Intelligent Design

[clarkatticus]

Well, I would say that, if I had to, I would probably take the testimony of a scientist today to that of a sheep herder 4000 years ago, especially if the sheep herder's testimony had gone through the mouth of another 50 or 60 people before being recorded and then translated a few hundreds (or thousands) times in several languages, some of which have been dead for about 3000 years!

I'm not sure if a court today would take one of those "holy men" from the Bible testimony TODAY to determine a case!

But. . .I guess to each its own!

Funny and true. As Lewis Black would say, the courts today would call that "hearsay" evidence.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, I would say that, if I had to, I would probably take the testimony of a scientist today to that of a sheep herder 4000 years ago, especially if the sheep herder's testimony had gone through the mouth of another 50 or 60 people before being recorded and then translated a few hundreds (or thousands) times in several languages, some of which have been dead for about 3000 years!

I'm not sure if a court today would take one of those "holy men" from the Bible testimony TODAY to determine a case!

But. . .I guess to each its own!

I agree with the gist of what you are saying though using words like sheepherder and your estimate of 50 or 60 is a bit biased. Additionally, each translation is a translation from the original language not from other translations as you indicated and how many languages it is translated into is irrelevant. In the end we can test the validity of what is written and the bible has proven itself to be the most valid of all ancient text. Aside from a transcription error here or there to date no fact has been proven to be wrong and the only fault people find with it is that it contradicts their biased notion that miracles don't happen.

So does science ever rely on hearsay evidence? Has there ever been an observation that was not repeated that was then repeated? Absolutely.

Do I prefer newer evidence over old? Yes, but that does not mean that older is wrong. The original statement you are commenting on is that criticism of testimony should apply equally to science and the bible. So the lesson to be learned here is that old scientific testimony would have the same pitfalls as old biblical testimony. When a sky observer from a long long time ago records that he witnessed a comet that only returns every 10,000 years (Comet Elenin) his testimony is old and it is of a rare event so we have no way to confirm it until we wait a long long time.

Does science ever contradict the bible? No, sometimes one man's interpretation of science contradicts one man's interpretation of the bible but that is different. The bible and science are wholly compatible.

Openmind, I am curious, since you are new here. Do you hold the belief that there is no God?

 

[ProudLefty]

How does anyone get the idea that science is interpreted? 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10. That is not an "interpreted" answer; it is the answer.

Sometimes I become convinced that many people have never had the opportunity to learn what science does and how it works.

"Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world."

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

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

How does anyone get the idea that science is interpreted? 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10. That is not an "interpreted" answer; it is the answer.

Sometimes I become convinced that many people have never had the opportunity to learn what science does and how it works.

"Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world."

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

But 2 + 2 = 4 is not a scientific statement because it doesn't depend on observation; it simply is. It would be the case that 2 + 2 = 4 even if no one existed to count.

Scientific findings generally do not lend themselves unambiguously to an answer. A good example would be the studies demonstrating racial differences in IQ. Do they demonstrate that members of one race are on average less intelligent than members of another? Or do they demonstrate that IQ tests are racially biased? Both claims have been made; both proceed from literally the exact same data.

I'd also note the key element of the definition you provided: explanations and predictions about the world." This means, by definition, that science cannot provide answers regarding metaphysical questions.

 

[Dr.Who]

How does anyone get the idea that science is interpreted? 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10. That is not an "interpreted" answer; it is the answer.

Sometimes I become convinced that many people have never had the opportunity to learn what science does and how it works.

Probably from the school where I went to get a degree in science.

Everything is interpreted.

 

[PLC1]

2 + 2 ≠4. I did an experiment to prove it.

2 cups of sugar + 2 cups of water did not produce 4 cups of syrup.

Try it yourself if you don't believe me.

 

[Apathy]

Ok more time now.

Is it unreliable? A scientific definition of reliability would be giving the same results time after time.

I said unreliable testimony, there was a benefit for them to lie, and furthermore we do not know who wrote many of these passages for all we know when they wrote this they were tripping on opiates. As for getting the same things consistently I would say that is complete and utter bollocks. The bible is incredibly vague and riddled with contradictions.

Certainly for any particular translation the words are always the same. But, I suppose you meant that how you interpret the bible does not square with how you interpret the world. Perhaps the problem is with either your interpretation of the world or your interpretation of the Bible.

No that's not what I said, are you done shoving words down my throat you snide prick.

Technically if it is a theory it has not been demonstrated.

Maybe you fell asleep during your middle school science class, but luckily I'm a teacher so I can set you straight. A theory is something that has been demonstrated time and time again to be true. Gravity is a theory but are you going to suggest to me that it hasn't been demonstrated? I hope not you would look like a plonker.

Additionally the history of science is ripe with examples of accepted scientific dogma that has been abandoned in favor of newer dogma.

For fvck's sake really? Am I the only one who sees the self-evident stupidity involved with this. Back to the example of gravity, we do not put stock into gravity because an ancient book says we should. We do it because it has been proven to be true every time we tested it.

Yes some scientific experiments can be repeated. But not all scientific observations can be repeated. Some observations are of very rare events.

Just because an event is rare doesn't mean it cannot be repeated. Ill tell you what if you bring me a burning bush that talks to me I'll consider your point of view worth looking into.

That in no way makes the observations any less true just because they are rare.

You see there is a rare event that happened in my bed room. Jesus sodomized a pink unicorn and told me the guy from houseofpolitics Doctor Who is completely full of sh1t. Of course I cant repeat this but it is a rare occurrence so it must be true.

Which is exactly, I'll say it again, exactly, what is happening with observations recorded in the bible - many of them are observations of rare events- they are no less true for being rare.

