|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science is Revealed Truth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
RAZD writes: The process of science (scientific method) is the only known process that we have to find/uncover/reveal new facts/verity/truths.
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. While philosophers and theologians argue over truths and the meaning of true, scientists are just busy figuring out how the universe works. Paraphrasing Steven Weinberg, the only good thing that philosophers have done is point out bad philosophy. Otherwise, science really doesn't give a hoot about Truth, with a capital T.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Davidjay writes: 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. They also don't include theories that haven't been tested or theories that are not supported by evidence.
Davidjay writes: 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. The only indoctrination is learning what previous scientists have discovered through the scientific method.
They do not rely on luck and chance as their means of solving mysteries. They want to test things out personnally themselves....and they do. History proves you wrong. Many scientific theories were discovered by luck and chance. In fact, the birth of many theories started with the phrase, "Hmm, that's strange", after coming about some observation through luck or chance. When Alexander Fleming discovered antibiotics it was through complete luck. A mold contaminated one of his plates completely by chance, and he found that bacteria wouldn't grow close to the mold. This led to the development of penicillin. On top of that, scientists model luck or chance in almost every scientific test they do. When they say that they have positive or negative results this is almost always in reference to statistical significance. That significance is based on the probability that luck or chance would produce a false positive or a false negative.
Metaphysics is just the invisable and is no barrier to a real scientist. Metaphysics is not the invisible. Metaphysics is the untestable assumptions that one uses to describe the universe. Invisible things like x-rays or radio waves can be tested, and are not metaphysical. Perhaps you should read up on epistemology and axioms.
Jay sips more of his coffee........ for he has them right where he wants them..... evolutionists and atheists and blind scientists are so dumb and so easily defeated.... So says the person who doesn't know what metaphysics is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Davidjay writes: Denial by the worldly people who refuse to go beyond to the world of science and spirituality, lose out because of their denails, denails denials. The difference is that we can empirically test for EMF radiation. Not so for the claimed existence of the spiritual. The reason that science does not accept the existence of the spiritual is because there is no scientific evidence that such a thing exists. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Davidjay writes: To find out if someone exists and is a real person, the ultimate test is meeting them.Christians say, they have meet Jesus, Jesus said, He can meet any person who wants to know if he is real. Thats the ultimate test, and once someone has meet someone who exists, they KNOW that person is real. Its not a belief system, a hoping, a faith, but a KNOWING. Scientists usually just believe, a CHRISTIAN KNOWS JESUS is REAL
Then show us a Youtube video of someone meeting Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
mike the wiz writes: For example, exotic air, gravity, germ theory, forces, can be directly tested and they reveal an ENDLESS induction of identical results. The same applies to evolution when we compare the genomes of living species. Genomes are a direct record of ancestry, and they can be used to directly test predictions made by the theory of evolution.
When people fall to the ground, people not falling off the earth at it's other side, etc...all of the direct tests we can do to show there is some force keeping us on earth, can be performed any time we want, to prove to each other those things are true. We can place a rat in a sealed dome and see if it loses consciousness, we can see germs under the microscope. When we compare genomes we can use algorithms to determine if there is a statistically significant phylogenetic signal. We can do this any time, and with any species.
You cannot, in a lab, show a bellows type lung evolve into a contraflow lung or a scale which is actually part of a whole skin, evolve proto-feathers that lead to feathers. You cannot show a prokaryotic cell evolved into a proto-eukaryotic cell, by showing the bacteria migrate into the cell to create the organelle. But we can show, in the lab, that these species share a common ancestor, and that the divergence of their genomes are consistent with evolutionary mechanisms.
None of these things are factual, scientifically, they are all claims of the historical claim of macro evolution and cannot be tested directly. You have to believe the, "just so" story together with circumstantial evidence, in order to accept that this happened in history, against the immense sophistication of design in nature as proven by biomimetics. Phylogenetics isn't circumstantial nor is it a just so story. It is a scientific test.
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." Even creationists tacitly agree that science is closer to the truth than religion. This is why they, like you, try so hard to show that the theory of evolution isn't science. Creationists even argue that evolution is just another religion, just like creationism is. You never evolutionists try to disprove creationism by calling it "just another scientific theory". Creationist efforts to make creationism look like science while trying to make evolution look like a religion only shines a spotlight on the fact that science is better than religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Davidjay writes: The cowardly sit on the fence and never test out truths, . . . Here are 29+ tests for the theory of evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent Let's compare that to creationism: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in GenesisStatement of Faith | Answers in Genesis That is one of the leading creationist organizations, and they state outright that you can't test creationism and you must dogmatically believe creationism is true no matter what the evidence shows. They state outright that you must toe the line.
Real Scientists and real searchers test out spirituality and JESUS according to real life personal experiences. Thats how they KNOW !! So lets see one of those tests for creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Davidjay writes: Evolution can not be tested. 29+ tests for evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Davidjay writes: If you are intelligent and educated, use your so called intelligence and education to beat my intelligence and education BOTH in the real world and in the educational field called science. 29+ tests for evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent Consider your intelligence defeated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Davidjay writes: Taq, how convenient that you try to change the topic and away from the deplorable remarks of your evolutionists.Please stay on topic and not clog this thread with your side topic.... also it gives room for their apologies for their deplorable slurs. Please read and study Atheists and Evolutionists have no morality thread
The topic is Science as revealed truth. One of the reasons that science is considered to be revealed truth is that it is testable. You made the claim that evolution is not testable. I defeated your intelligence by demonstrating that evolution is testable. Consider yourself defeated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Davidjay writes: Spiritality is testable, as I mentioned. Jesus is testable as I mentioned, the invisable can be tested. How is it testable?
And evolution can not be tested, only theorised. 29+ tests for evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent Your intelligence has been defeated once again.
But I must give you a chance, please show your test results..... of evolutionists trying to support other evolutionists. Here they are: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Did you test my exact methods in finding out truths about the invisable spiritual world, using the experimental scientific method I gave, so you can KNOW for sure...from personal experience. What's the method? What's the null hypothesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Davidjay writes: Treeshrews were suppose to be our primate ancestor, not a cousin or a brother, but a forefather.... all four of you said it, and finally answered what evolution believes in, as our common ancestor. Quote?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Davidjay writes: They say we came from treeshrews and now try to say we didn;t come from treee shrews, Please quote any of us where we said that we are descended from modern tree shrews.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Davidjay writes: Laws are not man made, Yes, laws are made by humans. For example, Newton wrote the laws of gravity. Along came Einstein who questioned those laws, and sure enough Newton's Laws of Gravity didn't accurately describe what we observed.
but we did not create any laws, the Creator did. Based on what evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Davidjay writes: Man did not creat laws.... man has never created a law.... Newton created the Laws of Gravity.
man does not make gravity, man does not make objects fall to a greater mass. Man does create scientific laws describing how gravity behaves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
double
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024