Total Posts:287|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are scientists truly scientific?

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?
illegalcombatant2.0
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 8:58:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

This is a fun game, when some suspect argument in favor of God just replace God with something else and see what happens........

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of invisible dragons not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept invisible dragons no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:08:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but false. Even one unaccounted factor can refute a scientific hypothesis or theory, no matter how longstanding, but such is an unavoidable part of the scientific method. This is why scientific papers are peer reviewed, in case anyone can find any holes in a proposed theory. The theory of gravity is very strong, it predicts celestial movements, however it could be replaced by a better theory that more accurately predicts said movement (along with us not floating away into space).

Look at it this way: What way do you offer to test for God as a variable in any experiment, while avoiding lurking variables?
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:08:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 8:58:37 AM, illegalcombatant2.0 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

This is a fun game, when some suspect argument in favor of God just replace God with something else and see what happens........

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of invisible dragons not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept invisible dragons no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

It isn't intended as a game, but there is no harm in treating it as such.

My only hope is that it will make some people think, about themselves, and most of all about those they put their trust in.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:18:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 9:08:07 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but false. Even one unaccounted factor can refute a scientific hypothesis or theory, no matter how longstanding, but such is an unavoidable part of the scientific method. This is why scientific papers are peer reviewed, in case anyone can find any holes in a proposed theory. The theory of gravity is very strong, it predicts celestial movements, however it could be replaced by a better theory that more accurately predicts said movement (along with us not floating away into space).


In fact you have just made my point for me if you stop to think about it.

Look at it this way: What way do you offer to test for God as a variable in any experiment, while avoiding lurking variables?

Let me answer with a question.

What do you use as a test for Dark matter or Dark force?

The answer is the same for both, but in the case of God it gets ignored..
illegalcombatant2.0
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:30:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 9:08:39 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:58:37 AM, illegalcombatant2.0 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

This is a fun game, when some suspect argument in favor of God just replace God with something else and see what happens........

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of invisible dragons not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept invisible dragons no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

It isn't intended as a game, but there is no harm in treating it as such.

My only hope is that it will make some people think, about themselves, and most of all about those they put their trust in.

You know what else scientists get by without..........

Ghosts
Leprechauns
Bigfoot
Telekensis (what ever that is)
Invisible dragons
Not so invisible unicorns

You have no problem with that do you ? but golly they have to have God, they are just so biased.

Science does not bend to your religious belief nor will make special exemptions to accommodate your religious beliefs.

If you every in the slightest think this should be the case then on behalf of humanity I would just like to say go f*ck yourself you fundy nut job.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:43:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

As there is not the slightest evidence a deity exists, scientists are not likely to consider the notion!
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:46:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

I think you're full of bovine fecal matter. Science can only consider that are measurable, detectable, and subject to analysis. Since you say your God is beyond all of this a real scientist has no reason to ever even consider it. It's not bias, it's simply the principle of the scientific process.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 10:02:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 9:30:51 AM, illegalcombatant2.0 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:08:39 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:58:37 AM, illegalcombatant2.0 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

This is a fun game, when some suspect argument in favor of God just replace God with something else and see what happens........

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of invisible dragons not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept invisible dragons no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

It isn't intended as a game, but there is no harm in treating it as such.

My only hope is that it will make some people think, about themselves, and most of all about those they put their trust in.

You know what else scientists get by without..........

Ghosts
Leprechauns
Bigfoot
Telekensis (what ever that is)
Invisible dragons
Not so invisible unicorns

You have no problem with that do you ? but golly they have to have God, they are just so biased.

Science does not bend to your religious belief nor will make special exemptions to accommodate your religious beliefs.

It doesn't need to, it has to bend things to it's own beliefs, lol.

If you every in the slightest think this should be the case then on behalf of humanity I would just like to say go f*ck yourself you fundy nut job.

As always when you don;t have any real answer you resort to obscenity and insult, lol.

