Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
evidence for God. part one
Topic Started: May 19 2009, 03:48 AM (762 Views)
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Quote:
 
So continuing on with my questions here, am I to assume that you yourself have never conducted any of the research, but rather depend on the testimony of others in their books?

Did you miss my "None of us are scientists nor are any of us claiming to be"? By admitting that I'm not a scientist, I think it a pretty fair cop to assume that I've not done the research. As I would expect you've never done any, either.

That was the point of trying to impart some idea of how science works and how it is done when I wrote:

"The beauty of science is the accessibility of the data that leads to the conclusions. Given the time, training and money - ANYONE can perform the same experiments and verify the data. You can walk outside tonight with a watch and telescope and using Ole Romer's 17th Century technique, measure the speed of light to a fair approximation. Or using simple equipment you can replicate Robert Millikan's experiment that, in 1909, measured the charge of an electron and for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize."

Science is not simply "testimony."

Quote:
 
And a followup question. Are their any scientific studies that dispute the positions you defend?

There are questions about some of the details of the theories I defend. Halton Arp's idea that there are non-cosmological redshifts, for example. But, in the main, quantum theory, cosmology and evolution are firmly rooted in the observational evidence. The "studies" for the other side are the same creationist points breezy seems to spend his life cutting and pasting. Does this mean evolution and cosmology will not advance? I certainly hope not!

As Isaac Asimov wrote "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' "

We haven't had too many of those lately. And the thing to remember is that Nobel Prizes are not awarded to those who just confirm what is already known. A major plum would be disproving (scientific theories are never proven - if you learn nothing else from all this, remember that) one of the big theories like evolution, quantum theory or Big Bang cosmology. All those scientists are out there testing, pushing hard, to find flaws in these theories.

None have, as yet, shown up.

Asimov (best known as a writer, but held a PhD in biochemistry and was a professor at Boston University Medical School) also said:

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis