Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-05-2015, 09:32 AM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(14-05-2015 07:33 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Read the first 2-3 paragraphs, saw so many conjectures and outlandish statements, then skipped to end to see Behe referred to. I suggest that you delete this post just for your dignity's sake and delete this site from your bookmarks.

Go to AiG and post it there so that you can receive the applause from the ignorant and stupid. and some fresh Ham

added a few changes Smartass
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2015, 11:19 AM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
It's been a while since I've commented on here at all... but, unlike many other users in this thread, I will attempt to address and refute what you've said because I'm not lazy Tongue

(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  The most zealously disputed matter encompasses the vital questions of where we came from and how we got here. The disagreement occurs between advocates of deity creation, and secular science explanations. Many evolutionists, cosmologists, and their avid followers claim that the belief in a creator can be discarded based on the overwhelming scientific evidence. Although, there are many problems with the secular argument, including: the legitimacy of mainstream astrophysics, the inability to explain the fundamental building blocks of life, humans’ tendency to change and/or omit scientific theories, the obvious inconsistent and desperate theories in cosmology, and the unexplainable origins of complex biological systems.

Well done on the, possibly unintentional, pun using the word 'zealously.' Advocates of deity creation? That's a nice, euphemistic way of putting it and you know it; do you actually think that most religious people are religious for scientific reasons or even know, think about or care about scientific matters? You know that they don't and you know that the concept of god and religious beliefs did not begin for scientific reasons. The legitimacy of mainstream astrophysics? No, that's incorrect, mainstream astrophysics is considered legitimate; studies of the cosmic microwave background radiation in space, the positions and orbits of planets and galaxies, the visible signs of black holes etc. all prove it to be true. The fundamental building blocks of life are well known; DNA and RNA made of only a few different kinds of atoms which themselves are composed of other subatomic particles, the nature of which is alternately theorized by different theories of physics but the details of which are ultimately irrelevant since either way they are just made of simple bits. The fact that there exist self-replicating viruses, prions (literally just self-replicating simple proteins) and cancer cells which can somehow adapt, spread and sustain themselves as if they are living organisms and self-replicating single genes that move around inside the inactive areas of the human genome all proves that life could easily develop from simple, self-replicating molecules in a primordial soup under the right conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_micr...background

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastasis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element

Omission of scientific theories? What do you mean? Scientific theories are proposed and published, backed up by certain amounts of evidence from studies, in official, peer-reviewed journal articles, many of which are competing and in disagreement until enough evidence is found to support one theory until further notice - that's how it works and progresses. Inconsistent and disparate theories of cosmology? Yeah, and? There is no currently agreed theory of cosmology (I assume you mean; 'single, unifying theory of physics' and not cosmology) but so what? Evidence has been found that supports different theories to different degrees and eventually one of them, or a new one, will have enough evidence to be agreed on.

(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  First of all, it must be made clear that the field of astrophysics often uses entirely inconceivable methods, yet it is still predominantly found in the major scientific magazines. Scott, who is the author of the Electric Sky: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy, explains yet another possibility to the origin of matter. More importantly, the first half of the book attempts to expose the field of astrophysics, which he believes is riddled with conjectures and “intangible…validity.” He regards disciplines such as astrophysics as pseudoscience due to its inability to support claims with empirical data: the conclusions are not validated by a grasp of the physical laws of this universe, but rather with theories that are reliant on the hypothetical mathematical models fabricated by scientists with influential power. Since they cannot test a large portion of their theories empirically, due to observing 14 billion years post-factum, the theories are only standing upon the opinion of other likewise thinking scientists. Such positions are “popularized [in] Scientific American, Discover, and National Geographic” (Scott), by which of course sets the standard for magazines and online articles. Apposing theories, like Scott’s, disagree with existing ones and therefore are not popularized. It would also suggest that data that questions, contradicts, and points to a creator would also be under scrutiny. This means that mainstream science should, by no means, imply there is no evidence indicating the opposite. All in all, it is naïve to definitively believe in publicized scientific views because they are both untestable and verified solely by scientists in the same field, with similar humanistic beliefs.

One single author thinks that astrophysics is psuedoscience... and? He's wrong. How can you say that the study of space itself is 'psuedoscience'? What does that leave in its place? Space and the sky are actually a metal firmament being rotated by clockwork around a flat earth or something like that? People have studied space using telescopes, satellite probes and even been into space itself. The mathematical models of physics correspond to the physical phenomena predicted and actually observed in space - there's no other, better explanation other than that astrophysics is true.

