Now you have to: 1. tell who and when gave scientists the method you copy-pasted 2. demonstrate that all useful theories starting from n Newton and finishing by Einstein, all discoveries and inventions we use have ever had a regard for the method you copy pasted. Because if you don’t do that you have posted anti-scientific method and a proof that Mashroom is all correct about the rise of anti-science and you supporting and promoting anti-science right here right now.
The scientific method has evolved over time with enormous scientific debate in the process. It has also evolved over time to integrate both deductive and inductive reasoning. It shall no doubt be "tweaked" in the future. That is just plain stupid. What you fail to understand is that all of those theories and discoveries (inventions are an entirely different animal), have been peer reviewed which means that they applied the method in repeating the original experiment and comparing observed results. Einstein's theory of relativity is constantly being challenged by new discoveries, observations etc. and to date all "challenges" has resulted in confirmation. That is science. False premise. Your fallacious logic is rendering your argument ridiculous nonsense. Thanks for playing, but I'm outta this crazy arsed discussion.
You very clearly do not understand what science is and obviously have a problem with it. I recommend you simply continue to ignore it and move on to something you are more familiar with. Also...you do not get to "Tell" people what they need to do, asking is the proper action in debate.
tecoyah, you very clearly do not understand what science is and obviously have a problem with it. I recommend you simply continue to ignore it and move on to something you are more familiar with. Also...you do not get to "Tell" people what they need to do, asking is the proper action in debate.
When anti-science apologists face simple questions they spew a bunch of insults and run away. Thank you for another good illustration to the subject of the treat.
Anti-science apologists are so funny. They have to see themselves in a mirror to note that all they can do is to attempt to mock. And then to step into the hole they dug for others.
evolution is a fact, the theory of the history of evolution is just a theory kinda like gravity is a fact, the theory of gravity is just a theory
Nicely put! I would add that what scientists call a theory, most people would call a fact. Theories are heavily tested, Many years of scrutiny are required before being elevated from a hypothesis to a theory. What most people call a theory, isn't a theory in science. To put it into perspective: If the level of evidence required to convict someone of murder, was as high as the level of evidence required for a scientific theory, no one, or very few people could ever be convicted.
Well, I would disagree. And, I apologize for going a little nutoid here. Scientific method clearly lays out that a fact is a single recorded observation - like a temperature taken at a specific place, time and method. A general rule is that if logic is involved, it isn't a fact. Theory is the very best, most successfully tested and reviewed answer for a question of how something works. So, i'm not overly happy with "just a theory" - it's like saying "just the very best, most tested and reviewed answer humans have". We have the "theory of evolution". It's not JUST the theory of evolution. It's the very best explanation - the explanation that has been the most predictive, the most tested, the most reviewed. It's not a "fact", but it is a foundation of all modern biology. I know there is a different social definition of theory - which is more like an opinion that may be supported by little or no evidence.
we can see evolution in real time, with bacteria for example, so evolution is real, but the path that evolution took is based on what we know about it based on the fossil records, what we now know about dna, ect...
Amen. The evidence is overwhelming and there isn't even a competing theory! Even that totally religious Ark Park guy who debated Bill Nye on evolution believed that there has been extensive evolution in the past and the present!
Some central points of this thread: I see the 'anti-science' trend continuing, and growing. Mandates replace understanding processes. Formulas are memorized, with no understanding of how or why they work. I will repeat this from the OP: Now, we are in a time of anti science. Social issues & cultural manipulation is taking place, of course claiming truth or science as a basis. But instead of open scrutiny, mandates. Instead of the scientific method, decree. Instead of logic & critical thinking, truth is declared & propaganda has become the new goal. Truth becomes what the establishment says, rather than something based on reason or facts. Critical thinking is not encouraged, just memorized dogma. History is not taught as dispassionate facts, but to mold a belief. Conclusions are presupposed, & memorized, instead of arrived at by research & thinking. THIS is the greatest failure of American education, which once was a beacon of classic liberal thought.. Now, it is just another state propaganda tool. 'Science!' .. has become a Bully Pulpit, to bludgeon any outliers, or skeptics of the State Approved Beliefs. Are you really that comfortable in your Indoctrination? Wouldn't some open minded, scientific thinking be a refreshing change from parroting your indoctrinated beliefs?
Science is killing itself from addiction to money from government and political interests, resulting in unbelievable and fake tangents, and fiction. Man-caused global climate change (whatever they call it now) and lies fabricated from fake social science statistics, a once promising field that has been corrupted to the point that it might be no longer valid, are two examples suggesting that science generally is dying. Genetics provides excellent examples of bullshit conclusions from scant evidence for sake of publicity that isn't science. It's deplorable. Add to that the fact that space aliens donated their wherewithall for development of high technology, and that otherwise Trump did it, and you have once promising human endeavor probably in state of near death in a new Dark Ages, man's Second Coming. LOL
Fact is, "God did it" remains just as valid and probably more reliable. It is certainly more permanent.
There never has been, in the history of actual scientific discovery, a conflict between the individual's philosophical opinions, and the science they engaged in. Good science is a methodology.. a discovery system that has no relevance to one's beliefs. But that has changed. Now, 'science!', must toe the line to Approved Beliefs, from the progressive agenda. Facts, methodology and scrutiny are cast aside for the preferred mandating of belief. Global warming, common ancestry, 'pick your gender!' (Or race, species, physical traits, etc) trump the reality of hard science. The agenda, not Truth, is the goal of modern instruction, and the State Approved Indoctrination institutions have churned out a steady stream of indoctrinees, who will not question their Indoctrination.
