Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Yet another question for atheists:

the_streetsurfer
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:09:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is science infallible?

That's the question. The answer, of course, is yes, Science is fallible.

Why is this important?

Every time I talk to atheists, they tell me that the Bible is a fairy tale and that there's no proof for God. However, the foundation of what they believe (Science) is very fallible. At one point, even the most accomplished scientists of old believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Earth was flat.

This got me to thinking: What theories that science has "proven" will be laughed upon in the future?

Thoughts?

(As a side note, I do accept 95% of all science. I think it's hilarious when atheists think that christians don't believe in science. I just have trouble putting all of my faith into something that is fallible.)
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:20:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 5:09:34 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
Is science infallible?

That's the question. The answer, of course, is yes, Science is fallible.

Why is this important?

Every time I talk to atheists, they tell me that the Bible is a fairy tale and that there's no proof for God. However, the foundation of what they believe (Science) is very fallible. At one point, even the most accomplished scientists of old believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Earth was flat.

This got me to thinking: What theories that science has "proven" will be laughed upon in the future?

Thoughts?

(As a side note, I do accept 95% of all science. I think it's hilarious when atheists think that christians don't believe in science. I just have trouble putting all of my faith into something that is fallible.)

Fallable is a misrepresentation.

Science is a progressive, empirical based philosophy. There isn't much one can do in the search for truth without applying at least some inductive reasoning, not least in what we have seen to far.

Virtually every useful field of study uses scientific methods in their application, even down to economics and history.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
the_streetsurfer
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:25:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 5:20:56 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:09:34 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
Is science infallible?

That's the question. The answer, of course, is yes, Science is fallible.

Why is this important?

Every time I talk to atheists, they tell me that the Bible is a fairy tale and that there's no proof for God. However, the foundation of what they believe (Science) is very fallible. At one point, even the most accomplished scientists of old believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Earth was flat.

This got me to thinking: What theories that science has "proven" will be laughed upon in the future?

Thoughts?

(As a side note, I do accept 95% of all science. I think it's hilarious when atheists think that christians don't believe in science. I just have trouble putting all of my faith into something that is fallible.)

Fallable is a misrepresentation.

Science is a progressive, empirical based philosophy. There isn't much one can do in the search for truth without applying at least some inductive reasoning, not least in what we have seen to far.

Virtually every useful field of study uses scientific methods in their application, even down to economics and history.

I agree that science is important. But it makes mistakes. My point is that atheists put all their trust in a very fallible thing. The theory of evolution itself has changed since Darwin.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:37:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 5:25:50 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:20:56 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:09:34 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
Is science infallible?

That's the question. The answer, of course, is yes, Science is fallible.

Why is this important?

Every time I talk to atheists, they tell me that the Bible is a fairy tale and that there's no proof for God. However, the foundation of what they believe (Science) is very fallible. At one point, even the most accomplished scientists of old believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Earth was flat.

This got me to thinking: What theories that science has "proven" will be laughed upon in the future?

Thoughts?

(As a side note, I do accept 95% of all science. I think it's hilarious when atheists think that christians don't believe in science. I just have trouble putting all of my faith into something that is fallible.)

Fallable is a misrepresentation.

Science is a progressive, empirical based philosophy. There isn't much one can do in the search for truth without applying at least some inductive reasoning, not least in what we have seen to far.

Virtually every useful field of study uses scientific methods in their application, even down to economics and history.

I agree that science is important. But it makes mistakes. My point is that atheists put all their trust in a very fallible thing. The theory of evolution itself has changed since Darwin.

Science itself makes no mistakes, it's just a method. It's like saying triangulation makes mistakes, it doesn't, just a method, the mistakes come from the interpretation/correctness of the application/model made.

Science itself makes models and predictions based off those models. If evidence does not fit the model, then the model needs refinement/discarding. After a large number of iterations, you are left with a model which is a pretty good representation of reality.

The way you know you have a REALLY good model, is one that explains a lot, whilst being very simple (as it requires the least number of ad-hoc adjustments).

Evolution makes some very simple statements.