(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  One of the leading problems with evolution roots from the very start of the formation of life. For life to arise, atoms need to gather and arrange in such a way for amino acids to form, then arrange into proteins, and finally into peptides. After this incredibly complex process, which evolution cannot explain (and is a large topic/branch in itself), an inorganic molecule was believed to evolve. To propose how inorganic (without life) molecules could be converted to organic (life) naturally, in 1953, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment that created organic molecules by using chemical processes. He claimed that he kept the experiment constant at specific variables that were consistent with early earth’s environment. The experiment was successful in the creation of 15-20% of organic molecules, but research now indicates that the variables were not consistent with the updated model of early earth. Overwhelming variables such as irrelevant atmosphere (e.g. hydrogen and nitrogen levels), irrelevant conditions (e.g. cooling, energy from the sun, and photosynthesis), low yield of molecules, wrong forms of amino acids, the formation of proteins, and RNA synthesis reveal the experiment is invalid (Peet). At the time, this was a breakthrough in evolutionary science; however, now it is deemed incredibly flawed. No such experiment with concrete findings has been successful on the hypothesis to this day.
This is just one example of how our growing knowledge of science has and does hurt preexisting evolutionary theories. It also indicates that we might be blind to see the flaws in our theories today. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment belongs to a large group of discovers that were later disregarded. A few examples of falsified theories include: Earth as a disk, phrenology, Einstein’s static universe theory, Pons’ nuclear fusion, luminiferous aether, phlogiston theory, and Earth being the center of our solar system (Scientist)–the list goes on. What does this say about present day theories? What will we discover in the future that will abolish existing theories today? Has the world done our generation of scientists a favor and freed them from this recurring human flaw? It’s not likely.

I've already pointed out that prions - self-replicating single proteins - and self-replicating single genes really do exist so microscopic life really could develop from similar self-replicating molecules. And if you think evolution isn't true, well, I advise you to go on the freely available GenBank (if you can figure out how to use it) where you can compare the DNA sequences of different species - which are known from being broken down, sequenced and examined from samples from the species themselves in laboratories, and you'll see that the similarities between the DNA sequences of species like humans and chimpanzees are far too similar to not be related. It's not just the fossil record, the DNA of species has been analysed and has proven evolution for decades - there is no debate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastasis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element

(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  With recent headlines in the news reading, “Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning” (ScienceDaily) and “Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened” (Lunz), it always keeps us reminded that theories are relative and never provide a resolution. Conflicting propositions on the side of the Big Bang, as well as ones against it, leave us wondering if it’s right, wrong, or if it’s neither of these choices. Obviously the latter option is not reasonable, though it sure seems appetizing given the cluster of conflicting information.

There is no resolution at the moment? And? Of course there would be conflicting propositions; do you honestly expect them to figure it all out by magic overnight? We are talking about the origin of reality itself so stop having such high, unrealistic expectations of people. It should actually be amazing to you that humans know so much and are proposing all of these potential theories at all.

(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  Yet another and also dominant explanation for the existence of the universe is known as the “Multiverse Theory.” It entails that our universe is just one of an infinitely vast selection of universes. Cosmologists reason that there are too many fine-tuned variables found on earth (e.g. the Fibonacci Sequence continuously found in nature), and more importantly in the universe, that would occur solely by chance. They have discovered dozens of physical constants that are essential to our function of life–if they were even off by a bit, the universe would not function correctly and life or matter would not exist (Wolchover). For example, the ratio of electrons to protons (fine tuned by 10^37), ratio of electromagnetic force: gravity (10^40), expansion rate of the universe (10^55), and mass density of the universe (10^59) were unexplainable coincidences (Ross).

Ah yes, the universe is fine-tuned for the single planet Earth... but not all of the other dead, inhospitable planets, apparently. And not uniformly for all life all over the Earth either; if you think that the Earth is fine-tuned for your existence, then I suggest that you go and try to live in the Antarctic or the desert. The Earth is fine-tuned for life and yet so many extinctions have happened because life was unable to survive? In fact, species are going extinct right now and the climate has always been changing.

