Into the Night
Verified User
Then we agree. It is not science or falsifiable.
Christians are anti-science.
- Thread starter Grugore
- Start date
Then we agree. It is not science or falsifiable.
https://apple.news/A5ABUKVGbRXuOL48rX0d_og
In May, a poll by the University of Chicago Divinity School and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed 43% of evangelical Protestants, a group I’d identified as when both a Southern Baptist and charismatic believer, say they think COVID-19 is a message from God. Not that God caused it, but that he is using it to tell the world to change.
More than that, 55% of all believers feel God will protect them from the virus.
In May, a poll by the University of Chicago Divinity School and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed 43% of evangelical Protestants, a group I’d identified as when both a Southern Baptist and charismatic believer, say they think COVID-19 is a message from God. Not that God caused it, but that he is using it to tell the world to change.
More than that, 55% of all believers feel God will protect them from the virus.
We cannot go back in time to see the big bang, the formation of the solar system, the asteroid strike that took out the dinosaurs, or the rise of homo sapiens in East Africa.
People who are smarter than you, and have years of training in scientific inquiry are able to develop hypotheses, lines of evidences, and predictions which they can test.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Correction: We cannot go back in time to VERIFY any "Big Bang," how the solar system formed, what caused the any dinosaur species to become extinct, or where homo sapiens first came into existence.
You are not aware of anyone smarter than he his ... except for me since I'm the smartest poster on this board ... and you are hardly cognizant of the time of day.
Without a time machine, how do you suppose any speculation of the past be verified?
A tepid attempt to rescue "Into the Night" and to try to explain what she really meant.
In your flaccid attempt to elevate Christian biblical literalism over science, you demand science live up to an impossible standard: to time travel back to observe the Big Bang, the asteroid strike at the end of the Curvaceous et al.
Neither you nor any scientist has ever actually directly observed quarks, electrons, Higgs bosons. But the standard model of particle physics has been tested and confirmed so bloody often, we have extremely high scientific confidence these particles exist.
Science is probabilistic in nature. Most of what we are ever going to know about physical reality and the natural world is going to come from inductive reasoning, experimentation, testing predictions.
Last edited:
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I'm an atheist. When did you misinterpret that for Christian biblical literalism?
Nope. I demand only that a model be a falsifiable predictor of nature and to have survived the test of its null hypothesis per the scientific method in order to be called "science."
The Big Bang is speculation. It might not be able to be "verified" because it might not have happened.
There might not have been any such asteroid strike. It's occurrence is merely speculated.
Immaterial. You should really learn what science is. We don't need to observe quarks and electrons directly. We have our falsifiable models that predict nature. They seem to work.
You really should learn what science is. Science doesn't confirm anything. Nothing in science is TRUE. Everything in science is that which has not yet been shown to be FALSE. Hence the falsifiability requirement.
Science doesn't care about your widdow feewings. Science doesn't care how confident you are in anything.
Nope. Science is predictive in nature. Probability and Statistics both fall under mathematics.
I see that you're a Brit and that would explain your difficulties in English:
Where you wrote "et. al" you needed to write "etc." "Et. al" is for listing people.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
A science-denying atheist? Fascinating. Are you a Solipsist? You have many of the indicators.
What's the science behind people who overcompensate for their inadequacies?
I'm an atheist. When did you misinterpret that for Christian biblical literalism?
Nope. I demand only that a model be a falsifiable predictor of nature and to have survived the test of its null hypothesis per the scientific method in order to be called "science."
The Big Bang is speculation. It might not be able to be "verified" because it might not have happened.
There might not have been any such asteroid strike. It's occurrence is merely speculated.
Immaterial. You should really learn what science is. We don't need to observe quarks and electrons directly. We have our falsifiable models that predict nature. They seem to work.
You really should learn what science is. Science doesn't confirm anything. Nothing in science is TRUE. Everything in science is that which has not yet been shown to be FALSE. Hence the falsifiability requirement.
Science doesn't care about your widdow feewings. Science doesn't care how confident you are in anything.