Everything in life is related via. common ancestry.
Diversification of species occurs via. descent with modification.

Those simple statements have a number of consequences, from where predictions can be made and tested. Other lines of evidence, fossil evidence, genetics, etc are lines upon which evolution is tested. Any of these can demonstrate evolution false.

When you have a theory with good predictive power, and explains a lot, and contradicts little, then you have an excellent theory which you can be confidence is the best guess at the truth. That is science.

Scientists say evolution is probably the best theory we have in all of science because of how many independent lines of evidence it is and is continually tested against. That's why it is held in such high regard, because the same basic principles have stood the test of scrutiny for so long.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:42:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 5:09:34 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
Is science infallible?

That's the question. The answer, of course, is yes, Science is fallible.

Why is this important?

Every time I talk to atheists, they tell me that the Bible is a fairy tale and that there's no proof for God. However, the foundation of what they believe (Science) is very fallible. At one point, even the most accomplished scientists of old believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Earth was flat.

This got me to thinking: What theories that science has "proven" will be laughed upon in the future?

Thoughts?

(As a side note, I do accept 95% of all science. I think it's hilarious when atheists think that christians don't believe in science. I just have trouble putting all of my faith into something that is fallible.)

You can't be for real. First you ask if science is 'in'fallible and then you say 'yes' science is fallible. Don't they educate American kristyuns anymore?
the_streetsurfer
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:48:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 5:37:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:25:50 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:20:56 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:09:34 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
Is science infallible?

That's the question. The answer, of course, is yes, Science is fallible.

Why is this important?

Every time I talk to atheists, they tell me that the Bible is a fairy tale and that there's no proof for God. However, the foundation of what they believe (Science) is very fallible. At one point, even the most accomplished scientists of old believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Earth was flat.

This got me to thinking: What theories that science has "proven" will be laughed upon in the future?

Thoughts?

(As a side note, I do accept 95% of all science. I think it's hilarious when atheists think that christians don't believe in science. I just have trouble putting all of my faith into something that is fallible.)

Fallable is a misrepresentation.

Science is a progressive, empirical based philosophy. There isn't much one can do in the search for truth without applying at least some inductive reasoning, not least in what we have seen to far.

Virtually every useful field of study uses scientific methods in their application, even down to economics and history.

I agree that science is important. But it makes mistakes. My point is that atheists put all their trust in a very fallible thing. The theory of evolution itself has changed since Darwin.

Science itself makes no mistakes, it's just a method. It's like saying triangulation makes mistakes, it doesn't, just a method, the mistakes come from the interpretation/correctness of the application/model made.

Science itself makes models and predictions based off those models. If evidence does not fit the model, then the model needs refinement/discarding. After a large number of iterations, you are left with a model which is a pretty good representation of reality.

The way you know you have a REALLY good model, is one that explains a lot, whilst being very simple (as it requires the least number of ad-hoc adjustments).

Evolution makes some very simple statements.

Everything in life is related via. common ancestry.
Diversification of species occurs via. descent with modification.

Those simple statements have a number of consequences, from where predictions can be made and tested. Other lines of evidence, fossil evidence, genetics, etc are lines upon which evolution is tested. Any of these can demonstrate evolution false.

When you have a theory with good predictive power, and explains a lot, and contradicts little, then you have an excellent theory which you can be confidence is the best guess at the truth. That is science.

Scientists say evolution is probably the best theory we have in all of science because of how many independent lines of evidence it is and is continually tested against. That's why it is held in such high regard, because the same basic principles have stood the test of scrutiny for so long.

Scientific methods can be fallible. This is agreed by both of us. When I say science, I mean the scientific theories that we all believe in. Those theories are based on scientific methods and scientific methods can be fallible. That is my point. I'm not trying to start an other evolution/creation debate. I'm trying to show that the scientific methods that we believe can fail us.
the_streetsurfer
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:50:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 5:42:08 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:09:34 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
Is science infallible?

That's the question. The answer, of course, is yes, Science is fallible.

Why is this important?

Every time I talk to atheists, they tell me that the Bible is a fairy tale and that there's no proof for God. However, the foundation of what they believe (Science) is very fallible. At one point, even the most accomplished scientists of old believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Earth was flat.