This is absolute and total nonsense. Any of these things you can mention in science is available for refutation - as is EVERYTHING in science. What doesn't work is mixing religion and science. It makes zero sense to defend religion by calling solid science a "mandate" or "indoctrination". If you want to make an advance in science, you have to use science - exclusively.
Absolutely! Results from science can be opposed by both science and religion. And, "god did it" is the end of dispute. In fact, it is the permenant end of investigation. Nothing of further value can be accoplshed once we know that "god did it". So, it is a permanent answer. However, let's remember that is a purely religious conclusion that can't be supported by science. It may be true. But, science can't address it even if it is true.
No because there is no evidence for a god. So show me evidence of a god and we can talk about what it might have done. But we have overwhelming evidence that physics works beautifully.
No, because there is no evidence for a god. You can just as easily argue that Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy, or Elvis did it.
I spent much of my life arguing the same argument you offer. But over the past couple of decades, I've become acquainted with evidence strong enough to convince me that our reality is far more than the physical reality alone that science has so far been willing or capable of studying. Near Death Experiences (NDE), since first studied & published in 1975, coupled with Past Life Regression studies, offer us a long & growing body of evidence that our consciousness lives beyond physical death, & that we are all, conscious energy beings, that have the capacity to live in & experience several highly different dimensional realities, & most of us who live here now, have been here before in prior incarnations, & will return again later in others. Our reality includes & involves many different dimensions of reality, with many experiencing constant interdimensional interplay with each other, & events in one appears to have ripple affects in a wide range of others. Every reality is different in ways from all others. Each is unique in itself. Ours here involves both matter & energy in specific ratios. Others have more or less atomic matter than we do here. Some have no atomic material whatsoever, but exist as realities of pure energy. I suspect the number of dimensions is infinite. Science allowed religion to divert scientific scrutiny of these other dimensions because it was assumed they were spiritual worlds, & beyond the ability of science to ever study. But that assumption is gradually dissolving as new technologies open ever more possible avenues into those realities. What we find there will change everything we now know.
..as usual, you ignore the points i make, and launch into canned talking points to promote your phony narratives. ..nothing for me to reply to, but plenty to ignore..
Regarding the First Cause: There is no smoking gun for anything.. either intelligent design, or atheistic naturalism. There is the physical evidence, which can be fit into a 'model' to examine its plausibility. But i reject the phony narrative, 'Creationists have religion! Atheists have science!' 'Nuthindidit!' is no more 'scientific!' Than Godidit!' That is anti-science. It is religious bigotry in a lab coat. A facade of science, but steeped in religious beliefs.
And for a couple of decades I made the argument that you make. But that doesn't justify inventing a god to explain anything we don't understand. Not scientific evidence. And anything less is ultimately anecdotal. I have done past life regression. I saw a number of past lives that seemed very real indeed. At times it felt like I was accessing actual memories. Other times, if felt like my mind was racing to generate answers [I was being questioned the entire time]. But in the end, I couldn't ignore the vivid imagery and even intense emotions I felt when recalling alleged past events. To this day, nearly 30 years later, I can still hear the sound of the horse hooves on the cobblestone road, as our carriage carried me to a concert. I can still see vividly the green grassy knoll, the bright white sand, intense blue sky, and blue water, as the reed ship was loaded with supplies before we departed. It is as real in my mind as any memory. And when I was asked why I had gone back to this voyage, I was overwhelmed with emotion and spontaneously blurted out that my wife had died.The idea seemingly came from nowhere but I immediately felt great loss. I saw the stormy sea; and then bubbles rising as I sank into the deep, cold water... Seven years ago I fell madly in love with a gorgeous young woman, over 25 years my younger. We had something very special, And for me it was like living in a dream. Though I knew it couldn't last because of our age difference, I loved her more than I thought it possible to love anyone. And I fell in love with her in about 5 seconds. It was virtual love at first sight and the most powerful experience of my life. It was incapacitating and inexplicable, far beyond anything I had ever experienced. But after three years she needed to move on, so I let her go, And I cried like a baby every morning for two months. Without her knowing about about my past life regression, two years ago we met for coffee just to catch up. She went on to tell me that she had really gotten into some of her spiritual beliefs. She had decided, actually, she said she was told that our lives are intertwined and we have been together before. She had decided that this explains the seemingly inexplicable connection that we felt. That night I was musing over her suggestion when it hit me. She was the wife who died! It hit me like a Mack truck. It was seemingly a profound truth that I couldn't deny. It was something I KNEW to be true! If I allow myself the luxury of asking, do I feel it is true? I think that beyond a doubt, it IS true. I saw a past life and she was my wife. But it is just an anecdote and counts for nothing.
Anti Science should not be confused with disagreeing with the "Science" gospel ! Science gospel, I remember discussing Neanderthal genome in "us" with an Anthropology Graduate until . . . . Ooops the "best" of people have Neanderthal genome. Anti Science should not be used against the Science disbelievers, As a "LABEL" to devaluate the "message"