The observations in the bible have not been verified and separate accounts of the story yield contradictions. These contradictions by the way are something investigator use to determine the truth value of a claim.

Seeing gravity operate the same way again and again and then concluding that it will continue to operate the same way the next time someone jumps off of a building is exactly and precisely an assumption. This kind of assumption is called inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is the basis of scientific axioms and it starts with assumption.

Yes so? There are a lot of assumptions that you need to make just to get through daily life. You assume your not plugged into the matrix, you assume you are insane and hallucinating this whole thing. But some assumptions are a lot smaller than others.

Rolleyes? You are rolling your eyes at me? I think you should read this and then perhaps a few more articles about the nature of science.

Coming from the guy who doesn't even know what a fvcking theory is?

Is it possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow? It has risen every day since the beginning of recorded history!

What you seem to have trouble grasping is that there is a huge difference between what is possible and what is likely to occur. It is possible that you will buy a damn clue and realize what you are arguing is silly but it is not likely.

Yet on some day it will go supernova then on the following day it will not rise. I would add that on that following day a pen will not drop off a table and fall because it will have vaporized.

Actually we observed several stars like ours go supernova, in fact we observed these events so often scientists more or less the the expiration date of the sun. You fail again.

 

[ProudLefty]

2 + 2 ≠4. I did an experiment to prove it.

2 cups of sugar + 2 cups of water did not produce 4 cups of syrup.

Try it yourself if you don't believe me.

Who claimed it did?

2 Elephants + 2 Locomotives does not make 4 pairs of grannies panties, either.

But then, no one claimed it does, right? Changing the beginning facts changes the conclusions.

Perhaps this goes a very long ways in explaining why some people believe lowering taxes raises tax revenues, more money for the rich means more jobs, and not raising the debt ceiling will have no dire consequences. Could be, I guess.

 

[PLC1]

Who claimed it did?

2 Elephants + 2 Locomotives does not make 4 pairs of grannies panties, either.

But then, no one claimed it does, right? Changing the beginning facts changes the conclusions.

Perhaps this goes a very long ways in explaining why some people believe lowering taxes raises tax revenues, more money for the rich means more jobs, and not raising the debt ceiling will have no dire consequences. Could be, I guess.

You're the one who said:

How does anyone get the idea that science is interpreted? 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10. That is not an "interpreted" answer; it is the answer.

and I came back with a smartass answer, which really did have a point: Nothing is quite as simple as it appears on the surface.

 

[ProudLefty]

You're the one who said:



and I came back with a smartass answer, which really did have a point: Nothing is quite as simple as it appears on the surface.

Yes, you came back with a smartass answer. Not only a smartass answer, but a wrong answer. How is the discussion moved forward by coming back with a smartass wrong answer?

Who said 2 + 2 = 4 is simple? There was a time not too long ago when shepherds did know how to count and could not tell how many sheep they had.

Numbers are not simple.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary numbers and those who don't.

However the original point remains valid. There is no "interpretation" of scientific data. Two scientists don't disagree about the facts.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Yes, you came back with a smartass answer. Not only a smartass answer, but a wrong answer. How is the discussion moved forward by coming back with a smartass wrong answer?

Who said 2 + 2 = 4 is simple? There was a time not too long ago when shepherds did know how to count and could not tell how many sheep they had.

Numbers are not simple.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary numbers and those who don't.

However the original point remains valid. There is no "interpretation" of scientific data. Two scientists don't disagree about the facts.

Again, numerous studies have found a racial gap in IQ. No one can dispute this. But what does that fact mean?

Does it mean there's a difference in mean IQ between the races? Or does it mean that IQ tests are racially biased?

 

[Lagboltz]

2 + 2 ≠4. I did an experiment to prove it.

2 cups of sugar + 2 cups of water did not produce 4 cups of syrup.

Try it yourself if you don't believe me.

My gosh. I have never seen such quibbling over what numbers are. Number theory is often based on Peano axioms which came about in the late 1800's. The axioms are rather esoteric, but in very simple language, 2 can be derived as 1+1, and 4 can be derived as 1+1+1+1. The rest is easy.

 

[ProudLefty]

Again, numerous studies have found a racial gap in IQ. No one can dispute this. But what does that fact mean?

Does it mean there's a difference in mean IQ between the races? Or does it mean that IQ tests are racially biased?

It means a lot of things. Recently I saw a fictional movie of a US civilian pilot, flying an ill Inuit woman to a hospital. Their plane crashed. Neither were injured, but he was incapable of surviving but she fed them, kept them warm with fire, and eventually saved his life.

The point is this: Everyone is stupid about something. I would make the case though that slavery, and several generations of being treated as cattle will hold back the bloodstock of any group. As anecdotal evidence I would propose that an African-America who has no heritage of slavery in his family will do well. Barack Obama would be my example.

 

[Dr.Who]

Who claimed it did?

2 Elephants + 2 Locomotives does not make 4 pairs of grannies panties, either.

But then, no one claimed it does, right? Changing the beginning facts changes the conclusions.

Newton would have said:
2 mph plus 2 mph = 4 mph

but Einstein would have said:

186,000 miles per second plus 186,000 miles per second = 186,000 miles per second.

Additionally from Einsteins work we learn that even the 2 mph plus 2 mph are not exactly 4 mph.

 

[Dr.Who]

However the original point remains valid. There is no "interpretation" of scientific data. Two scientists don't disagree about the facts.

A quick google search of the terms "science interpretation data" shows thousands of articles telling us exactly how a scientist should interpret data.

I wonder why all those scientists are talking about how to interpret data?