Actually there is a scientific area of study for most of those., it's called the Paranormal, lol.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 10:04:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 9:46:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

I think you're full of bovine fecal matter. Science can only consider that are measurable, detectable, and subject to analysis. Since you say your God is beyond all of this a real scientist has no reason to ever even consider it. It's not bias, it's simply the principle of the scientific process.

That's funny, that's roughly what I think about you, lol.

So, the effect of God on this universe is measurable, quantifiable and frequently commented on by scientists.

It starts with "design".

Only bigotry stops people seeing it.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 10:22:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Once again you demonstrate that you have zero idea about science and the scientific method.

science
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

I've highlighted the parts you need to pay special attention to.

Your "inclusion of all possible factors" and "no matter how unlikely" is not how science works at all. First comes observation. Then a hypithesis to explain the observation(s). Then the hypothesis is tested to ensure there is no countering evidence. Finally the hypothesis is examined to see if it makes any predictions. If so, those predictions are tested by multiple teams if possible. If all is good so far and the hypothesis stands the test of time without evidence turning up to falsify it, it then graduates to a theory.

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

No. Scientists are concerned with the study of the natural world by definition. No scientific theory can entertain supernatural input. It would violate key principles of the scientific method - testability and repeatability.

If you could identify a scientific theory which would benefit by the inclusion of God into it, we would all love to hear what it is and why you think the theory is lacking.

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

You simply demonstrate your own bias with your uninformed remarks about science and your jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on your ignorance.

What do you think?

I think you should have had a proper education and finished high school.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 10:43:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 10:22:56 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Once again you demonstrate that you have zero idea about science and the scientific method.

science
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

I've highlighted the parts you need to pay special attention to.

Your "inclusion of all possible factors" and "no matter how unlikely" is not how science works at all. First comes observation. Then a hypithesis to explain the observation(s). Then the hypothesis is tested to ensure there is no countering evidence. Finally the hypothesis is examined to see if it makes any predictions. If so, those predictions are tested by multiple teams if possible. If all is good so far and the hypothesis stands the test of time without evidence turning up to falsify it, it then graduates to a theory.

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

No. Scientists are concerned with the study of the natural world by definition. No scientific theory can entertain supernatural input. It would violate key principles of the scientific method - testability and repeatability.

If you could identify a scientific theory which would benefit by the inclusion of God into it, we would all love to hear what it is and why you think the theory is lacking.

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

You simply demonstrate your own bias with your uninformed remarks about science and your jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on your ignorance.

What do you think?

I think you should have had a proper education and finished high school.

I went to my local Grammar school, lol, any good.

However I have had a much better education since being educated by Jehovah himself, through his son and his word.

Isaiah 54:13
ASV(i) 13 And all thy children shall be taught of Jehovah; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

John 6:45
ASV(i) 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.

There is no better education than that.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 11:02:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 10:43:53 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:22:56 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Once again you demonstrate that you have zero idea about science and the scientific method.

science
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

I've highlighted the parts you need to pay special attention to.

Your "inclusion of all possible factors" and "no matter how unlikely" is not how science works at all. First comes observation. Then a hypithesis to explain the observation(s). Then the hypothesis is tested to ensure there is no countering evidence. Finally the hypothesis is examined to see if it makes any predictions. If so, those predictions are tested by multiple teams if possible. If all is good so far and the hypothesis stands the test of time without evidence turning up to falsify it, it then graduates to a theory.

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

No. Scientists are concerned with the study of the natural world by definition. No scientific theory can entertain supernatural input. It would violate key principles of the scientific method - testability and repeatability.

If you could identify a scientific theory which would benefit by the inclusion of God into it, we would all love to hear what it is and why you think the theory is lacking.

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

You simply demonstrate your own bias with your uninformed remarks about science and your jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on your ignorance.

What do you think?

I think you should have had a proper education and finished high school.

I went to my local Grammar school, lol, any good.

However I have had a much better education since being educated by Jehovah himself, through his son and his word.

Isaiah 54:13
ASV(i) 13 And all thy children shall be taught of Jehovah; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

John 6:45
ASV(i) 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.

There is no better education than that.

