Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t60MBskbNuc] No Question About It.
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
Oh well...
I finally got it!!!!
What is left is to choose between to competing views.
Hippy one.
He says, read it, that all data collected by scientists are corrupted on purpose.
So, to hell with scientists!
BUT the other guys he knows HAVE collected good reliable honest data.
The problem is that, somehow, they left them somewhere and can´t remember their location.
Or, may be, were stolen by the bad guys, the evil scientists.
Don´t worry, hippy. I´ll wait. Bring also some popcorn.
Speedy one.
That is different.
A more traditional one based on a serious medieval standard.
Scientist MAY have good data.
And know their boring math.
But they don´t know a shit on how to explain them.
Nor should be allowed to at risk to be sent early to bed (a pitty we can´t burn them like in the good ole times).
No, no.
It should work like this:
Archeologist say that have not found traces of telephone wiring in Yucatan.
Now it´s the turn of the philosopher / preacher to say:
Mayas used celular phones!
Amen bro!
I hope that Speedy and Hippy agree with something in common.
Else, my friends, we are damned.
I finally got it!!!!
What is left is to choose between to competing views.
Hippy one.
He says, read it, that all data collected by scientists are corrupted on purpose.
So, to hell with scientists!
BUT the other guys he knows HAVE collected good reliable honest data.
The problem is that, somehow, they left them somewhere and can´t remember their location.
Or, may be, were stolen by the bad guys, the evil scientists.
Don´t worry, hippy. I´ll wait. Bring also some popcorn.
Speedy one.
That is different.
A more traditional one based on a serious medieval standard.
Scientist MAY have good data.
And know their boring math.
But they don´t know a shit on how to explain them.
Nor should be allowed to at risk to be sent early to bed (a pitty we can´t burn them like in the good ole times).
No, no.
It should work like this:
Archeologist say that have not found traces of telephone wiring in Yucatan.
Now it´s the turn of the philosopher / preacher to say:
Mayas used celular phones!
Amen bro!
I hope that Speedy and Hippy agree with something in common.
Else, my friends, we are damned.
1-25 of 37
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 My personal wrongs or yours are irrelevant.
More so, the data coming from scientists is all composed by lies (your words). Let us forget them..
But, did you say (we all read it) that you have or there are not corrupted data and a resulting theory?
Provide the source. No excuses.
You don´t? We will all know what that means.
More so, the data coming from scientists is all composed by lies (your words). Let us forget them..
But, did you say (we all read it) that you have or there are not corrupted data and a resulting theory?
Provide the source. No excuses.
You don´t? We will all know what that means.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ What would be the point? You are a scientism bigot and simply refuses to look at or for evidence. Your kind are a dime a dozen in academe. Sad but very true. Never actually look. Simply take someone else's word for it because it aligns with your bias and the guy who wrote it is 'expert'.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ If I suggested a eminent scientist who like me became a creationist based on the evidence you would call him an apologist and ignore what he has to say because he is an apologist. If I quoted an atheist who was pointing out the failure of 'natural causes' you would say "Ah yes but he is still an atheist". Like I said why bother. Your mind is closed. You are incapable of doing critical thought. You like where you are and lie to yourself about your beliefs. Kind of sad because you are missing out so many dimensions in life that make life so much richer. Yours is a little mud puddle of an existence that when it is over "Came from nothing became nothing and return to nothingness" will be all that can be said. A Christian does not suffer the same fate. Not only is this life infinitely short compared to the Eternity promised each experience we shall have will be different because our Father is Infinite. We could visit ever star and planet in the universe and never visit the same one twice. We will experience a LOVE that passes all understanding. We shall experience GLORY that surpasses our understanding. But you choose the extremely limited and soon ended mud puddle life you have. What a waste.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 You are answering me as if I were an atheist and I´m not.
You are answering me as if your definitions about specifically Science were needed to be a Christian, and they are not.
Those are the narrow views about Science of a certain brand of christians and not all of them.
And views hardly required to be a Christian but, yes, views against Science.
So, once more.
I´m not debating your faith and neither mine.
Nor equating Science with any brand of religiousity and neither to atheism.