(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  In 2012, more wariness emerged when the discovery of the Higgs particle unraveled yet another highly unlikely constant that seemed to fit our universe and ours alone. Out of this, they discovered the “cosmological constant,” which is a number that “has to be enormously fine-tuned [10^120] to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance (Wolchover).” This number is so unimaginably precise that it leads cosmological scientists to believe this could not possibly happen by mere chance with a singular Big Bang-another case of an abolished theory.
Wolchover, the writer of the Scientific American article, explains their initial reasoning behind the argument by stating:

“Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.”

It seems as though this is a desperate attempt to deny their utter uncertainty of how our universe started. In order to justify the Multiverse theory, which originates from the indication of a higher power, they create hypothetical mathematical models to express how it could happen. Evidently, as knowledge of our universe increases, scientists have a harder time conceptualizing their preexisting theories and need to resort to even more abstract leaps, with the transition of the Big Bang to the Multiverse Theory as one example. The dominant Multiverse theory is concerning because it is built upon the logical reasoning of scientists, rather than empirical data, pulled from the universe being perfectly sustainable. This is a direct example of the pseudoscience that Scott and others expose. To hold such a theory requires an equal amount of faith, if not more, as theism because it is also unobservable (by scientific means). Should uneducated people blindly submit this pseudoscience promoted by scientists and popular media? If cosmologists believe this, among all things, how can we trust any alternate theory they propose? It’s doubtful this will be the final consensus, though it truly unmasks their uncertainty and their capability to pull “evidence” from unobservable data.

So basically... you, and others, find it hard to accept that the right conditions of life to exist in the universe, or the origin of a universe in which life arises, could occur completely consequentially as a side-effect of the nature of reality? You see, you are finding this difficult to accept because you've attached some special significance to life to begin with - you assume that there is something 'special,' miraculous or noteworthy about life but surely all the existence of biological life tells you is that life is yet another natural process that happens within reality, why do you need to assume anything more than that? You find yourself in a universe where you exist, and? All it tells you is that reality is such that you can exist, but nothing else.

(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  (Note that this is not a belief held by a small group of scientists; it is accepted by the finest of physicists today. Professors from University of Columbia, University of California, Tufts University, and the University of Cambridge are just a few among the many who do–even the well known, Stephen Hawking.)

If the image of modern day science based on mathematical models and unseeing observation appears broken, there is tangible science out there without the use of imagination. Charles Darwin is the father of and also the most notable figure in evolutionary science today, known for his book, The Origin of Species. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania and well-known author, challenges Darwin’s writing which states, “‘if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (Behe).’” Darwin wrote his book in 1859, so he did not know all of these advances in science today (e.g. genes and DNA – fundamental aspects of his theory that would completely change his conclusions). Behe damages the authenticity of his book by directly contradicting his statement above by the concept of “Irreducible Complexity.” He explains that it is when a “single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." This includes examples such as the bacterial flagellum (a “microscopic motorboat”), the ATP synthase molecule (molecular energy for the cell), and the Cilium (a “molecular vacuum cleaner [in the throat]) (Behe).” As Darwin said, it is significant because evolution can’t explain how these extremely complex tools in biological systems can somehow evolved to function over a course of 14 billion years. No amount of time is sufficient for these systems to evolve, because even if one of these systems starts to add on bits and pieces in order to perform a task (evolutionary process), there are hundreds of other parts with tasks that are essential to sustain its life. This would result in an endless, repeating cycle of death, preventing evolution from even beginning. As of now, evolutionists cannot explain these phenomena. In fact, the essential building blocks that make up these complex systems are still an enigma, with the Miller-Urey experiment as just one example.
To put irreducible complexity into perspective, the picture below depicts the newly discovered interacting pieces of the flagellum, which all need to be present at the same time in order to function.


[Image: flagellum.png]


(This is not the only substantial evidence of a higher power; there are hundreds of well-supported concerns that only several books could do them justice. A notable example is Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen Meyer. Irreducible Complexity was only emphasized to debunk Darwin’s contingent statement.)

No, really, I'm telling you; you can go on GenBank right now and compare the DNA sequences of species and you will see plainly that they are related and that therefore evolution must be true.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/

And on the subject of bacteria; it doesn't take them millions of years to adapt and develop resistance to antibiotics - just go and ask all of the people dying to resistant typhoid right now - nor did it take you more than millions of years to develop from a single cell in your mother's womb and I'm sure you would agree that you are a pretty complex system.

(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  It is imperative to realize that we cannot worship both sides: it is either scientific laws behind the existence of our universe (or universes) and life, or a higher power. It is our duty and favor to us as individuals to honestly evaluate the authenticity of both. Secular pseudoscientists are constantly insisting on new theories that we cannot understand yet. It is a faulty pursuit that insists we know the answers for everything, or will know in the soon future. Furthermore, unless you can genuinely believe that these modern scientific assertions are reasonable, it can’t be wise to invest your belief in it. Given all of this, and the equal in integrity evidence that suggests otherwise, the real question should ask who we came from, not how we got here.

"Worship" well done, another pun. Your argument basically boils down to "I don't trusts scientists, I don't understand the evidence and I don't like not having an answer all of the time." And you conclude by already choosing a side and reaffirming your own premise that you've already decided on long ago, probably before you evaluated any of the evidence (which you still actually haven't). I would commend you on even bothering to include citations but their reliability is... more than questionable and it's obvious that they are all biased in favor of your own beliefs and don't actually understand the real science that goes on, how it happens, or the obvious evidence that has been shown for decades.

You say that you wrote this as a paper - a paper for what, where exactly and how was it received (if you don't mind me asking)?

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes MrAttacus's post
14-05-2015, 01:23 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(14-05-2015 07:58 AM)Free Wrote:  
(13-05-2015 05:04 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  So, you're an Atheist, yet you don't think the universe was created by scientific means? I understand believing this apposed to a deity, but I can't understand how one can disregard both. Explain your views - how did the universe, this world, life, and us come to existence without science or a higher power?

Have you considered the possibility of a third option?

If I can demonstrate to you the concept that both infinity and eternity actually do co-exist, would you seriously consider that nothing was ever created, but instead has always eternally existed in various shapes or forms?

Actually he doesn't know this, (as he's utterly ignorant of what Cosmology actually says), but Roger Penrose, (Hawking's friend) thinks that could be the case. In his "Cycles of Time" he proposes exactly that. Bangs and re-bangs, ad infinitum.










Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
14-05-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(14-05-2015 11:19 AM)MrAttacus Wrote:  It's been a while since I've commented on here at all... but, unlike many other users in this thread, I will attempt to address and refute what you've said because I'm not lazy Tongue

Get this guy, 84 posts in two years and he has the balls to call anyone on here lazy. Thumbsup

The OP was already refuted long before your wall of text, so congrats on losing that hour of your life for someone who is never coming back.

Drinking Beverage

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2015, 01:54 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(14-05-2015 01:40 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(14-05-2015 11:19 AM)MrAttacus Wrote:  It's been a while since I've commented on here at all... but, unlike many other users in this thread, I will attempt to address and refute what you've said because I'm not lazy Tongue

Get this guy, 84 posts in two years and he has the balls to call anyone on here lazy. Thumbsup

The OP was already refuted long before your wall of text, so congrats on losing that hour of your life for someone who is never coming back.

Drinking Beverage

We linked to videos by Nobel laureates. People who say things well. Efficiency is seen by some as "laziness". That's not my problem.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
14-05-2015, 04:21 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(14-05-2015 01:40 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Get this guy, 84 posts in two years and he has the balls to call anyone on here lazy. Thumbsup

Hey... I've been really busy in the time that I haven't been on here... Dodgy

(14-05-2015 01:40 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  The OP was already refuted long before your wall of text, so congrats on losing that hour of your life for someone who is never coming back.

Drinking Beverage

I still think it was an hour well spent; I got to make myself feel better than someone else, afterall Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes MrAttacus's post
14-05-2015, 04:27 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(14-05-2015 01:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We linked to videos by Nobel laureates. People who say things well. Efficiency is seen by some as "laziness". That's not my problem.

Come on now, do you seriously believe that they are the kind of person that will take the time to watch the opposition's videos? You know that they probably won't bother to look at anything beyond the immediate replies to the thread before thinking that the ridicule reinforces their beliefs and going elsewhere. I've found that it's just more effective to tell such people the facts yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2015, 04:45 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(14-05-2015 04:27 PM)MrAttacus Wrote:  
(14-05-2015 01:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We linked to videos by Nobel laureates. People who say things well. Efficiency is seen by some as "laziness". That's not my problem.