This got me to thinking: What theories that science has "proven" will be laughed upon in the future?

Thoughts?

(As a side note, I do accept 95% of all science. I think it's hilarious when atheists think that christians don't believe in science. I just have trouble putting all of my faith into something that is fallible.)

You can't be for real. First you ask if science is 'in'fallible and then you say 'yes' science is fallible. Don't they educate American kristyuns anymore?

I am real btw. I asked a question and gave an answer. Anyone who answered "no" to this question would be wrong; I gave support for my answer. The question was used to illustrate a point. After I illustrated that point, I asked for your thoughts. Very simple.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:54:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 5:48:35 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:37:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:25:50 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:20:56 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:09:34 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
Is science infallible?

That's the question. The answer, of course, is yes, Science is fallible.

Why is this important?

Every time I talk to atheists, they tell me that the Bible is a fairy tale and that there's no proof for God. However, the foundation of what they believe (Science) is very fallible. At one point, even the most accomplished scientists of old believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Earth was flat.

This got me to thinking: What theories that science has "proven" will be laughed upon in the future?

Thoughts?

(As a side note, I do accept 95% of all science. I think it's hilarious when atheists think that christians don't believe in science. I just have trouble putting all of my faith into something that is fallible.)

Fallable is a misrepresentation.

Science is a progressive, empirical based philosophy. There isn't much one can do in the search for truth without applying at least some inductive reasoning, not least in what we have seen to far.

Virtually every useful field of study uses scientific methods in their application, even down to economics and history.

I agree that science is important. But it makes mistakes. My point is that atheists put all their trust in a very fallible thing. The theory of evolution itself has changed since Darwin.

Science itself makes no mistakes, it's just a method. It's like saying triangulation makes mistakes, it doesn't, just a method, the mistakes come from the interpretation/correctness of the application/model made.

Science itself makes models and predictions based off those models. If evidence does not fit the model, then the model needs refinement/discarding. After a large number of iterations, you are left with a model which is a pretty good representation of reality.

The way you know you have a REALLY good model, is one that explains a lot, whilst being very simple (as it requires the least number of ad-hoc adjustments).

Evolution makes some very simple statements.

Everything in life is related via. common ancestry.
Diversification of species occurs via. descent with modification.

Those simple statements have a number of consequences, from where predictions can be made and tested. Other lines of evidence, fossil evidence, genetics, etc are lines upon which evolution is tested. Any of these can demonstrate evolution false.

When you have a theory with good predictive power, and explains a lot, and contradicts little, then you have an excellent theory which you can be confidence is the best guess at the truth. That is science.

Scientists say evolution is probably the best theory we have in all of science because of how many independent lines of evidence it is and is continually tested against. That's why it is held in such high regard, because the same basic principles have stood the test of scrutiny for so long.

Scientific methods can be fallible. This is agreed by both of us. When I say science, I mean the scientific theories that we all believe in. Those theories are based on scientific methods and scientific methods can be fallible. That is my point. I'm not trying to start an other evolution/creation debate. I'm trying to show that the scientific methods that we believe can fail us.

Since science is so intertwined, the number of things that would have to be wrong in order for exceptional theories such as creationism, Noahchian flood or Yound Earth to be true is dumbfounding.

Each thing that would need to be wrong adds an extra level of special pleading to the claim which only weakens the claim further. Similar to the invisible pet dragon claim. Each special pleading claim made 'it floats, it's invisible, it warps to another dimension to avoid being touched, it's stone cold so can't be IR measured etc' makes the original claim less and less likely to be true.

That's why I don't take 'fallibility' of science to be true. It is theoretically possible, but so unlikely the core theories are to be completely false that it's just not worth talking about.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
the_streetsurfer
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 6:07:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 5:54:23 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:48:35 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:37:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:25:50 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:20:56 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:09:34 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
Is science infallible?

That's the question. The answer, of course, is yes, Science is fallible.

Why is this important?