And this response confirms why I consider you a troll, MCB. You create a thread which attempts to discredit science as being biased. I go to great lengths to point out the numerous flaws in your 'argument' to try and educate you, since this is not the first time you have made these kinds of remarks. Instead of defending against my points or conceding them, you just ignore them completely as if nothing happened. I guarantee that in a few days, you will be restating your view that science is unreliable and biased somewhere else.

The only thing you have done here is to use my detailed response solely as an echo chamber to engage in further preaching, totally abandoning your OP. That is trollish behaviour and it is one of the reasons why people ignore you and wish to see you banned. Why should we spend our time on someone like you who is not here to discuss and learn, but only to preach?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 11:14:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 11:02:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:43:53 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:22:56 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Once again you demonstrate that you have zero idea about science and the scientific method.

science
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

I've highlighted the parts you need to pay special attention to.

Your "inclusion of all possible factors" and "no matter how unlikely" is not how science works at all. First comes observation. Then a hypithesis to explain the observation(s). Then the hypothesis is tested to ensure there is no countering evidence. Finally the hypothesis is examined to see if it makes any predictions. If so, those predictions are tested by multiple teams if possible. If all is good so far and the hypothesis stands the test of time without evidence turning up to falsify it, it then graduates to a theory.

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

No. Scientists are concerned with the study of the natural world by definition. No scientific theory can entertain supernatural input. It would violate key principles of the scientific method - testability and repeatability.

If you could identify a scientific theory which would benefit by the inclusion of God into it, we would all love to hear what it is and why you think the theory is lacking.

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

You simply demonstrate your own bias with your uninformed remarks about science and your jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on your ignorance.

What do you think?

I think you should have had a proper education and finished high school.

I went to my local Grammar school, lol, any good.

However I have had a much better education since being educated by Jehovah himself, through his son and his word.

Isaiah 54:13
ASV(i) 13 And all thy children shall be taught of Jehovah; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

John 6:45
ASV(i) 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.

There is no better education than that.

And this response confirms why I consider you a troll, MCB. You create a thread which attempts to discredit science as being biased. I go to great lengths to point out the numerous flaws in your 'argument' to try and educate you, since this is not the first time you have made these kinds of remarks. Instead of defending against my points or conceding them, you just ignore them completely as if nothing happened. I guarantee that in a few days, you will be restating your view that science is unreliable and biased somewhere else.

The only thing you have done here is to use my detailed response solely as an echo chamber to engage in further preaching, totally abandoning your OP. That is trollish behaviour and it is one of the reasons why people ignore you and wish to see you banned. Why should we spend our time on someone like you who is not here to discuss and learn, but only to preach?

You mean in the same way you post in a religious thread to discredit religion?

Science discredits itself, it needs no help from me.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 11:45:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 10:04:33 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:46:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

I think you're full of bovine fecal matter. Science can only consider that are measurable, detectable, and subject to analysis. Since you say your God is beyond all of this a real scientist has no reason to ever even consider it. It's not bias, it's simply the principle of the scientific process.

That's funny, that's roughly what I think about you, lol.

So, the effect of God on this universe is measurable, quantifiable and frequently commented on by scientists.

It starts with "design".

Only bigotry stops people seeing it.

No, logic. There is no evidence pointing to an intelligence of any kind behind the formation of the universe. End of discussion.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 11:53:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 11:45:09 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:04:33 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:46:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

I think you're full of bovine fecal matter. Science can only consider that are measurable, detectable, and subject to analysis. Since you say your God is beyond all of this a real scientist has no reason to ever even consider it. It's not bias, it's simply the principle of the scientific process.

That's funny, that's roughly what I think about you, lol.

So, the effect of God on this universe is measurable, quantifiable and frequently commented on by scientists.

It starts with "design".

Only bigotry stops people seeing it.

No, logic. There is no evidence pointing to an intelligence of any kind behind the formation of the universe. End of discussion.

