their peers or the belief systems of others, they have open minds and hearts, and just search until they find truths. Open minds but also skeptical, hence testing against reality (objective empirical evidence) to see if it is supported or invalidated. Also why replication by others is important, to ensure your conclusions are not based on personal bias\opinion. What is your paradigm for judging the validity of statements? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Jay notices a beauty walk through the door, and mentions it to Raz... they both take a long look and imaginations soar. They take a deep breath and then relate how science revealed is just like a beauty revealed, step by step, one piece of clothing at a time until the final revealment and final total unveiling. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, male and female, but there are also evolutionary implications -- this is part of mate selection, and thus an evolved "mate template" is applied. There are the implications of Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution in that our intellect is a result of selection for creativity (dance, face painting, evolving into arts and entertainment) and that our bodies are also a result of sexual selection, particularly the apparent hairless appearance of females, in order to look younger.
SEE What is beauty Whatisbeauty When we look at certain elements of attraction we find that they are generally median values within the population, health, physical fitness, apparent ability to provide basic elements for living. This focus onto the median values shows population selection for success in survival and reproduction, tending towards stasis around the median values. But when desired values depart from the median, then we see sexual selection in action, the things that result in costly adaptations to get a mate, like the peacocks tail. Human brain size has increased to the point where it impacts mother survival of childbirth, and would likely be selected to continue without this barrier. Male penis size is much larger than all the other apes, likely due to female sexual selection, even though some (Bonobos) are more sexually active than humans. Apparent hairlessness of women is so that they appear more childlike, as the number of hairs is not changed so much as the type of hair, retaining vellus hair instead of the normal progression to terminal hair, as seen in men.
Now thats exciting and thrilling and reproductive and entrancing, as science does the same thing. Indeed, uncovering the inner workings of the universe is exciting and thrilling. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Nah, beauty is the Phi template of creation, as all societies because of our common Creator all have the same ratios of beauty. Except that we can see that perceptions of beauty have changed over time and vary from culture to culture. All we need to do is look at nudes to see idealized beauty in each case. From the "voluptuous nudes" of Rubens to the tall stick models of today. This shows variation in height to weight ratios.
Our common Creator used our beauty to our mates to help us be attracted so we would reproduce. He/she created sex.... and beauty and attractions. ... Our sense of beauty evolved, because it too is selected, and it continues to evolve, along with the social changes in the perception of beauty. Just as shaved legs are now considered beautiful, supporting a mega-dollar industry, taking the apparent hairless trait to a probably impossible level through artifice. This again implies run-away sexual selection rather than god-given gifts.
... Evolutionists believe in randomness rather than ratios and mathematics, and think our attractions just happened by luck and chance. But "ratios and mathematics" are random expressions of random perceptions. Math is not capable of invalidating reality, but reality can invalidate math. You can determine ratios and mathematical formulas for anything you observe, but that does not show cause for what is observed: if the observations had been different the ratios and the formulas made to describe them would also be different. The map is not the territory.
Message 13 Real scientists go beyond the forced indocrination they get from followers. They venture forth with courage and guts and foresight, searching for more truths. They are not intimidated by the masses, they are pioneers, and demand answers rather than just being negative and deniers. Real scientists demand proofs for themselves, and dont stop til they find out one way or the other. They do not follow as dumb sheep, for the slaughter. They go where others dare not go. "Real scientists" are also skeptical of results, especially their own (which may be affected by hidden biases), and thus rely on testing and replication to validate their findings, and they don't presume a finding to be true even then, rather they accept the results as a good approximation of reality/truth, and subject to continued testing and evaluation. Some "truths" are tweaked in the process when they are found to be previously incomplete. Gravity for example: Newton's theory good enough in near relationships, but has anomalies further away (orbit of Mercury for example), so it is tweaked with Einstein's theory (which defaults to Newtonian values in near relationships).
They can explain what they have found out, and know the subject matter backwards and forwards, and go step by step or precept by precept..... one truth leading to another. Einstein's theory would not have been sought without Newton's theory and the Mercury anomaly. Anomalies with Einstein's theory imply it too is not complete, but it is certainly good enough to get us to Saturn and beyond.
(ibid) Metaphysics is just the invisable and is no barrier to a real scientist. Only the closed minded ones that closed their eyes or demand to see only with their eyes. They miss 69/70 percent of all truths. Sadly metaphysics cannot be empirically tested by definition, and thus cannot be science, but philosophy.