Every time I talk to atheists, they tell me that the Bible is a fairy tale and that there's no proof for God. However, the foundation of what they believe (Science) is very fallible. At one point, even the most accomplished scientists of old believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Earth was flat.

This got me to thinking: What theories that science has "proven" will be laughed upon in the future?

Thoughts?

(As a side note, I do accept 95% of all science. I think it's hilarious when atheists think that christians don't believe in science. I just have trouble putting all of my faith into something that is fallible.)

Fallable is a misrepresentation.

Science is a progressive, empirical based philosophy. There isn't much one can do in the search for truth without applying at least some inductive reasoning, not least in what we have seen to far.

Virtually every useful field of study uses scientific methods in their application, even down to economics and history.

I agree that science is important. But it makes mistakes. My point is that atheists put all their trust in a very fallible thing. The theory of evolution itself has changed since Darwin.

Science itself makes no mistakes, it's just a method. It's like saying triangulation makes mistakes, it doesn't, just a method, the mistakes come from the interpretation/correctness of the application/model made.

Science itself makes models and predictions based off those models. If evidence does not fit the model, then the model needs refinement/discarding. After a large number of iterations, you are left with a model which is a pretty good representation of reality.

The way you know you have a REALLY good model, is one that explains a lot, whilst being very simple (as it requires the least number of ad-hoc adjustments).

Evolution makes some very simple statements.

Everything in life is related via. common ancestry.
Diversification of species occurs via. descent with modification.

Those simple statements have a number of consequences, from where predictions can be made and tested. Other lines of evidence, fossil evidence, genetics, etc are lines upon which evolution is tested. Any of these can demonstrate evolution false.

When you have a theory with good predictive power, and explains a lot, and contradicts little, then you have an excellent theory which you can be confidence is the best guess at the truth. That is science.

Scientists say evolution is probably the best theory we have in all of science because of how many independent lines of evidence it is and is continually tested against. That's why it is held in such high regard, because the same basic principles have stood the test of scrutiny for so long.

Scientific methods can be fallible. This is agreed by both of us. When I say science, I mean the scientific theories that we all believe in. Those theories are based on scientific methods and scientific methods can be fallible. That is my point. I'm not trying to start an other evolution/creation debate. I'm trying to show that the scientific methods that we believe can fail us.

Since science is so intertwined, the number of things that would have to be wrong in order for exceptional theories such as creationism, Noahchian flood or Yound Earth to be true is dumbfounding.

Each thing that would need to be wrong adds an extra level of special pleading to the claim which only weakens the claim further. Similar to the invisible pet dragon claim. Each special pleading claim made 'it floats, it's invisible, it warps to another dimension to avoid being touched, it's stone cold so can't be IR measured etc' makes the original claim less and less likely to be true.

That's why I don't take 'fallibility' of science to be true. It is theoretically possible, but so unlikely the core theories are to be completely false that it's just not worth talking about.

What things would have to be wrong in the flood story? I think we can both agree that scientific theories can be fallible. I gave the example of the flat earth and the earth as the center of the universe. Those are two scientific theories that have been proven wrong. Science can be fallible.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 6:07:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dayumm ! I sometimes have to remind myself this IS the Religion section.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 6:11:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 5:09:34 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
Is science infallible?

No.

That's the question. The answer, of course, is yes, Science is fallible.

Actually the answer is, "No, Science is not infallible."

Why is this important?

Every time I talk to atheists, they tell me that the Bible is a fairy tale and that there's no proof for God. However, the foundation of what they believe (Science) is very fallible. At one point, even the most accomplished scientists of old believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Earth was flat.

This got me to thinking: What theories that science has "proven" will be laughed upon in the future?

Thoughts?

(As a side note, I do accept 95% of all science. I think it's hilarious when atheists think that christians don't believe in science. I just have trouble putting all of my faith into something that is fallible.)

What thoughts do you want? No one has really ever believed that science is infallible. It's the best we got, however.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 6:38:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 6:07:31 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:54:23 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:48:35 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:37:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:25:50 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:20:56 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:09:34 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
Is science infallible?

That's the question. The answer, of course, is yes, Science is fallible.

Why is this important?