Nope. Science is predictive in nature. Probability and Statistics both fall under mathematics.
I see that you're a Brit and that would explain your difficulties in English:
Where you wrote "et. al" you needed to write "etc." "Et. al" is for listing people.
Since science cannot give us truth, all scientific knowlege is probabilistic and provisional.
I know how et al is used. Unlike you, I have published peer reviewed scientific reports. Et al is Latin for "and others". Other examples of knowlege through scientific inductive reasoning being the rise of homo sapiens in Africa, the Permo-Triassic extinction event, et al. Since I am writing colloquially and informally on an obscure message board I can use the Latin et al however I see fit.
You are obviously an ally of Christian biblical literalists, young earthers, intelligent designers" becasuse you wear your science denial and scientific ignorance like a badge of honor
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
It's religious pseudoscience akin to locking up Galileo for claiming the Earth revolves around the Sun.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-accused-of-heresy
Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You apparently can't get it right even when I expressly state it for you. Science predicts nature. Math covers probabilities. Science won't help you at the crap tables.
You do not. "Et. al." is for people. "Etc." is for things. The good news is that you're a Brit so you have an excuse. No one expects you to fully master the nuances of the English language.
In the future, get a non-Brit to "peer review" your documents.
What makes your reports "scientific"? Attach a copy to your response so I can take a look at it.
Of course you are free to butcher the English language all you want. It is well known how much you Brits all wish you would just switch to French.
Is that what being an atheist means? What do you Brits mean by "ally"? There aren't any Christians that really think of me as, you know, ... being a Christian. I try to lull Christians into thinking I'm one of them but my atheism gets in the way virtually every time.
Learn science, ... and learn English while you're at it.
You are shooting blanks in your flaccid attempt to compose a "gotcha!" post.
The fact you knew exactly what I meant when I used et al colloquially as a placeholder for other examples of scientific knowlege demonstrates the effectiveness with which it was used.
I leave you to your relentless bible thumping, and science denying
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Creationism is not even pseudoscience... It is quite simply not science at all. It is a religious belief. While I believe the theory to be true, I don't go around pretending that it is a theory of science... I don't go around attempting to prove the theory either... It's just one of many theories, but one that I happen to accept on a faith basis as true. Others reject the theory, and others quite simply don't hold any opinion about the theory.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Well said. The Christian-bashers on this site don't know how to respond to reason. They envy you because you enjoy all of the benefits and privileges of having a religion that is consistent with science, whereas their religious indoctrination reamed into them the belief that their religion is thettled thieth and is somehow not a religion. This totally ffukks them up to no end, and then to add insult to injury, they see you perfectly able to be happy and spiritual while they are forced to wallow in apprehensive misery. They ask themselves "What does gfm7175 have that we don't?" Sigh ...
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I was helping you out. You are being extremely defensive over a minor grammatical error. Just write "etc." when it's a list of things and "et. al." when it's a list of people ... or just be a Brit and get it wrong, I don't care.
Don't I have to first start at some point in order to be "relentless"? ... or is "relentless" another one of those words with which you aren't familiar?
I accept your tacit admission that the English translation of et al simply means "and other".
Period. End of story.
The fact it is used by convention in scientific publications does not prevent its use in other contexts.
Your education level is clearly lower than mine...high school graduate I presume? You can save any advice you attempt to give to your intellectual superiors. I am not going to post anything I published, but one of my friends here has seen my peer reviewed publucations and can confirm if he runs across this thread.
Your problem is that any knowlege of science you have acquired comes from parroting what you read on obscure rightwing blogs. That is no substitute for investing four, six, or eight years earning a degree in a scientific discipline at a reputable university
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
How sweet of you two to have each other's backs about teaching pseudoscience and myth in public schools. Sad, but still sweet.
Into the Night
Verified User
So...you are assigning your fear mongering to God now?
Into the Night
Verified User
Science isn't a casino. It does not use any supporting evidence. It does not use proxies for data. Only religions do that. Void proof fallacy.