Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Theory x is untestable, arguing with theists

Stupidape
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 5:11:49 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Over and over I see the same claim made by apologetics but in slightly different forms.

Evolution is untestable so therefore it is invalid.
How photosynthesis first came to be is untestable, so therefore evolution is invalid.
Abiogenesis is untestable so therefore it is invalid.

The list goes on for these theories
multi-verse
big bang
gravity
light years

I am often baffled not being specialized in arguing these debates. I know at least some of these theories are testable, but am often unable to answer the apologetic. I feel like the apologetic says, "prove this theory can be tested otherwise its invalid and I win." I feel like I suddenly have a huge burden of proof placed on me.

Can anyone help explain how these theories could be tested? Thanks.
Stupidape
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 6:53:21 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Here's the answer I think. There is a major difference between currently untestable theories and permanently untestable theories.

"Let me make a distinction between currently untestable theories and permanently untestable theories."

https://www.quora.com...
Geodesic
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 9:09:29 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 6:53:21 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Here's the answer I think. There is a major difference between currently untestable theories and permanently untestable theories.

"Let me make a distinction between currently untestable theories and permanently untestable theories."

https://www.quora.com...

Here is a Better Answer " Don't argue about Science with theists "
thorpowers
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 10:46:50 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Out of the list of theories you give, only gravity is testable using the scientific method. It appears you do not understand how scientific truth is obtained. The scientific method is the gold standard of truth in science.
"The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment. Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation."

We can test gravity, when i jump in the air, I fall back down without fail every time. This is a simple experiment that is observable, repeatable, and can withstand scrutiny.
Microevolution (variation within a species) is also testable using the scientific method, we see this all around us. The variation in the canine is a good example.
All views on origins of the universe and life, such as the big bang theory, and macroevolution, can not be proven using the scientific method, thus they are theories held by faith, based on assumptions that we hold in the present.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 12:11:39 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 10:46:50 AM, thorpowers wrote:
Out of the list of theories you give, only gravity is testable using the scientific method. It appears you do not understand how scientific truth is obtained. The scientific method is the gold standard of truth in science.
"The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment. Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation."

We can test gravity, when i jump in the air, I fall back down without fail every time. This is a simple experiment that is observable, repeatable, and can withstand scrutiny.
Microevolution (variation within a species) is also testable using the scientific method, we see this all around us. The variation in the canine is a good example.
All views on origins of the universe and life, such as the big bang theory, and macroevolution, can not be proven using the scientific method, thus they are theories held by faith, based on assumptions that we hold in the present.

Yes, the BB theory and evolution follow the scientific method, they are not faith based, that is entirely stupid.
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
thorpowers
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 3:44:22 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 12:11:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/23/2016 10:46:50 AM, thorpowers wrote:
Out of the list of theories you give, only gravity is testable using the scientific method. It appears you do not understand how scientific truth is obtained. The scientific method is the gold standard of truth in science.
"The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment. Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation."

We can test gravity, when i jump in the air, I fall back down without fail every time. This is a simple experiment that is observable, repeatable, and can withstand scrutiny.
Microevolution (variation within a species) is also testable using the scientific method, we see this all around us. The variation in the canine is a good example.
All views on origins of the universe and life, such as the big bang theory, and macroevolution, can not be proven using the scientific method, thus they are theories held by faith, based on assumptions that we hold in the present.

Yes, the BB theory and evolution follow the scientific method, they are not faith based, that is entirely stupid.

By all means link a source to the experiment conducted in which a human observed the universe being created or macro evolution taking place...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 8:43:21 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/14/2016 5:11:49 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Over and over I see the same claim made by apologetics but in slightly different forms.

Evolution is untestable so therefore it is invalid.
How photosynthesis first came to be is untestable, so therefore evolution is invalid.
Abiogenesis is untestable so therefore it is invalid.

The list goes on for these theories
multi-verse
big bang
gravity
light years

I am often baffled not being specialized in arguing these debates. I know at least some of these theories are testable, but am often unable to answer the apologetic. I feel like the apologetic says, "prove this theory can be tested otherwise its invalid and I win." I feel like I suddenly have a huge burden of proof placed on me.

Can anyone help explain how these theories could be tested? Thanks.

The SM (scientific method) changes, evolves - except with a definite designer, and motive.
Over the years it has adapted to the needs of scientists.
The SM I was originally taught required actual hands on experiments.
A scientist could not use computations, based on data acquired, that he believed was reliable. In the planning stage this would be done, but that did not qualify as an experiment.
An experiment had to be real world, hands on.

Post WWII computers were being used in many fields of science, breaking new ground in rapid calculations. A decade later and computational ability of a $50 tablet today required a footprint the size of a basketball court. Think vacuum tube processors, no microchips.

By the 70's computers were coming of age. Fortran and punch cards were no longer necessary.
Computer models were accepted as "real" experiments.
This was a huge change in the SM.
Computers do not do anything intelligent human's can do, they just do it faster.
Computation models could have been run in 1920, without computers, manually, but that was not acceptable as a real experiment. Today it is.
So scientists can do evolution experiments by computer modeling.
They can test hypothesis' by computer models, no need to wait a few million years, that would be very unhandy.

This is fully accepted in the scientific community.
It has been integrated into the SM.

It also opens the door to mistaken beliefs.
Some things are accepted as factual, and later shown to be false.
That is no problem either, as that is fully accepted by the scientific community, and part of the SM.
If computer modeling were not accepted as real experiments, there would be fewer mistaken beliefs.
Scientists are content with the tradeoffs.
Annnaxim
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 9:19:50 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/14/2016 9:09:29 AM, Geodesic wrote:

Here is a Better Answer " Don't argue about Science with theists "
How true!

Often creationists excel at arguments without substance. Look at people like William L. Craig. They are brilliant orators, polemicists and salesmen, against whom I couldn't hope to win an argument; which in itself is a reason for not arguing with such people.

Besides, arguing with creationists gives them a stage on which they can perform their act.
Annnaxim
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 9:23:45 AM
Posted: 1 week ago

We can test gravity, when i jump in the air, I fall back down without fail every time. This is a simple experiment that is observable, repeatable, and can withstand scrutiny.
Junping in the air doesn't prove gravity at all.
The problem is, everything that doesn't fall back down, left the earth long ago.
*grin*
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 9:49:19 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/14/2016 5:11:49 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Over and over I see the same claim made by apologetics but in slightly different forms.

Evolution is untestable so therefore it is invalid.
How photosynthesis first came to be is untestable, so therefore evolution is invalid.
Abiogenesis is untestable so therefore it is invalid.

The list goes on for these theories
multi-verse
big bang
gravity
light years

I am often baffled not being specialized in arguing these debates. I know at least some of these theories are testable, but am often unable to answer the apologetic. I feel like the apologetic says, "prove this theory can be tested otherwise its invalid and I win." I feel like I suddenly have a huge burden of proof placed on me.

Can anyone help explain how these theories could be tested? Thanks.

First of all, argue in terms of plausibility. Evolution is highly plausible as shown through the fossil record. Most people accept that nowadays. Natural selection is the more debatable topic and its plausible and uncontradictory with natural observations, but has yet to be observed. Its pure theory, unless I'm falling behind. The origins of life, again just do your research and argue plausibility.

Practice humility in your positions. Its okay if you might be wrong. Once you find out your wrong its a step closer to finding the truth. Its not like any of these things really matter or contribute to anything right now. They are very bickering topics to debate at the present, and whatever is going on, it happened. We're here.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Looncall
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 10:25:22 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 10:46:50 AM, thorpowers wrote:
Out of the list of theories you give, only gravity is testable using the scientific method. It appears you do not understand how scientific truth is obtained. The scientific method is the gold standard of truth in science.
"The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment. Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation."

We can test gravity, when i jump in the air, I fall back down without fail every time. This is a simple experiment that is observable, repeatable, and can withstand scrutiny.
Microevolution (variation within a species) is also testable using the scientific method, we see this all around us. The variation in the canine is a good example.
All views on origins of the universe and life, such as the big bang theory, and macroevolution, can not be proven using the scientific method, thus they are theories held by faith, based on assumptions that we hold in the present.

Do you bother to call the police when your home is burgled when nobody is home? After all, no-one witnessed the crime. By your reasoning, any evidence remaining must be irrelevant.

Events of the past can leave traces that can be found in the present and that can be used as evidence for those events.

Parroting silly creationist propaganda is what my late father would have called "infra dig"(infra dignitas: below dignity). I am surprised that anyone would stoop so low.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 1:06:09 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/26/2016 9:49:19 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/14/2016 5:11:49 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Over and over I see the same claim made by apologetics but in slightly different forms.

Evolution is untestable so therefore it is invalid.
How photosynthesis first came to be is untestable, so therefore evolution is invalid.
Abiogenesis is untestable so therefore it is invalid.

The list goes on for these theories
multi-verse
big bang
gravity
light years

I am often baffled not being specialized in arguing these debates. I know at least some of these theories are testable, but am often unable to answer the apologetic. I feel like the apologetic says, "prove this theory can be tested otherwise its invalid and I win." I feel like I suddenly have a huge burden of proof placed on me.

Can anyone help explain how these theories could be tested? Thanks.

First of all, argue in terms of plausibility. Evolution is highly plausible as shown through the fossil record. Most people accept that nowadays. Natural selection is the more debatable topic and its plausible and uncontradictory with natural observations, but has yet to be observed. Its pure theory, unless I'm falling behind.


I would say you have fallen behind.
Natural selection is part of the "scientific theory" of evolution.
To put that in context, consider this:

"Some of the most famous scientific theories include the theory of heliocentrism, the theory of evolution by natural selection, the quantum theory, the theory of general relativity and the theory of special relativity. Plate tectonics theory, statistical mechanics and the oxygen theory of combustion are also quite famous. "

So doubting natural selection goes right in there with doubting the earth revolves around the sun, scientifically speaking.

Natural selection has been verified by thought experiments. Oh, excuse me, I mean computer models.

The origins of life, again just do your research and argue plausibility.

Practice humility in your positions. Its okay if you might be wrong. Once you find out your wrong its a step closer to finding the truth. Its not like any of these things really matter or contribute to anything right now. They are very bickering topics to debate at the present, and whatever is going on, it happened. We're here.