Every time I talk to atheists, they tell me that the Bible is a fairy tale and that there's no proof for God. However, the foundation of what they believe (Science) is very fallible. At one point, even the most accomplished scientists of old believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Earth was flat.

This got me to thinking: What theories that science has "proven" will be laughed upon in the future?

Thoughts?

(As a side note, I do accept 95% of all science. I think it's hilarious when atheists think that christians don't believe in science. I just have trouble putting all of my faith into something that is fallible.)

Fallable is a misrepresentation.

Science is a progressive, empirical based philosophy. There isn't much one can do in the search for truth without applying at least some inductive reasoning, not least in what we have seen to far.

Virtually every useful field of study uses scientific methods in their application, even down to economics and history.

I agree that science is important. But it makes mistakes. My point is that atheists put all their trust in a very fallible thing. The theory of evolution itself has changed since Darwin.

Science itself makes no mistakes, it's just a method. It's like saying triangulation makes mistakes, it doesn't, just a method, the mistakes come from the interpretation/correctness of the application/model made.

Science itself makes models and predictions based off those models. If evidence does not fit the model, then the model needs refinement/discarding. After a large number of iterations, you are left with a model which is a pretty good representation of reality.

The way you know you have a REALLY good model, is one that explains a lot, whilst being very simple (as it requires the least number of ad-hoc adjustments).

Evolution makes some very simple statements.

Everything in life is related via. common ancestry.
Diversification of species occurs via. descent with modification.

Those simple statements have a number of consequences, from where predictions can be made and tested. Other lines of evidence, fossil evidence, genetics, etc are lines upon which evolution is tested. Any of these can demonstrate evolution false.

When you have a theory with good predictive power, and explains a lot, and contradicts little, then you have an excellent theory which you can be confidence is the best guess at the truth. That is science.

Scientists say evolution is probably the best theory we have in all of science because of how many independent lines of evidence it is and is continually tested against. That's why it is held in such high regard, because the same basic principles have stood the test of scrutiny for so long.

Scientific methods can be fallible. This is agreed by both of us. When I say science, I mean the scientific theories that we all believe in. Those theories are based on scientific methods and scientific methods can be fallible. That is my point. I'm not trying to start an other evolution/creation debate. I'm trying to show that the scientific methods that we believe can fail us.

Since science is so intertwined, the number of things that would have to be wrong in order for exceptional theories such as creationism, Noahchian flood or Yound Earth to be true is dumbfounding.

Each thing that would need to be wrong adds an extra level of special pleading to the claim which only weakens the claim further. Similar to the invisible pet dragon claim. Each special pleading claim made 'it floats, it's invisible, it warps to another dimension to avoid being touched, it's stone cold so can't be IR measured etc' makes the original claim less and less likely to be true.

That's why I don't take 'fallibility' of science to be true. It is theoretically possible, but so unlikely the core theories are to be completely false that it's just not worth talking about.

What things would have to be wrong in the flood story? I think we can both agree that scientific theories can be fallible. I gave the example of the flat earth and the earth as the center of the universe. Those are two scientific theories that have been proven wrong. Science can be fallible.

They were scientific theories?

I would debate that the flat earth was ever a scientific theory, and the Earth IS the centre of the universe.... As is Jupiter... And andromeda. But that's besides the point.

Theories are only as good as their specificity, predictions, falsifiability and testability and the current empirical support. It was science itself that proves such theories wrong, I have yet to see another method which has done so.

The Flood story contradicts pretty much everything in flood geology, geology, tree rings, distribution of species, genetic diversity of species, engineering, wooden ship engineering & known required manpower.

.... To name a few.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 7:05:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 5:09:34 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
Is science infallible?

That's the question. The answer, of course, is yes, Science is fallible.

Why is this important?

Every time I talk to atheists, they tell me that the Bible is a fairy tale and that there's no proof for God. However, the foundation of what they believe (Science) is very fallible. At one point, even the most accomplished scientists of old believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Earth was flat.

As other people have mentioned there is the scientific process and what get's churned out in that process. Anything that comes out of that process eg, scientific theories are never proven in the sense of being 100% certain....