Come on now, do you seriously believe that they are the kind of person that will take the time to watch the opposition's videos? You know that they probably won't bother to look at anything beyond the immediate replies to the thread before thinking that the ridicule reinforces their beliefs and going elsewhere. I've found that it's just more effective to tell such people the facts yourself.

...except that they probably won't bother to read a long post like yours either. Hell, I didn't bother to read it and I'm on your side! You can call me lazy if you like.

Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2015, 04:49 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
Blogger is that way --------------->

(13-05-2015 05:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Any post that cites Behe as an authority is automatically ignored. Drinking Beverage

QFT.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2015, 06:50 PM (This post was last modified: 14-05-2015 08:13 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  This is a paper I wrote debunking the "science creation". It elicits my concerns and why I can't possibly truly be an Atheist.
For your sake I'm hoping your paper is for a theological class and not a science class. To be criticising scientific theories and papers as being psudoscience and then to affirm your own case by referencing non scientific books/papers authored by people whom are wildly criticised as partaking in psudoscience doesn't seem consistent or honest.
One of your major references is Michael Behe whose publications went under scrutiny in the court case "Kitzmiller v. Dover". The judge was hand picked by a Christian republican president and determined that Michael Behe's publications weren't science. The Judge determined that Intelligent Design wasn't science.
Michael Behe conceded (under oath) that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"
Behe maintains that ID is science: "Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences."
Rothschild suggested that Behe's definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe's definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS's definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn81...VUwHWMpleM
(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  ...and secular science explanations.
Science isn't secular. Science is a reliable and objective method of discovery based on observations and measurements and including processes to remove subjective bias. Since religion and religious claims are exclusively un-observable, un-measurable and unfalsifiable then they take themselves out of the capability of the scientific method and hence out of the scientific domain entirely.
(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  Many evolutionists, cosmologists, and their avid followers claim that the belief in a creator can be discarded
Perhaps this is true (IDK), but science isn't the pursuit of religious claims, it is instead the pursuit of understanding that which is observable and measurable. There are no published scientific papers addressing the existence or non existence of gods.
Religion does not qualify under the constraints of the scientific method. If a scientist is making a claim regarding god then that is a personal claim and not a scientific one.

(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  ...tendency to change and/or omit scientific theories...
This highlights the strength of the scientific method. It's ability to progressively correct itself. To change its hypothesis and theories in order to accurately reflect the observations and measurements. Their willingness to fundamentally change the hypothesis rather than to come up with un-verifiable explanations used to twist the observations in support of the pre-existing hypothesis.
(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  inconsistent and desperate theories in cosmology
Yes, I'm a bit confused here as to what constitutes a theory.
When we look at the Big Bang, Multiverse, Many Worlds, String, M-theory etc do these qualify as scientific theories or are they merely hypothesis?

(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  One of the leading problems with evolution roots from the very start of the formation of life.
Abiogenesis falls outside the scope of evolution therefore it does not qualify as a problem of evolution.
(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  What will we discover in the future that will abolish existing theories today?
For a proper scientific theory, that meets a plethora of observations, has falsifiable criteria and is not falsified (yet) and has made falsifiable predictions which were later verified.
These tend to be decent understandings of the universe. e.g. Newtonian physics was great and still is great when considering macro level and much slower than the speed of light scenarios. It's still very useful and applicable to most scenarios.
Einstein's relativity superseded Newtonian physics by show differences in its predictions in extreme circumstances where were later verified to be true. This can be seen as an enhancement to the already terrific Newtonian physics rather than a complete divergence from. Just because Einstein was correct and Newton was wrong it doesn't mean that Newtonian physics all of a sudden becomes unreliable.
Our scientific understandings goes from strength to strength. Progressively getting better and better.
(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  If the image of modern day science based on mathematical models and unseeing observation appears broken, there is tangible science out there without the use of imagination.
The Higgs boson was hypothesised about in the 1960s, the mathematical models were developed for decades and proved to be highly accurate once the Higgs Boson was finally verified to exist. This shows that theoretical science if very mature and reliable however it still does not mean that we can forgo experimental physics.
(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  This is not the only substantial evidence of a higher power; there are hundreds of well-supported concerns that only several books could do them justice. A notable example is Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen Meyer.
Let's go back to that quote by Behe
"there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"

(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  Given all of this, and the equal in integrity evidence that suggests otherwise
Really
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: