Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[James R]

hay_you:

Well I took that it was obvious that the brain was created for man. It didn't 'evolve' it was created that way.

In other words, I was right. You just want to believe what you believe, and if the truth gets in the way you'll just go right on believing what you want to believe anyway. You have no real interest in science.

Creation is the truth.

But it has been falsified, so that can't be right.

Everyone does science...

No. Take yourself for instance. You don't do science.

Life was created in kinds, who knows what species are?

No creationist has ever come up with a satisfactory definition of "kind".

"Species" has a number of similar definitions and is generally well understood.

Yes I do think that I better go. We really have talked about this enough.

Ok. Good luck. Come back if you're ever interested in learning some science!

 

[GeoffP]

Shall we lay a wager on that?

In a related vein: what is to be done about the obstinately obstinate on matters of evolutionary science and evidentiary process?

 

[786]

But it has been falsified, so that can't be right.

The idea of 'creation' itself has never been falsified.

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

The idea of 'creation' itself has never been falsified.

Peace be unto you

Is it falsifiable?

 

[GeoffP]

The idea of 'creation' itself has never been falsified.

Peace be unto you

You should probably define which creation you mean. But SG is dead right: it's not falsifiable.

 

[James R]

The idea of 'creation' itself has never been falsified.

In a vague sense that is true.

In the specific sense of the Creation story in the bible or the Qur'an, it has been falsified.

 

[786]

In a vague sense that is true.

In the specific sense of the Creation story in the bible or the Qur'an, it has been falsified.

Can you illuminate me?

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Is it falsifiable?

Actually the idea that it was 'not created' is also not falsifiable...

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

Actually the idea that it was 'not created' is also not falsifiable...
Peace be unto you

But the idea that it had to be is.

 

[baftan]

Can you illuminate me?

I don't think anyone can illuminate you. Am I falsifiable on this belief?

 

[spidergoat]

Actually the idea that it was 'not created' is also not falsifiable...

Peace be unto you

The Theory of Evolution is indeed falsifiable in many ways. If we found a cat fossil in some ancient layer, for instance.

 

[786]

The Theory of Evolution is indeed falsifiable in many ways. If we found a cat fossil in some ancient layer, for instance.

Mind participating on the God of Science thread? The idea and process of 'randomness' in Evolution is not falsifiable.

Secondly I actually was thinking about 'creation' it terms of the universe, not just biology.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

But the idea that it had to be is.

'had to be' is an absolute view, and science doesn't take absolute stances.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

I don't think anyone can illuminate you. Am I falsifiable on this belief?

Yes, because I have been illuminated by many. Why post this idiotic question adding no real substance to the discussion...

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

'had to be' is an absolute view, and science doesn't take absolute stances.

Er, the idea that it had to be isn't the scientific view.
Do try to follow the "discussion".

In other words science could show that god isn't necessary for a universe to occur, but theists could also claim "Well yes, but that's a special case. God created our universe".

 

[786]

Er, the idea that it had to be isn't the scientific view.
Do try to follow the "discussion".

You're the only one making the claim 'had to be'.... I only said 'creation' itself is not falsifiable... if you're going to change my statement into something more absolute like 'had to be' then that is your choice- and irrelevant in terms of what I said.

Perhaps you should maintain the discussion before you follow it

In other words science could show that god isn't necessary for a universe to occur, but theists could also claim "Well yes, but that's a special case. God created our universe".

Also science only shows how things work- the question of why it happened can't be answered by science- because first of all no body knows if 'why' is even a valid question. So science actually can never show that 'god isn't necessary'-

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

Mind participating on the God of Science thread? The idea and process of 'randomness' in Evolution is not falsifiable.

That doesn't really matter, since the theory doesn't depend on complete mathematical randomness, only the relatively arbitrary nature of mutations and errors.

 

[(Q)]

I only said 'creation' itself is not falsifiable...

If it isn't falsifiable, then it isn't valid and can't be taken seriously as a hypothesis. As an alleged student of biology, you should know that.

Also science only shows how things work- the question of why it happened can't be answered by science- because first of all no body knows if 'why' is even a valid question. So science actually can never show that 'god isn't necessary'-

Then, by your own logic, you just demonstrated god isn't necessary. Well done.

 

[(Q)]

The idea of 'creation' itself has never been falsified.

Neither has the idea of invisible, pink, fire-breathing dragons been falsified. What's your point?

 

[786]

That doesn't really matter, since the theory doesn't depend on complete mathematical randomness, only the relatively arbitrary nature of mutations and errors.

Actually it does because that essentially is the process that is guiding these mechanisms of mutations, genetic drift, upon which Natural Selection acts.

Not knowing if it is controlled by something eliminates any conclusion of necessity for a God or not, because you don't know exactly what is leading up to these events/mechanisms.

The theory doesn't depend on it but the understanding of it does.

Peace be unto you