Unproven for lack of evidence. Atheism/Theism

[Enmos]

If the experiments are carried out correctly all will come to the same conclusion.

 

[S.A.M.]

What do you mean correctly? Will they all begin with the same assumptions? Carry out the same experiments? Use the same equipment? Test the same variable? Get the same results? Arrive at the same conclusions?

 

[S.A.M.]

Ok, my hypothesis is that space and time are affected by gravity.

Yup, exactly the same results from testing, identical.

Next.

I'm sorry, did you carry it out?

 

[Enmos]

What is your goal actually ?

 

[(Q)]

What do you mean correctly? Will they all begin with the same assumptions? Carry out the same experiments? Use the same equipment? Test the same variable? Get the same results? Arrive at the same conclusions?

That depends on whether or not they follow the scientific method or follow your bizarre and whacked-out assertions of the scientific method.

 

[S.A.M.]

What is your goal actually ?

My goal is to test my hypothesis.

That depends on whether or not they follow the scientific method or follow your bizarre and whacked-out assertions of the scientific method.

Could you tell me exactly which part of it you disagree with and why?

 

[Enmos]

My goal is to test my hypothesis.

No, your goal in this thread, and other threads alike lately.

It's seems like you are trying hard to discredit science itself.
What about the children ?

 

[S.A.M.]

No, your goal in this thread, and other threads alike lately.

Which other threads? In this thread I was attracted by Ham's hypothesis and I am clearing out my cobwebs by airing them.

 

[Enmos]

Edit ^

 

[S.A.M.]

If you think objective analysis of the weaknesses in research strategies is a criticism of science, you are a very narrow minded individual indeed. Unless you figure out ways to streamline research, how can you have any confidence in the results? Do you think people should just blindly follow protocol generate results like emesis and have done with it?

 

[Enmos]

If you think objective analysis of the weaknesses in research strategies is a criticism of science, you are a very narrow minded individual indeed. Unless you figure out ways to streamline research, how can you have any confidence in the results? Do you think people should just blindly follow protocol generate results like emesis and have done with it?

Some people here may be misled by your posts.
You are creating Yorda's.

 

[S.A.M.]

In what way?

 

[Enmos]

In what way?

By posts like this:

What do you mean correctly? Will they all begin with the same assumptions? Carry out the same experiments? Use the same equipment? Test the same variable? Get the same results? Arrive at the same conclusions?

It could be taken as criticism of the scientific method.

 

[S.A.M.]

By posts like this:


It could be taken as criticism of the scientific method.

Really? Why?

 

[Enmos]

Really? Why?

Why ? Are you completely ignorant of humanity ?

 

[S.A.M.]

I couldn't care less. I am only concerned with the philosophy of science here.

 

[Enmos]

I couldn't care less. I am only concerned with the philosophy of science here.

Fine.

 

[(Q)]

Could you tell me exactly which part of it you disagree with and why?

Why? So that you could promptly ignore it like you ignored other salient, detailed explanations? Fat chance.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why? So that you could promptly ignore it like you ignored other salient, detailed explanations? Fat chance.

Come on sweetie, tell me, I'm really interested. I'm training two undergrads right now and I would love some input.

 

[spidergoat]

The probabilities that science determines are indeed based on what we know now. What we know now is that complexity doesn't need complexity to arise. Evolution, through simple rules, can give rise to complex structures. Therefore, the idea that our universe is so complex that intelligence must have created it is not necessary or probable.