There is abundant evidence pointing to the careful and intelligent design of this universe you are simply too bigoted to acknowledge it. End of
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 11:59:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 11:53:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:45:09 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:04:33 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:46:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

I think you're full of bovine fecal matter. Science can only consider that are measurable, detectable, and subject to analysis. Since you say your God is beyond all of this a real scientist has no reason to ever even consider it. It's not bias, it's simply the principle of the scientific process.

That's funny, that's roughly what I think about you, lol.

So, the effect of God on this universe is measurable, quantifiable and frequently commented on by scientists.

It starts with "design".

Only bigotry stops people seeing it.

No, logic. There is no evidence pointing to an intelligence of any kind behind the formation of the universe. End of discussion.

There is abundant evidence pointing to the careful and intelligent design of this universe you are simply too bigoted to acknowledge it. End of

Why don't you write a paper detailing all of this evidence, get it peer reviewed and have all of your methodology, experimental design and resulting data that clearly and unambiguously demonstrates an intelligence was necessary for the universe to come into existence and get your Nobel Prize?

I am not a bigot and I'd appreciate a modicum of respect, thank you.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 12:35:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think? : :

Unless they are chosen by our Creator to know Him and His work, they will continue to believe they are the one's who discovered the universe.

John 7
13: Yet for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him.
14: About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught.
15: The Jews marveled at it, saying, "How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?"
16: So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me;
17: if any man's will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.
18: He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 12:43:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

Context matters here. When you say, "does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?", in practice that means having null and alternative hypotheses which are mutually exclusive and span the total probability space. So things like "god", "leprachauns", "dragons", etc., are actually in there implicitly, for relevant hypotheses, even though their particular proportion of the probability space may be undetermined.

Here's an example:
Hypothesis: brightly coloured petals are an evolutionarily advantageous trait.
Null: brightly coloured petals are NOT an evolutionarily advantageous trait.

"God did it" is technically in the null, but we don't need to know all things that exist in the null or how likely each of them is to test the hypothesis.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 2:27:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 12:43:11 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

Context matters here. When you say, "does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?", in practice that means having null and alternative hypotheses which are mutually exclusive and span the total probability space. So things like "god", "leprachauns", "dragons", etc., are actually in there implicitly, for relevant hypotheses, even though their particular proportion of the probability space may be undetermined.

Here's an example:
Hypothesis: brightly coloured petals are an evolutionarily advantageous trait.
Null: brightly coloured petals are NOT an evolutionarily advantageous trait.

"God did it" is technically in the null, but we don't need to know all things that exist in the null or how likely each of them is to test the hypothesis.

No, just as those monitoring the size of the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica didn't need to know of increases below a certain level.

Except they forgot to include incremental increase!

It doesn't matter whether I am watching nature programs, program about microbiological research, or cosmology based programs, the one word I hear over and over again is "design" .

They all agree the designs are amazing, but completely ignore the designer essential for such intricate design.

I'm not so certain of the reasons why they insist on ignoring the obvious,and to me it is extremely obvious that unguided evolution is simply not possible, any more than I am certain of why some people are so determined to hang on to the words of people who they will one day learn not only should have known better, but also in many cases did.

Unfortunately the same thing precisely can be said for many of those inside the world of religion.

Truth seems to be a scary thing to most people. I don't understand why, if I am scared of anything it's lies and the problems they cause. One day they are going to end the lives of billions of people.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 2:35:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 12:43:11 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


I forgot to include this bit:

Here's an example:
Hypothesis: brightly coloured petals are an evolutionarily advantageous trait.
Null: brightly coloured petals are NOT an evolutionarily advantageous trait.


Why include the word evolutionary.

They are an advantage, simple as. The ability to take on colours as needed was designed into them.

Rhododendrons are a typical example, designed so that they colour according to teh soil in the area they grow in.

Many gardeners now take advantage of that by changing the soils composition to produce different coloured, even multi-coloured examples.

Evolution has some truth in it, but it has two problems.

1: It tries to take the adaptation right back to square one.

2: It ignores the designer.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 2:49:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?
No.

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?
No.