(ibid) Real scientists go behind the scenes because they know from sceince and physics, that the EMF is 70 times bigger than the mere human spectrum we humans can see. They dont deny what they haven't tested just because they cant seen it or haven't experienced it. "Real scientists" also do not accept "what they haven't tested just because they cant seen it or haven't experienced it" but also remain skeptical both that it may be true and that it may not be true -- agnostic -- until testing provided enough additional information to show one way or the other. Open minded enough to consider the possibility it may be true, but equally skeptical of it being true as well. I find it interesting that you say:
Message 9 My paradigm is testing, ... But that you accept as true several things that are untestable. Can you explain how you come to those conclusions? What you "like" and "dislike" are irrelevant. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Science really isn't interested in philosophical truths or metaphysics. Science is much more practical in that we use science because it appears to work. ... Otherwise, science really doesn't give a hoot about Truth, with a capital T. That's why I used "small t" truth and listed the definitions I did for it:
... Science is much more practical in that we use science because it appears to work. ... scientists are just busy figuring out how the universe works. ... What we find are approximations for truth, ~truth if you will, that become increasingly refined as our knowledge builds on previous findings with new information that is found/uncovered/revealed, whether by experiment, by accident, or by review of previous work. We say that the theory of evolution is so well supported by objective empirical evidence that we accept it as fact ... by which we mean being the best approximation to reality that we know at this time, ie ~true. We could also say that evolution is the truest explanation of the facts that is known. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
So the only way to personally explore the spirit world, beyond the realm of the blinded and unseeing is to test it out and see personally...as Jesus said. 'Taste and see if the Lord is good' Experience it, try it, test it... ... This is not a test in the scientific sense: what parameters are being used to measure it? When most people come to different conclusions from such testing the test is indeterminate. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The facts known do not correspond to luck and chance philosophy. Which only proves that your portrayal of science as luck and chance philosophy is incorrect.
Thats a desperate frustrated conclusion reached by bound blinded scientists who limit their searches to what they want to see or not see. Ah, you're referring to creationist pretend scientists.
Real scientists go beyond into real testing and real discovery. ie things that can be replicated by others:
That completes the process cycle, that's when the theory begins to be useful. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You yourself have to prove things to yourself and stop bowing to the pressures of others, and intimidation, fear of losing your job or friends, etc etc... you have to have the guts to prove Jesus to yourself. ... But why just Jesus? Why not Mohammad, Buddha, Krishna, the Great Spirit, etc. ... ? Why not test every single religion you can with the same dedication to uncovering the truth? There are followers of all other religions that are just as fervent, just as convinced, just as dedicated. Even in different sects within each religion there is disagreement in what individual people believe. Thus the test you propose is neither discriminatory, nor complete, and it cannot be replicated by others with the same results, there is no consensus other than "god/s exist" ... and even that is not testable in a scientific manner.
Go to the source, dont be whimpy and evasive, be a real scientist, and find OUT. Curiously I have searched, my conclusion is quite different from yours. I also reject all prepackaged materials -- if it is truth it is findable without revelations to/by others. True science is repeatable: you can destroy all knowledge and start with a blank slate, and you will find gravity, evolution, the basics of chemistry and physics all over with virtually identical results. Try building your religious beliefs from a blank slate and you will come to some interesting conclusions. At least I did (see signature). Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Compare the words, test the words, analyse the words, dig deep, dont be shallow and flippant. Know the difference, Experience the difference... Test everyone of (fill in the blank) doctrines and principles and decide. True scientists test So says any ardent follower of any religion. But there are many "doctrines and principles" in common, not because they are original with the purported source, but because they derive from sensible "doctrines and principles" for social species and thus are most likely evolved memes for social behavior. the "doctrines and principles" are the same but the names have been changed ...
Dont go by semantics like the evolutionists, dont be a theorists all your life, get in the game and experience, and prove things for yourself. Have some balls or ovaries, and courage enough to test and see. Curiously you only seem to have "tested" one version.
Message 41: Forget about the followers and trying to blame the followers. GO TO THE SOURCE... Quite looking for excuses, find the author, find the Saviour if there is one, and stop being so hesitant and wary....and immobilized by fear. So I can forget about you and your ranting. Good. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Mike
RAZD, I would say you haven't proven that truth is only true if it is scientific. Good thing I didn't say that.
So I believe essentially and I say this without any personal offence meant whatsoever, as I do appreciate you and always have, but essentially your argument is a sweeping generalisation fallacy. That; "because science is known to reveal truth and evolution is science, therefore evolution is true." Secondly, if you argue that "science is the only way to reveal truth," it does not therefore follow that, "if something is true therefore it is science." Good thing I didn't say that either. Rather science is A way to reveal truths (or close approximations to them). We know gravity is real, how to describe it not so much. Newton had a good approximation (it got us to the Moon and Mars etc) but it didn't explain Mercury's orbit. Relativity does, so it's a better approximation. Likewise we know that evolution is real, that every test made to date has confirmed that evolution is the best -- truest -- explanation we have to describe how it works. The validity of these theories are revealed by the scientific process.
