Christians are anti-science.

[gfm7175]

I had to stop reading at your first sentence, because as per usual you made a statement that is demonstrably false:

No, he was correct.

... deleted Encyclopedia Britannica, Stanford University Department of Statistics, University of California Berkley Department of Statistics, Arizona State University, livescience.com, brainpickings.org...

False Sources summarily dismissed. Start thinking for yourself for a change...

[PostmodernProphet]

I simply highlighted the fact that Karl Popper, the seminal founding figure in the criteria of falsifiability approach, ultimately came to believe that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable -- marking it as good science.

can't help the fact he and you have fucked up.......but as long as we both agree that the belief that human beings evolved from single celled organisms is NOT science or falsifiable I see nothing else to argue about.....

[Cypress]

can't help the fact he and you have fucked up.......but as long as we both agree that the belief that human beings evolved from single celled organisms is NOT science or falsifiable I see nothing else to argue about.....

I am not surprised you attempt to claim victory by putting words in other people's mouths. Are you not infamous for altering other people's posts?

[Into the Night]

I had to stop reading at your first sentence, because as per usual you made a statement that is demonstrably false:
...deleted spam, misquotes, and Holy Links...

You are just repeating your inanity now.

No argument presetned. False authorities. Contextomy fallacies. Spamming. Repetition fallacies. RQAA.

[Into the Night]

I have taken courses from Professor Sean Carol, and respect his insights because he is trained as both a physicist and as a philosopher. Albert Einstein was once asked why his mind was so much more creative than garden variety physicists, and he responded it was because he studied not only physics, but also philosophy, history, theology, and a broad range of intellectual traditions. This obviously trained his mind to think more creatively and outside the box which constrained most physicists.

As for the criteria of falsifiability, I do not obsess about it. I only brought it up because an evolution denier on this thread obviously latched onto the word like a leech, after reading something about it on a rightwing blog.

I simply highlighted the fact that Karl Popper, the seminal founding figure in the criteria of falsifiability approach, ultimately came to believe that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable -- marking it as good science.

The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. It is not known whether that theory if True or False. It cannot be tested. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened. It remains a circular argument...and a religion.
The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. It creates a paradox.

[Into the Night]

can't help the fact he and you have fucked up.......but as long as we both agree that the belief that human beings evolved from single celled organisms is NOT science or falsifiable I see nothing else to argue about.....

Then we agree. It is not science or falsifiable.

[Hawkeye10]

[Jerome]

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.

[Cypress]

The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. It is not known whether that theory if True or False. It cannot be tested. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened. It remains a circular argument...and a religion.
The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. It creates a paradox.

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]

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.

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.

People who are smarter than you,

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.

... and have years of training in scientific inquiry are able to develop hypotheses, lines of evidences, and predictions which they can test.

Without a time machine, how do you suppose any speculation of the past be verified?

[Cypress]

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.

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.

"Into the Night": literally wrong all the bloody time>

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...87#post3901887

[IBDaMann]

In your flaccid attempt to elevate Christian biblical literalism over science,

I'm an atheist. When did you misinterpret that for Christian biblical literalism?

... you demand science live up to an impossible standard:

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."

... to time travel back to observe the Big Bang,

The Big Bang is speculation. It might not be able to be "verified" because it might not have happened.

... the asteroid strike at the end of the Curvaceous et al.

There might not have been any such asteroid strike. It's occurrence is merely speculated.

Neither you nor any scientist has ever actually directly observed quarks, electrons, Higgs bosons.

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.

But the standard model of particle physics has been tested and confirmed so bloody often,

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.

... we have extremely high scientific confidence these particles exist.

Science doesn't care about your widdow feewings. Science doesn't care how confident you are in anything.

Science is probabilistic in nature.

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:

... the asteroid strike at the end of the Curvaceous et al.

Where you wrote "et. al" you needed to write "etc." "Et. al" is for listing people.

[Doc Dutch]

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.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/at...1&d=1597838897

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?

LOL.

[Cypress]

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

[Doc Dutch]

Creationism is not anti-science.

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-...used-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.