What do you think?
The problem with this line of argument, MCB, is that you're expressedly disinterested in science yourself. From previous comments you've made, I believe you'd like to go to your grave having learned nothing more about the scientific world than you already know.

That's your privilege, by the way. There are enough people willing to work out how to make medicine keep you alive, and land grow twice as much as it normally could so you can eat, and sewage systems flush effectively, and give you early warning of storms, and carry your intellectual weight for you.

But while-ever that's true, the most appropriate answer for anyone who doesn't want to learn anything more is: no, that's not how Science works.

And if you're wondering why not, then I'd advise you to be careful: curiosity can lead to learning. :)
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 2:53:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 11:59:29 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:53:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:45:09 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:04:33 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:46:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

I think you're full of bovine fecal matter. Science can only consider that are measurable, detectable, and subject to analysis. Since you say your God is beyond all of this a real scientist has no reason to ever even consider it. It's not bias, it's simply the principle of the scientific process.

That's funny, that's roughly what I think about you, lol.

So, the effect of God on this universe is measurable, quantifiable and frequently commented on by scientists.

It starts with "design".

Only bigotry stops people seeing it.

No, logic. There is no evidence pointing to an intelligence of any kind behind the formation of the universe. End of discussion.

There is abundant evidence pointing to the careful and intelligent design of this universe you are simply too bigoted to acknowledge it. End of

Why don't you write a paper detailing all of this evidence, get it peer reviewed and have all of your methodology, experimental design and resulting data that clearly and unambiguously demonstrates an intelligence was necessary for the universe to come into existence and get your Nobel Prize?

I am not a bigot and I'd appreciate a modicum of respect, thank you..

Well if you aren't you certainly post like one at times.

As for respect, I treated you with full respect at first, but I have had little respect back, so now you get the same respect as you give me, for example " I think you're full of bovine faecal matter." You treat me as if I haven't carefully and painstaking researched and even continue to research the basis for what I accept or don't.

I know the vast majority of religionists don't, but some of us do, and we usually end up with vastly different answers to the other religionists around us.

In fact we usually end up as JWs.

So maybe a little respect from you would be a good idea.

I don't rely on the words of other men, unlike you.

Why should I. They don't want to accept it either. They can see it all around them as clearly as I can.

The old saying applies.

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

They don't want to see, so they don't.

Simple as.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 3:03:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 2:49:57 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?
No.

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?
No.

What do you think?
The problem with this line of argument, MCB, is that you're expressedly disinterested in science yourself. From previous comments you've made, I believe you'd like to go to your grave having learned nothing more about the scientific world than you already know.

That's your privilege, by the way. There are enough people willing to work out how to make medicine keep you alive, and land grow twice as much as it normally could so you can eat, and sewage systems flush effectively, and give you early warning of storms, and carry your intellectual weight for you.

But while-ever that's true, the most appropriate answer for anyone who doesn't want to learn anything more is: no, that's not how Science works.

And if you're wondering why not, then I'd advise you to be careful: curiosity can lead to learning. :)

Actually I have never said I was disinterested. I have said all along that I watch every science program I can find.

No, not disinterested at all.

Disenchanted with scientists, definitely.

I am not happy with the smug, self satisfied bigotry of scientists who have such an amazing amount of evidence

Irritated by the fact that they reveal so much about God, and then quietly shove him out of his own portrait.

I don;t see how they cannot know what they are doing, though I admit most probably don't.

I know I would never want to be a scientist. It is a real dog eat dog world, and if your face doesn't fit, if you rock the boat, you tend to get thrown overboard, or just set to cleaning out the scuppers.

Oh I love science for what it tells me about my creator, and it does, all the time.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 3:05:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 2:53:17 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:59:29 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:53:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:45:09 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:04:33 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:46:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

I think you're full of bovine fecal matter. Science can only consider that are measurable, detectable, and subject to analysis. Since you say your God is beyond all of this a real scientist has no reason to ever even consider it. It's not bias, it's simply the principle of the scientific process.

That's funny, that's roughly what I think about you, lol.

