So WHAT is Science

[LittleNipper]

Let's face facts. Nasa never ever sent up a launch with the words, "GOD HIMSELF COULD NOT DESTROY THIS SHIP!"

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the moon in 1969, just after receiving communion aboard Apollo 11. July 7th, 2011 09:22 AM ET The surprising history of prayer in space By Thom Patterson, CNN It may be the first prayer ever uttered by a space traveler: "Dear Lord, please don't let me f- up." Dubbed "Shepard's Prayer," this brief, irreverent plea is often attributed to the first American in space - the late Alan Shepard - although he reportedly said he was misquoted. My Take: Space travel is a spiritual experience As Friday's historic final shuttle launch approaches, Shepard's Prayer speaks volumes about the wide spectrum of religious beliefs among the relatively few men and women who've risked their lives by traveling into space. Here are just a few of the religious highlights surrounding human space travel: Christmas Eve, 1968: The crew of Apollo 8, the first humans to orbit the moon, read from the Bible's book of Genesis during a live TV broadcast to Earth. Later, an atheist activist sues NASA over an alleged violation of separation of church and state. The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear the case "for want of jurisdiction." July 1969: Apollo 11 Col. Buzz Aldrin becomes the only person ever to receive communion on the moon. A Presbyterian, he administers the sacrament himself while inside the lunar landing vehicle. Shortly afterward, Aldrin becomes the second human to set foot on the moon. America's Space program, then and now February 1962: "Godspeed, John Glenn," says fellow astronaut Scott Carpenter as Glenn becomes the first American to orbit the Earth. April 1970: President Nixon leads nation in prayer for the safe return of Apollo 13 crew members after their spacecraft is damaged en route to the moon. February 1986: Pope John Paul II prays for God to accept the spirits of the seven crew members killed in the explosion of the shuttle Challenger. October 1998: On his upcoming voyage aboard the shuttle Discovery - his first space flight since 1962 - Sen. John Glenn tells a college friend according to Newsweek, "Don't pray for my safety. If you're going to pray for me, pray that I do well."

 

[LittleNipper]

February 2003: Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon, who was killed with six others aboard the shuttle Columbia, brought with him a tiny microfiche Bible given to him by Israel's president, according to The New York Times. He also copied the traditional Jewish blessing Shabbat Kiddush into his diary so he could recite it aboard the spacecraft and have the blessing broadcast to Earth, according to the Jerusalem Post.
May 2011: Pope Benedict XVI calls orbiting crew aboard shuttle Endeavour and the space station. Endeavour's Italian astronaut Roberto VIttori tells the pope he prays in space "for me, for our families, for our future."
August 2005: While in orbit, shuttle Discovery's Eileen Collins - commanding the first mission after 2003's Columbia disaster - says a prayer in honor of Columbia's seven crewmembers killed during reentry. The prayer is adapted from a poem "For the Fallen," by Laurence Binyon.
October 2007: Malaysian cosmonaut Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor - a practicing Muslim - prays regularly during his eleven-day stay aboard the International Space Station. Because the orbiting outpost goes through several "sunrises" daily, Islamic scholars must determine special rules regarding how to face Mecca and how many times to pray each day.
Photographing the end of U.S. shuttle program
March 2011: Discovery pilot Col. Eric Boe leads astronauts in prayer before lifting off on Discovery's final mission. Boe told spacelaunch.com: "We had a huddle as a team, we just said a quick prayer and just said looking forward to mission and let us do well. It was a good way to get ready for the mission and to give us some focus before we get on the rocket to go."

 

[LittleNipper]

You're free to believe that of course, but that isn't science (at least, not good science). How do you account for all the people who do believe in God (though not necessarily in the same way you do) who behave negatively, even violently, towards people who believe differently? How do you account for the all the people who don't believe in any gods but generally don't act negatively in the way you describe? Belief in a god (even specifically belief in the Christian God) doesn't clearly correlate with good behaviour.

Science isn't OPINION either. There are different gods. Only the correct one makes any difference.

For example, how do you account for the person in the video (presumably a Christian) misrepresenting all scientists as being unwilling to admit they can't disprove God in an attempt to present those who don't believe in a negative light?

Do you believe that men who study biology, archaeology, astronomy, etc., can be CREATIONISTS?

Uniqueness and similarity aren't mutually exclusive. Evolution as a fundamental concept (distinct from the wider theory) is simply about offspring inheriting some (but not all) of the generic characteristic of their parents.

Each kind is limited by GOD to only reproduce within its kind. Therefore, humans--- whether skinny, fat, tall, short, handsome, ugly, hairy, bald, dark, light, muscular, or not so much ----- have always been HUMAN. And scientists have never proven anything to the contrary (though some would like to believe they have).

I don't know why you're continuing with this line since it is still evidence for evolution. Inbreeding causes problems precisely because of how offspring inherit genetic traits from their parents.

Evolution is the eventual believeth that every living thing originated from one simple living thing. And that is not what I believe. I fully believe that GOD created various KINDS of animals and then created humans entirely separately in GOD's likeness.

You're evading the point. You stated that the Dead Sea Scrolls are evidence that the Hebrew Bible is unchanged from it's creation when they're actually evidence for the exact opposite. We can't discuss the hows and whys if we can't agree on simple facts like that (ironically, one of the reasons most claims for God can't be definitively addressed via science).

I believe the accepted books that are included in the Protestant Bible were/are translated from the Hebrew and Greek text and that text has remained essentially unchanged for many of a millenium.

So you're saying questions relating to Gods existence can be addressed by science, but only when it gives the answers you want to believe?

I believe that many scientists are afraid of GOD and would rather not discuss nor study the reality of HIM.

 

[HonestJoe]

Science isn't OPINION either. There are different gods. Only the correct one makes any difference.

You're not very good at answering questions are you. You asserted that the existence of God is "observable in how GOD affects those HE befriends and their treatment of others". I asked you how that fits with the existence of believers who behave extremely poorly and non-believers who behave extremely well. Please note that the "No True Scotsman" fallacy isn't sufficient argument - you can't just assert that the badly behaved believers aren't true believers without any basis or justification.

Do you believe that men who study biology, archaeology, astronomy, etc., can be CREATIONISTS?

Demonstrably so. Most scientists who have religions beliefs manage to draw a line between their beliefs and their work though (plus most religious beliefs are irrelevant to the vast majority of practical science). Any who don't are bad scientists.

Each kind is limited by GOD to only reproduce within its kind.

How exactly? What is the formal definition of "kind"? How is the line between "kinds" drawn? And what biological function prevents the genetic changes of each generation compounding over time to cross those lines? If wolves and dogs can evolve within the same "kind", why couldn't humans and chimpanzees?

Evolution is the eventual believeth that every living thing originated from one simple living thing. And that is not what I believe.

You forgot my key distinction between "evolution" as a biological process and the "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". When you asked for an example of evolution, I started with the first one. You can't discuss the latter without understanding the former.

I fully believe that GOD created various KINDS of animals and then created humans entirely separately in GOD's likeness.

You're using the term "I believe" a lot here but that is irrelevant. This is a thread about science and, as you said yourself, science isn't opinion (or belief). I'll stop responding to any points you make on the basis of belief alone if we continue this.

I believe the accepted books that are included in the Protestant Bible were/are translated from the Hebrew and Greek text and that text has remained essentially unchanged for many of a millenium.

I know that's what you believe but that is separate from your statement that the Dead Sea Scrolls support your belief, which they do not. I would respectfully suggest you give up on that line.

I believe that many scientists are afraid of GOD and would rather not discuss nor study the reality of HIM.

Well, as you said yourself, scientists can be believers so could well be God-fearing Christians. Any non-believers can't fear God by definition. All of them can and will discuss the idea of gods, and your God in general (I've technically been a scientist in the past, and that's what I'm doing here). The real reason proper scientists (religious or not) don't study God though is because there is no clearly defined hypotheses presented about God in the form that could be scientifically addressed. Indeed, many believers go out of their way to avoid defining God in that context, hence all the "God is beyond human understanding" and "God is outside the scope of science" assertions.

 

[lwf]

Some things just fit. When there is issue, after issue, after issue, followed by having to ignore enigmas --- it makes even a popular theory appears untrustworthy to people who are willing to really look at ALL the DATA and consider the improbabilities. Flesh simply cannot hang around 300,000,000. Now 6000 years maybe. At least it sounds far more logical.

So you just trust a subjective gut feeling and ignore data? Don't you think your subjective gut feelings have been affected by your experiences? If two people's subjective gut feelings about a particular subject are contradictory and mutually exclusive due to different experiences they have had in life, how do you determine who is right?

And what do you mean that flesh can't hang around for 300,000,000 years, but that it can for 6000 years? On what are you basing this?

 

[Galactic Spin]

Science is a method by which we test the truth of falsifiable hypotheses.

Scientists form a hypothesis and then try to prove it false.

Rinse, repeat. When a hypothesis or set of hypotheses passes every test and yields useful predictions, it/they become a scientific theory.

Look around... the benefits of this compared to the benefits of adult pretend time cannot be overstated.

 

[Jacksprat]

When did religious proselytizing become science?!

 

[LittleNipper]

So you just trust a subjective gut feeling and ignore data? Don't you think your subjective gut feelings have been affected by your experiences? If two people's subjective gut feelings about a particular subject are contradictory and mutually exclusive due to different experiences they have had in life, how do you determine who is right?

I don't ignore data ----- evolutionists twist and hide data that doesn't fit a natural perspective or they cannot explain.