I only asked, and go on doing it, to give us the means to read what scientists, even the religious ones, mean by a Scientific Theory and what scientists, so if they are atheists, budhists, muslims, jews, christians mean by scientific data.
They will NOT be judged, revised, tested, accepted nor rejected BECAUSE of the faith of the scientists that researched thhe specific phenomena.
But, no matter that, will be judged, revised, tested, accepted or rejected according to their fit to the things described.
BUT (and that´s were we collide) that also means they must accomplish the working quality criteria of ANY scientific research.
Those critera are not preconcepts about the claims and results of the research.
Are well known standards on HOW to research.
Of course, what may be based on only personal mere personal observations and mere philosophic reasoning and mere critics of other theories without building one will not pass the tests.
You support ID, some other people do.
No a priori objection from me.
But, at the present time, not you nor others have shown the kind of evidences that are associated with a scientific WORK.
And yes, this is an objection.
That may be fixed only when such requirements got provided.
Just don´t ask that a certain proposal, if it´s going to be called scientific, gets the special privilege of being released from accomplishing the same requirements of the other ones.
Not to be judged by it´s own set of criteria, only philosophic but still not scientific.
You are answering me as if your definitions about specifically Science were needed to be a Christian, and they are not.
Those are the narrow views about Science of a certain brand of christians and not all of them.
And views hardly required to be a Christian but, yes, views against Science.
So, once more.
I´m not debating your faith and neither mine.
Nor equating Science with any brand of religiousity and neither to atheism.
I only asked, and go on doing it, to give us the means to read what scientists, even the religious ones, mean by a Scientific Theory and what scientists, so if they are atheists, budhists, muslims, jews, christians mean by scientific data.
They will NOT be judged, revised, tested, accepted nor rejected BECAUSE of the faith of the scientists that researched thhe specific phenomena.
But, no matter that, will be judged, revised, tested, accepted or rejected according to their fit to the things described.
BUT (and that´s were we collide) that also means they must accomplish the working quality criteria of ANY scientific research.
Those critera are not preconcepts about the claims and results of the research.
Are well known standards on HOW to research.
Of course, what may be based on only personal mere personal observations and mere philosophic reasoning and mere critics of other theories without building one will not pass the tests.
You support ID, some other people do.
No a priori objection from me.
But, at the present time, not you nor others have shown the kind of evidences that are associated with a scientific WORK.
And yes, this is an objection.
That may be fixed only when such requirements got provided.
Just don´t ask that a certain proposal, if it´s going to be called scientific, gets the special privilege of being released from accomplishing the same requirements of the other ones.
Not to be judged by it´s own set of criteria, only philosophic but still not scientific.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ You are a bigot. An atheist bigot but a bigot non the less. You can't even be honest with yourself. You have no idea what science is and think it is some sort of academic exercise. What nonsense.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 As always, your personal insults not only fall short, but honour me.
Those insults on me only serve two purposes:
- They describe your lack of intelectual and moral honesty.
- As an example of the above, they are meant to cover, distract, replace and try to excuse your incapacity to answer in other way, by example providing evidences compatible with scientific criteria.
Those insults on me only serve two purposes:
- They describe your lack of intelectual and moral honesty.
- As an example of the above, they are meant to cover, distract, replace and try to excuse your incapacity to answer in other way, by example providing evidences compatible with scientific criteria.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ Not insults simple facts. You know those things your favorite scientists like to ignore. Too funny! The fact is you are a closed minded bigot that refuses to look at any evidence or thought that contradicts your own. You are a fundamentalist through and through. You have no idea what science is but you claim to be some sort of scientist. What a crock! You claim to be not an atheist but then deny the existence of any Theos. Funny how that is. I guess like science you don't do dictionaries either.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Not insults simple facts?
That will become true by when you learn to say the difference between a fact and a flying unicorn.
Till then, insults or not, they are the words you say when you need to avoid to provide factual evidences as asked. Just your replacement for reality.
Again, whatever I may be, I define Science in the same way that four centuries of Scientists did.
And like hundreds of thousands of actual working scientists do.
Of course, that does not fit your medieval scholastic view on science, from wich you copy rigurously the words and arguments that remind me ancient theologigical texts that exposed "First Philosophy" aka Theology and called it "scientia".
Old stuff that NEVER could provide a SINGLE scientific advance. While secular Science did it more times that anyone can list and go on doing it actually.
"You claim to be not an atheist but then deny the existence of any Theos"
False.
I believe in God and wait for the Second Comming.
Just that the presumptuos claim that, for not being an atheist is required to blindly believe in ID is too fool to be even nonsense.
Again, all what you do is to avoid giving an account of what you say you have and, till now, seems that you don´t.
Grow up, kiddo.
That will become true by when you learn to say the difference between a fact and a flying unicorn.
Till then, insults or not, they are the words you say when you need to avoid to provide factual evidences as asked. Just your replacement for reality.
Again, whatever I may be, I define Science in the same way that four centuries of Scientists did.
And like hundreds of thousands of actual working scientists do.
Of course, that does not fit your medieval scholastic view on science, from wich you copy rigurously the words and arguments that remind me ancient theologigical texts that exposed "First Philosophy" aka Theology and called it "scientia".
Old stuff that NEVER could provide a SINGLE scientific advance. While secular Science did it more times that anyone can list and go on doing it actually.
"You claim to be not an atheist but then deny the existence of any Theos"
False.
I believe in God and wait for the Second Comming.
Just that the presumptuos claim that, for not being an atheist is required to blindly believe in ID is too fool to be even nonsense.
Again, all what you do is to avoid giving an account of what you say you have and, till now, seems that you don´t.
Grow up, kiddo.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 You are RIGHT!!!
For once you are!!
Look at your own post, please.
You announced an "interesting article" and a comparation.
But there is NO link there to ANY article.
Of course I could not read it.
[b] May be what happened to that unread but also not posted article was the same that happened to the absent links to a Scientific Theory and Data.
So, if you are so kind, fix BOTH lacks[/b].
The article.
The requested refferences previously and dozens of times asked.
For once you are!!
Look at your own post, please.
You announced an "interesting article" and a comparation.
But there is NO link there to ANY article.
Of course I could not read it.
[b] May be what happened to that unread but also not posted article was the same that happened to the absent links to a Scientific Theory and Data.
So, if you are so kind, fix BOTH lacks[/b].
The article.
The requested refferences previously and dozens of times asked.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 "Ok I will stop keeping an idiot in suspense".
Don´t be so hard to yourself!
Yes, you behave like an idiot, but with time, it may be fixed!!!
Ah, no, sorry. You are saying something a bit less evident: That I´m de idiot.
You´ve got a point there.
All the ones who waste their time giving you the opportunity to bable your nonsense, we are somehow idiots.
I´ll read the article, of course.
I´ll tell you later.
But, as you are in the mood, why not to stop the suspense by also giving evidences about the research behind ID?
Or there is none?
Don´t be so hard to yourself!
Yes, you behave like an idiot, but with time, it may be fixed!!!
Ah, no, sorry. You are saying something a bit less evident: That I´m de idiot.
You´ve got a point there.
All the ones who waste their time giving you the opportunity to bable your nonsense, we are somehow idiots.
I´ll read the article, of course.
I´ll tell you later.
But, as you are in the mood, why not to stop the suspense by also giving evidences about the research behind ID?
Or there is none?
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ Antony Flew is another. If you don't like those two or if they are two long here is a very short presentation that may help. http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=211
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 Hippie you dumbass, you don't even understand your own article, and its rather limited context 😂
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@QuixoticSoul Glad to see you are as dumb as you appear on here. Have a nice life.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 The article is about the difficulty of forecasting human behavior on a worldwide scale, certainly not science in general - and not even about forecasting in science. Like I said, context. There are lots of things we're quite good at forecasting - even when systems are relatively complex, and getting better all the time. From the same magazine:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/polar-vortex-weather-forecasting-good-now/581605/
"Modern Weather Forecasts Are Stunningly Accurate".
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/polar-vortex-weather-forecasting-good-now/581605/
"Modern Weather Forecasts Are Stunningly Accurate".
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@QuixoticSoul You think I don't know that? Wow. You are not very bright are you.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Receiving a visit, so I´ll be back at SW soon, with my comments on the article.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ No rush. Read and contemplate.
1-25 of 37