So, the effect of God on this universe is measurable, quantifiable and frequently commented on by scientists.

It starts with "design".

Only bigotry stops people seeing it.

No, logic. There is no evidence pointing to an intelligence of any kind behind the formation of the universe. End of discussion.

There is abundant evidence pointing to the careful and intelligent design of this universe you are simply too bigoted to acknowledge it. End of

Why don't you write a paper detailing all of this evidence, get it peer reviewed and have all of your methodology, experimental design and resulting data that clearly and unambiguously demonstrates an intelligence was necessary for the universe to come into existence and get your Nobel Prize?

I am not a bigot and I'd appreciate a modicum of respect, thank you..

Well if you aren't you certainly post like one at times.

As for respect, I treated you with full respect at first, but I have had little respect back, so now you get the same respect as you give me, for example " I think you're full of bovine faecal matter." You treat me as if I haven't carefully and painstaking researched and even continue to research the basis for what I accept or don't.

I know the vast majority of religionists don't, but some of us do, and we usually end up with vastly different answers to the other religionists around us.

In fact we usually end up as JWs.

So maybe a little respect from you would be a good idea.

I don't rely on the words of other men, unlike you.

That's all you rely on. You sit around and wait on the Governing Body to tell you what to think this month. Only a befuddled JW would mistake "the words of men" with some imaginary direct and personal "holy spirit guidance."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 3:15:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 2:53:17 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:59:29 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:53:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:45:09 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:04:33 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:46:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

I think you're full of bovine fecal matter. Science can only consider that are measurable, detectable, and subject to analysis. Since you say your God is beyond all of this a real scientist has no reason to ever even consider it. It's not bias, it's simply the principle of the scientific process.

That's funny, that's roughly what I think about you, lol.

So, the effect of God on this universe is measurable, quantifiable and frequently commented on by scientists.

It starts with "design".

Only bigotry stops people seeing it.

No, logic. There is no evidence pointing to an intelligence of any kind behind the formation of the universe. End of discussion.

There is abundant evidence pointing to the careful and intelligent design of this universe you are simply too bigoted to acknowledge it. End of

Why don't you write a paper detailing all of this evidence, get it peer reviewed and have all of your methodology, experimental design and resulting data that clearly and unambiguously demonstrates an intelligence was necessary for the universe to come into existence and get your Nobel Prize?

I am not a bigot and I'd appreciate a modicum of respect, thank you..

Well if you aren't you certainly post like one at times.

As for respect, I treated you with full respect at first, but I have had little respect back, so now you get the same respect as you give me, for example " I think you're full of bovine faecal matter." You treat me as if I haven't carefully and painstaking researched and even continue to research the basis for what I accept or don't.

I know the vast majority of religionists don't, but some of us do, and we usually end up with vastly different answers to the other religionists around us.

In fact we usually end up as JWs.

So maybe a little respect from you would be a good idea.

I don't rely on the words of other men, unlike you.

Why should I. They don't want to accept it either. They can see it all around them as clearly as I can.

The old saying applies.

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

They don't want to see, so they don't.

Simple as.

Interesting, you claim to study in depth yet you don't trust the words of other men. How, then, do you study? Your holy book is not a textbook of any kind and only other men wrote actual science texts. As usual, you both contradict yourself and conveniently discard any evidence that disagrees with your predetermined conclusions. This is inherently dishonest or, at the very least, willfully ignorant.

As for respect, I was commenting on your belief, not you and I apologize if you took it that way. Your blatant misstatement about science only lends itself to ridicule since it is so utterly wrong. You also mischaracterize me as a bigot since I reject your baseless statements when actually I am being an honest commentator and expressing both my opinion the best way I know how. If you are not willing to admit the possibility that you could be wrong then you, sir, are the bigot. If the shoe fits, as they say, wear it. As for not choosing to see, well, your religious blindfold is on good and tight.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 3:16:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 3:03:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I watch every science program I can find.
Excellent.

What do you understand about the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism?

What do you understand about why science uses the former, and what happens when you don't?