And what do you mean that flesh can't hang around for 300,000,000 years, but that it can for 6000 years? On what are you basing this?,

Mummies

 

[LittleNipper]

When did religious proselytizing become science?!

When did science become religious proselytizing?

 

[Jacksprat]

When did science become religious proselytizing?

Who's on first?

 

[LittleNipper]

Who's on first?

What's on second?

 

[lwf]

I don't ignore data ----- evolutionists twist and hide data that doesn't fit a natural perspective or they cannot explain.

The problem with this thinking is that it borders on paranoia. In order to believe that reputable scientists intentionally hide and "twist" data so as to keep the truth from the rest of us you must believe one or both of these two things: Either that the majority of people who devote their lives to science are both inherently evil with an agenda of deception, and nearly 100% perfect at hiding this agenda from laymen in 2022, OR you must believe that people who devote their lives to science are inherently stupid and naïve even after years of studying a subject, and that only a very small number of people, including yourself, are so intelligent and wise that you instinctively understand more than they do with nothing but a layman's grasp of the subject.

Either way, this is delusional thinking. People are inherently good, even when a small minority of us do bad things. When you have 99.99% of learned people in agreement on something that doesn't "sound right" to you, then maybe you are the one who should rethink your gut feeling on the matter. It's not like those scientists didn't have the same gut feelings you do at one point. But they obviously changed their minds. Perhaps, if you really want to understand reality and the world around you, it would be best to explore why virtually every scientist on earth has come to the conclusions that they have, and explore why that conclusion makes you feel uncomfortable.

 

[LittleNipper]

The problem with this thinking is that it borders on paranoia. In order to believe that reputable scientists intentionally hide and "twist" data so as to keep the truth from the rest of us you must believe one or both of these two things: Either that the majority of people who devote their lives to science are both inherently evil with an agenda of deception, and nearly 100% perfect at hiding this agenda from laymen in 2022, OR you must believe that people who devote their lives to science are inherently stupid and naïve even after years of studying a subject, and that only a very small number of people, including yourself, are so intelligent and wise that you instinctively understand more than they do with nothing but a layman's grasp of the subject.

Try to introduce Creation or Intelligent Design into a Public School situation and I'll show you paranoia. The GOD factor is not up for discussion and yes, I'm a firm believer that there are just a few educators in the field of biological evolution who wish to keep it that way.

Either way, this is delusional thinking. People are inherently good, even when a small minority of us do bad things. When you have 99.99% of learned people in agreement on something that doesn't "sound right" to you, then maybe you are the one who should rethink your gut feeling on the matter. It's not like those scientists didn't have the same gut feelings you do at one point. But they obviously changed their minds. Perhaps, if you really want to understand reality and the world around you, it would be best to explore why virtually every scientist on earth has come to the conclusions that they have, and explore why that conclusion makes you feel uncomfortable.

I think you would have to apply the very same logic to your own understanding and why it makes you feel uncomfortable.

 

[lwf]

Try to introduce Creation or Intelligent Design into a Public School situation and I'll show you paranoia. The GOD factor is not up for discussion and yes, I'm a firm believer that there are just a few educators in the field of biological evolution who wish to keep it that way.

The God factor is not up for discussion for the same reason that the unicorn factor is not up for discussion.

And how do you imagine that "a few educators" in the field of biological evolution can accomplish such a massive cover up? How would that work exactly?

I think you would have to apply the very same logic to your own understanding and why it makes you feel uncomfortable.

The theory of evolution doesn't make me uncomfortable. The theory of creationism doesn't either, however it is not supported by the evidence.

 

[Deuce]

Let's face facts. Nasa never ever sent up a launch with the words, "GOD HIMSELF COULD NOT DESTROY THIS SHIP!"

That would be an absolutely bizarre thing to proclaim and I'd really like to know why you think this very specific phrase not being used means something.

 

[LittleNipper]

The God factor is not up for discussion for the same reason that the unicorn factor is not up for discussion.

So you are paranoid. Even the thought of GOD makes you seek natural excuses...

And how do you imagine that "a few educators" in the field of biological evolution can accomplish such a massive cover up? How would that work exactly?

They control what is taught. They control the research and the spending on such research and the

The theory of evolution doesn't make me uncomfortable. The theory of creationism doesn't either, however it is not supported by the evidence.

The theory of evolution doesn't make me uncomfortable. Creationism is supported by evidence indifferent to what evolutionists must believe.

 

[Galactic Spin]

So you are paranoid. Even the thought of GOD makes you seek natural excuses.

"Natural excuses"

*what rational people call scientific knowledge

I.E., the reason you aren't working in a field 16 hours a day and burning infidels at the stake at night. Because that is precisely what you would be doing, and all of your magical rhetoric wod remain unchanged.