So it's a myth that science is this perfect tool, IMHO. It's the best we have, and we know that -- within specified limitations (such as "must be testable") -- it works. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And we have. Spirituality loses every time. No response on any instrument. Spirituality only exists in the minds of believers. Small quibble. There was a study done of people in "religious experience" states: catholic nuns and buddhist monks, with cat scans. They both showed activity in the same areas of the brain. There are apparently several ways to experience such states, and virtually every religion mentions some form or another, ascetics for example. We also have the God Helmet:
quote: So this could be like applying electricity to a frog nerve\muscle and making the leg move. What I conclude is that people can have a "religious experience" (bolstered by my own experience), but whether it is real or memorex has yet to be determined. Regardless it is not god or religion specific (or revealed knowledge for that matter). If nothing else this can explain the large number of religions around the world and the various sects within each. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
How true, evolution only exists in the minds of its believers, ... I am always amused when creationists treat science as a belief system. Perhaps it is all they know. The truth is that I accept the validity of the theory of evolution as the demonstrated best explanation for the diversity of life as we see it -- in the fossil record, in the historical record, in the genetic record, and in the world around us.
Evolution can not be tested as mentioned, ... It is tested by every fossil and every genetic genome comparison. It is tested daily in the world around us as life continues to evolve and diversify.
... it is a mere theory that is not a law. ... Just as gravity is a mere theory and not a law. All this shows is systematic profound ignorance of how science works. Theories form an explanatory framework for understanding how the universe works, we test them and tweak them so that they explain as much of the known objective empirical evidence as possible, refining them as new information is incorporated. Theories are falsifiable, and when falsified they lead to new theories that do an even better job of explaining the evidence. It is easy to put "mere" in front of any word -- usually to disparage it and make it less important in your mind. The only one you fool is yourself.
... .even though on other threads it is absolutely proven that laws do not evolve and evolution never evolved any laws. Something only a mere creationist would say, because it shows absolute ignorance of the differences between laws and theories (and hypothesis and mere guessing (which some mere creationists think theories are))
So you have to be a real scientist to see into the invisable world, you have to go beyond mere human eyesight vision boundaries and into the 69/70th world of science and spirituality. Gutless scientists are afraid, real scientists venture forth...... without crying liar liar liar. Real scientists search for truths rather than believing on convenient theories that match their mindset or belief system. Just like the use of the word "mere" to flavor the implications of mere creationist statements, the insertion of "real" before scientist is there to imply that not all scientists are real. This IS true of mere creationist pseudoscientists that do pretend science to fool gullible followers, but in reality there are only scientists and non-scientists, and the thing that distinguishes one from the other is that scientists do science. Science cannot test the metaphysical because it is by definition not physical, not subject to physical measurements and observations. The minute such measurements or observations can be made it ceases to be metaphysical and becomes part of the physical world and not mere imagination. imho Davidjay is merely another creationist fraud looking for gullible wanna-believers, full of self-centered blather intended to impress but which merely amuses. A voice of one hollering at the world to shape up. Amusing. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : subtitleby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Spirituality only exists in the minds of believers. How true, evolution only exists in the minds of its believers, ... What distinguishes science from belief is the falsification testing. Science looks for falsification tests, because only then do you know the weakness of the theory and what needs to be done to strengthen it or to make a new one. Belief avoids falsification like the plague. Deluded people holding onto beliefs in the face of contrary evidence often "double down" and create conspiracy theories or other explanations they fool themselves with for how the evidence does not contradict their beliefs. The age of the earthThe age of life on earth Evolution Climate Change The rational person discards any beliefs that are falsified by objective empirical evidence. The fool discards evidence to hold onto belief. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Creationism is an hypothesis which has not been supported by evidence--a failed hypothesis. Worse, it has no falsification test, and thus cannot even be a scientific hypothesis. It's mere wishful thinking.
Me, I'll follow the scientific method. Until something better comes along (not holding my breath). Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Proposed New Topics, Discuss the origins of EVOLUTION, Message 10 Davidjay propounds:
quote: The problem is that science is about facts and theories and evidence and not about people. If one scientist had not found a revealed scientific truth, another one would. The evidence for this is the remarkable numbers of times that "discoveries" are made virtuously simultaneously in all fields from all parts of the planet. If Darwin had not been the name on evolution it would have been Alfred Russel Wallace (see Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography), If Wallace had not founded the concept of Biogeography, someone else would have, because the reality/truth is there to be found/revealed, waiting to be discovered. The reason for this is the gradual accumulation of knowledge, the consilience of concepts from different fields coming to the same conclusions, and the fact that our way of thinking about these things changes as we learn more, things are seen in different lights. For instance the Malthus connection mentioned in Message 3 of Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography provide an epiphany understanding for Wallace regarding evolution:
quote: Without Malthus and Wallace's knowledge of his theories on population this conclusion would have been missed. As knowledge is revealed, bit by bit, building on previous knowledge, new conclusions are possible. This is true in all science ... "we are limited in our ability to understand ... by our ability to understand ... " If not (well informed) scientist "A" then (well informed) scientist "B" ... the person is relatively irrelevant to the discovery of new revealed truths. As the X-Files say: the truth is out there. It doesn't matter who discovers it, it matters that new truths are discovered and shared and integrated into the knowledge bank of science so the next discoveries can be made. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024