Please show us what you already know.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 3:19:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 9:18:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:08:07 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but false. Even one unaccounted factor can refute a scientific hypothesis or theory, no matter how longstanding, but such is an unavoidable part of the scientific method. This is why scientific papers are peer reviewed, in case anyone can find any holes in a proposed theory. The theory of gravity is very strong, it predicts celestial movements, however it could be replaced by a better theory that more accurately predicts said movement (along with us not floating away into space).


In fact you have just made my point for me if you stop to think about it.

I fail to see what you mean. Scientific methodology does not demand the inclusion of everything, as you assumed it does. You are of course welcome to try to use God to refute the thoery gravity.

Look at it this way: What way do you offer to test for God as a variable in any experiment, while avoiding lurking variables?

Let me answer with a question.

See above.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 3:30:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Absolutely. However, science is about observing phenomena so that it may explain how the phenomena works.

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

Scientists will indeed include God if God is an observation. Unfortunately, no God has ever been observed, hence is not part of any explanation.

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

I would be very excited to observe God, but there is no evidence of God.

What do you think?

The very moment God steps into the picture for all of us to observe, scientists will be at the forefront to observe God and any explanations forthcoming.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 4:08:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 3:05:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/7/2015 2:53:17 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:59:29 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:53:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:45:09 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:04:33 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:46:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:50:34 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not true scientific methodology demand the inclusion of all possible factors, no matter how unlikely they are considered to be?

Are not, therefore, any scientists who refuse to include the possibility of God not breaching true scientific method due to bias?

I think the answer is obvious, but I wonder how many of those determined not to accept God no matter what evidence shows will accept that because of their own biased thinking.

What do you think?

I think you're full of bovine fecal matter. Science can only consider that are measurable, detectable, and subject to analysis. Since you say your God is beyond all of this a real scientist has no reason to ever even consider it. It's not bias, it's simply the principle of the scientific process.

That's funny, that's roughly what I think about you, lol.

So, the effect of God on this universe is measurable, quantifiable and frequently commented on by scientists.

It starts with "design".

Only bigotry stops people seeing it.

No, logic. There is no evidence pointing to an intelligence of any kind behind the formation of the universe. End of discussion.

There is abundant evidence pointing to the careful and intelligent design of this universe you are simply too bigoted to acknowledge it. End of

Why don't you write a paper detailing all of this evidence, get it peer reviewed and have all of your methodology, experimental design and resulting data that clearly and unambiguously demonstrates an intelligence was necessary for the universe to come into existence and get your Nobel Prize?

I am not a bigot and I'd appreciate a modicum of respect, thank you..

Well if you aren't you certainly post like one at times.

As for respect, I treated you with full respect at first, but I have had little respect back, so now you get the same respect as you give me, for example " I think you're full of bovine faecal matter." You treat me as if I haven't carefully and painstaking researched and even continue to research the basis for what I accept or don't.

I know the vast majority of religionists don't, but some of us do, and we usually end up with vastly different answers to the other religionists around us.

In fact we usually end up as JWs.

So maybe a little respect from you would be a good idea.

I don't rely on the words of other men, unlike you.

That's all you rely on. You sit around and wait on the Governing Body to tell you what to think this month. Only a befuddled JW would mistake "the words of men" with some imaginary direct and personal "holy spirit guidance."

No I do not wait for them to tell me what to think. Unlike you, no-one tells me what to think. I test it out and decide for myself.

Yes I read, occasionally, what the governing body come out with, and then I pick up my bible to make sure that it is so (Acts 17:10-11).

You already now that I have my doubts about the use of the name "Christian" even though they use it, and you have pulled me up on that so you know you are lying in what you claim here.

The fact that I have very rarely found disagreed with their findings, and never over anything significant, simply means that they are on the same, scripturally signposted road as I am.

Only God Christ and holy spirit tell me what to think and they don't force the issue

As always you show that you know you have lost by the shift in emphasis away from scriptural discussion.

However I am happy to let others decide for themselves, which apparently you are not.