 

[LittleNipper]

"Natural excuses"

*what rational people call scientific knowledge

I.E., the reason you aren't working in a field 16 hours a day and burning infidels at the stake at night. Because that is precisely what you would be doing, and all of your magical rhetoric wod remain unchanged.

Scientific theories are not absolutes ---- let alone TRUTH. Magic is slight of hand. The supernatural is hardly magic. If you cannot accept that there is a GOD, that is your opinion, but you do not offer anything but those opinions with regards to where life came from or how we came to be at the top of your heap.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Scientific theories are not absolutes ---- let alone TRUTH.

Actually, some of them are. Some of them, if not most ARE true. And you agree, despite your contrived nonsense to the contrary. Else you would not be able to function.

Magic is slight of hand.

No, that's the definition found in no dictionary anywhere that you just made up on the spot, in order to meet the sole goal of excluding your magical nonsense from the pile of all magical nonsense.

 

[LittleNipper]

"Natural excuses"

*what rational people call scientific knowledge

I.E., the reason you aren't working in a field 16 hours a day and burning infidels at the stake at night. Because that is precisely what you would be doing, and all of your magical rhetoric wod remain unchanged.

The Catholic church did the burning at the stake with governmental support. And I don't know of any witch burnings in the UNITED STATES since it was founded. But I do know that many women died of puerperal fever because their baby doctors were not washing their hands as the BIBLE insisted. But who needs the BIBLE when they know everything and are so scientific.

 

[Galactic Spin]

The Catholic church did the burning at the stake with governmental support. And I don't know of any witch burnings in the UNITED STATES since it was founded. But I do know that many women died of puerperal fever because their baby doctors were not washing their hands as the BIBLE insisted. But who needs the BIBLE when they know everything and are so scientific.

It's adorable when you pretend only to know about 3 things about the entirety of human history.

Okay maybe that's not the right word.

This is where I bow out. I have no desire to chase after dishonest, obtuse, time wasting garbage

 

[LittleNipper]

It's adorable when you pretend only to know about 3 things about the entirety of human history.

Okay maybe that's not the right word.

This is where I bow out. I have no desire to chase after dishonest, obtuse, time wasting garbage

Well you can take your dishonest, obtuse, time wasting garbage labelled "evolution" with you. And don't let the door hit you in the bum as you leave. Make it a great day!

 

[lwf]

They control what is taught. They control the research and the spending on such research

Which educators control what is taught? The bigger the conspiracy and the more people who are in on it, the harder it is to keep it quiet.

There is no "world president of education." No one person or small group controls all of the spending on research. Anyone can spend money on research, and anyone can become a scientist and do the research themselves. Whenever they do, they all nearly 100% of the time come to the same inevitable conclusion: Life evolved through natural selection over time, and most animals share common ancestors. The very tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent who don't come to this conclusion invariably are making a scientific error, or are unscientifically pushing a dishonest agenda. The reason non-evolution Creationism isn't taught is because it has been scientifically and empirically debunked. Evolution has been accepted and is a scientifically established law of the universe. The only thing that remains elusive is how the first non-living matter went from being inanimate to being "alive." Everything beyond this point has been well established. The first life forms on Earth evolved into all of the lifeforms that exist on earth today. Every one.

That God is the one who took non-living matter and made it into the first living matter is technically possible. That there is some natural mechanism that allows this to happen is FAR more likely, but this wouldn't mean that God isn't the one who designed this mechanism and programmed the rules such that evolution through natural selection would eventually turn single cell lifeforms into human beings. While this is not impossible, this would be a fanciful theory based on facts not in evidence. What we do know beyond any reasonable doubt is that the laws of natural selection and evolution are what took the first living matter and turned it into the variety of life on Earth as it exists today. We already know that humans were not spontaneously created thousands of years ago. They slowly and painfully evolved over millions of years from hominids, which evolved from prosimians, which evolved from rodent-like animals... etc. This isn't an opinion, and it is not ideology. This is empirically determined and is an accepted fact of reality.

Creationism is an ideology that starts from an unproven premise lacking any evidence and then goes on to draw contradictory conclusions from it. This is the opposite of science and unnecessarily multiplies entities. Evolution is an accepted and time-tested theory based on observation and testing which is continuously reinforced as accurate as time goes on, and that neatly fits reality to a degree of nearly 100% with no contradictions and without unnecessarily multiplying entities.

That is why Creationism is not taught, and should not be taught, in schools.

 

[Deuce]

Let's face facts. Nasa never ever sent up a launch with the words, "GOD HIMSELF COULD NOT DESTROY THIS SHIP!"

No seriously you should explain this sentence I would love to hear it

 

[LittleNipper]

No seriously you should explain this sentence I would love to hear it

It's a play on what was said regarding the Titanic --- that it was unsinkable... "GOD HIMSELF couldn't sink this ship!" Of course GOD didn't have to, HE let an iceberg do it. If only they they had listened....