Science is kind of big on the whole test ability thing. It's not enough to just not be proven wrong, you have to be proven not wrong in the face of being tested.

This is what I find alot of people get sucked into.......well science can't disprove (insert religious claim here)

You only get points on theories which can be tested and pass those tests, not making theories which have so many cavets throw in to make it beyond test ability and thus can't be proven wrong......

Hey you can't prove that (my) conception of God doesn't exist.


This got me to thinking: What theories that science has "proven" will be laughed upon in the future?

Thoughts?

(As a side note, I do accept 95% of all science. I think it's hilarious when atheists think that christians don't believe in science. I just have trouble putting all of my faith into something that is fallible.)

The problem is that their are some people who accept science...............only if it doesn't conflict with a prior religious belief, and cause it conflicts well, it's science that must be wrong.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 2:33:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 6:07:31 PM, the_streetsurfer wrote:
What things would have to be wrong in the flood story? I think we can both agree that scientific theories can be fallible. I gave the example of the flat earth and the earth as the center of the universe. Those are two scientific theories that have been proven wrong. Science can be fallible.

There is currently only enough water on earth to raise ocean levels by about 200 feet if all the ice melted, so an immense amount of water would have to appear and then later disappear. One explanation is that there were no mountains before the Flood, and that the mountains appeared at the time of the flood. That theory invalidates plate tectonics, which says that such rapid changes are impossible.

theories of erosion and sedimentation would be completely invalidated, sandstone and limestone would have to be formed by magic, and features like the Grand Canyon would have to be created by unknown processes.

There are about 30 places around the world where sediment layers have accumulated by season. Pollen grains and fish scales mark the individual layers showing they occurred seasonally. The sediment columns go back 30,000 years, way before the claimed Flood.

Ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica go back more than 100,000 years with seasonal rings. Radiometric dating of the gas trapped in the ice verifies the age. There is no sign of a Flood. Radiometric dating and ice formation must therefore be wrong. Tree rings go back 11,000 years, with no sign of a flood, and with dates cross-checked by radiometric dating.

Rates of radioactive decay are determined by the strength of the weak force, a fundamental force of nature. If the weak force changed, eight observable features of the universe could not have occurred as they are observed.

There are many animals unique to islands, like kangaroos in Australia and lemurs in Madagascar. To get on the ark, they would have to swim very long distances, a seeming impossibility. But if they were so amazingly aquatic, why would they need an have ark?

Many species only live in wet tropical climates, especially insects. All would have to make their way to the ark, then back to their environment. Insects have short life cycles and could not survive outside of their native habitat long enough to travel.

In desert areas there are processes than are only explained by there being no water, and they can be traced as ongoing for tens of thousands of years.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 2:55:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is an equivocation in "fallable." In science, a scientific theory is proposed and then evidence is accumulated that proves or disproves the theory. No scientist claims that it is impossible for further evidence to show that a theory is either wrong or only works under limited circumstances. Newtons Laws only work at speeds well below the speed of light, and so forth. "Fallable" in the context of science means "subject to being disproved by more evidence."

Religion doesn't use "fallible" in that sense. Religion is accepted as an act of faith, and is not subject to disproof by failure of predictions or by any other method. Magic is acceptable explanation for how something occurred.

What are some examples of scientific theories that were proposed but disproved? The flat earth was never a scientific theory.

The classic example is the theory of the luminiferous ether, a substance thought to fill space that served as a media for the propagation of light. It was disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment in the late 19th century.

Physiognomy was a theory that personality was determined by the detailed shapes of the skull. It was very popular in the 1800's, but failed experimental validation.

The steady state theory of the universe was the dominant theory of the universe through the 1960's, favored over the Big Bang. Discovery of the microwave background radiation brought rapid acceptance of the Big Bang Theory.

Homosexuality was declared to be a form of mental illness until a few decades ago. It's now accepted by science as a naturally occurring variation.

I think it is useful to see how the scientific method has gone wrong in the past, but none of the methods of proof or disproof call upon magic as an alternative. That makes scientific fallibility distinct from religion. Science is subject to testing.