- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God--WSJ--Eric Metaxas
Posted on 1/5/15 at 3:26 pm to Hester Carries
Posted on 1/5/15 at 3:26 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
I would just like an example of something that the scientific community claims to be true that hasnt been proven.
Straw man.
My contention, again, is that you lack the capacity to provide the proof and will always put your trust in an individual with superior intellect.
1
Posted on 1/5/15 at 3:27 pm to TK421
quote:
My contention, again, is that you lack the capacity to provide the proof and will always put your trust in an individual with superior intellect.
Well your contention is wrong then
Posted on 1/5/15 at 3:32 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
Well your contention is wrong then
Then you don't know enough about science to actually understand how little you will ever know.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 3:39 pm to TK421
quote:
Then you don't know enough about science to actually understand how little you will ever know.
Maybe i just cant analyze your intentionally ambiguous wording. Are you saying there is nothing in science that i can look at and analyze for myself? That everything must be done for me? Or that I cant critically study the works of others?
Posted on 1/5/15 at 4:01 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
Are you saying there is nothing in science that i can look at and analyze for myself?
You cannot fully prove any scientific theorem, no.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 4:02 pm to TK421
quote:
You cannot fully prove any scientific theorem, no.
I only assert to know the aspects of the theorems that have been proven.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 4:51 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
I only assert to know the aspects of the theorems that have been proven.
Do you still not understand the point?
You cannot fully understand any theorem if you cannot prove it yourself.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 5:04 pm to TK421
quote:
You cannot fully understand any theorem if you cannot prove it yourself.
What don't you understand about the fact that I can prove shite myself? I mean hell, have you never been to a children's science fair? They prove elementary principles of science and they are like 7.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 5:20 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
What don't you understand about the fact that I can prove shite myself?
You can't. quote:
They prove elementary principles of science and they are like 7.
Wow, you really don't know anything about science.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 5:26 pm to TK421
quote:
TK421
I believe you're getting at the concept of scientism, or science as a kind of faith system where people who know little about the scientific method are more likely to accept something so long as it is prefaced with "Scientists say..."
It's non-scientists espousing science's superiority that gets tiresome.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 5:27 pm to GoBigOrange86
quote:
I believe you're getting at the concept of scientism, or science as a kind of faith system where people who know little about the scientific method are more likely to accept something so long as it is prefaced with "Scientists say..."
Essentially, yeah. I was trying to get him to openly state it, but I don't think he knows enough about the subject to admit it.
The hipster/atheist fascination with NDT is a fantastic example of this.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 5:31 pm to TK421
quote:
You can't.
I don't believe Bernoulli's principle because someone said it. I believe it because it works. I can use it. I can test it. I'm not sure what semantical mumbo you are trying to use.
If you think aspects of science cant be proven or practiced or tested or used by individuals everyday then I don't know what to tell you.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 5:46 pm to TK421
quote:
I believe you're getting at the concept of scientism, or science as a kind of faith system where people who know little about the scientific method are more likely to accept something so long as it is prefaced with "Scientists say..."
quote:
Essentially, yeah. I was trying to get him to openly state it, but I don't think he knows enough about the subject to admit it.
Wait...So you assume incorrectly that I blindly accept science based on particular scientist's "authority" because youve seen a bunch of "hipsters" do it. And when i dont admit to something I dont do, you say its because i'm too stupid to admit it. That might be the most mind boggling self gratifying thing ive ever heard.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 6:10 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
I don't believe Bernoulli's principle because someone said it. I believe it because it works. I can use it. I can test it. I'm not sure what semantical mumbo you are trying to use.
Bernoulli's Principle will only tell you why someone drowned (within specified limits). It can't tell you whether or not that drowning was just.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 6:19 pm to GumboPot
quote:
t can't tell you whether or not that drowning was just.
True. But also i dont believe that is something you can apply to that event.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 6:21 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
So you assume incorrectly that I blindly accept science based on particular scientist's "authority"
This is a completely correct assertion, but again, you just don't realize how little you know. I'll break it down for you:
Do you believe genetics are the reason babies are born with brown or blonde hair? Cool. DO you understand that DNA leads to those genetic characteristics? Cool. Do you understand that DNA is composed of base pairs? Do you understand that nucleobases pair together the way they do because of their structural and electronic composition? Do you understand that the structure of a nucleobase is dependent on molecular orbital theory and the symmetry involved in the valence orbitals of each individual atom in each molecule? Have you personally been able to solve the necessary matrices to explain the molecular orbital symmetry based on the point group of each nucleobase? If you got even that far, would you be able to prove the linear algebra theorems necessary for the symmetry proof?
Of course not. At some point you have deferred to someone that is an expert in the field and you do not contain all knowledge of the natural world. Stop pretending otherwise, it just makes you look foolish.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 6:44 pm to TK421
quote:
Of course not. At some point you have deferred to someone that is an expert in the field and you do not contain all knowledge of the natural world
And you think this is comparable to an act of faith in something that is completely untestable?
Also you feel like you got me. I can see you pumping your fists. You claimed, using words like always, that i can not prove things myself. Not that i sometimes may not be able too. Also there is nothing i accept because someone said. Maybe because tons of people said it. And the reason is, because things dont become facts because scientists say them, they say them because they are facts.
Furthermore, if you want to call it faith then lets do that. And i will say that you have far more faith in scientists than you do in God. Because youve been on planes before, and if you cant completely complete from start to finish Bernoullis principle, you are taking it on faith that the plane will fly.
This post was edited on 1/5/15 at 6:58 pm
Posted on 1/5/15 at 7:20 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
my question was why the bible over the quaran?
The question was answered earlier in this thread...
The Quaran was written by one individual well over 300 years after Jesus.
The Book of Mormon is similar in that it also has a sole author and wasn't even written until the 1800's.
The Bible was written over a span of 1600 years by over 40 authors. They all point one thing - Jesus. Over 460 prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus.
The Quaran is a book of one of many religions out there. All religions profess the student to accomplish things in order to make their way to their God.
Christianity is radically different. Christianity IS The Gospel...Good News of God making his way to us in Love, Mercy, and Grace in the form of Jesus.
The sacrifice of Jesus is propitiation for Man's seperation from God - sin. His sacrifice is our free gift and the only way to acceptance by God. We can NEVER make things right on our own.
I don't feel too assured I'd be here today without the presence of The Holy Spirit in my life. In my life he has proven himself to me. I am certain He is real. I can't prove it nor do I need to.
Posted on 1/5/15 at 7:29 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
I would just like an example of something that the scientific community claims to be true that hasnt been proven
Gravity comes to mind
They haven't proven where life came from or humans came from
Posted on 1/5/15 at 7:38 pm to BestStop
quote:And this is why I love this board.
Gravity comes to mind They haven't proven where life came from or humans came from
Page 29 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News