It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut
Lol you have nothing verifiable fella...nothing lol again.
EDIT
"God did it" PMSL! x
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut
Behave, you have nothing aside from speculation lol
Maybe make up a nice place that they get to go to if they are good and do what i say.
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Woodcarver
Haha yes!!
It's a good one isn't it, like a get out of jail card in monopoly, lol I'd definitely have something like that in my cult's scriptures.
Same as well I'd get 'em young, like at school or even pre-school, easy to shape young minds.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier
Not really. The data is the data is the data. If I misinterpret the data, reviewers will pick that up. That's why we have a review process. I may have an opinion which would be included in the Discussion part of a research paper, but the data is the story, not necessarily my opinion.
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut
"God did it" Lol
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: chr0naut
Nice to see my favorite Christian philosopher scientist enter the debate. Someday I would love to debate you on the other side. But it seems I am always trying to explain the actual arguments that philosopher Christians make. Then people assume I am arguing my point.
I say I hope to debate you someday just so people can see it isn't about ahuh nuhuh yeah uh nohuh....
It's about actually listening to the argument of your opponent understanding it and rebuttals from understanding. Not I gotcha.
I really think that Christianity has a strong history of philosopher scientists. We are a part of a continuum of scientific and philosophical inquiry.
... but thank you, I take it as quite a compliment.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier
Not really. The data is the data is the data. If I misinterpret the data, reviewers will pick that up. That's why we have a review process. I may have an opinion which would be included in the Discussion part of a research paper, but the data is the story, not necessarily my opinion.
There is a review process but all the reviewers are limited by their senses. The entire human race grows at least to a pre college and most likely pre doctorate degree with their senses as what create the foundation beliefor system. If you were genetically altered to also see like a bee you would have a new perspective, meaning when you come up with theories about what the data means you would have more insight to provide explanations.
The use of computers helps but again computers are designed by people bound by the anthropic principle.
If you read cosmological papers. The good scientists understand this and are very careful with words.
Cosmology for those that don't know use philosophy quite a bit. Physicists work with philosophers to help understand the meaning of data.
Data is the data but knowing what it means is entirely different. Partial understanding of a physical concept is similar to a half truth.
Evolution is not cosmology. Evolution is not even part of cosmology. It's biology.
Tha majority of the Abrahamic faiths do not take genesis literally. It's a relatively new phenomenon.
originally posted by: Phantom423
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier
Not really. The data is the data is the data. If I misinterpret the data, reviewers will pick that up. That's why we have a review process. I may have an opinion which would be included in the Discussion part of a research paper, but the data is the story, not necessarily my opinion.
There is a review process but all the reviewers are limited by their senses. The entire human race grows at least to a pre college and most likely pre doctorate degree with their senses as what create the foundation beliefor system. If you were genetically altered to also see like a bee you would have a new perspective, meaning when you come up with theories about what the data means you would have more insight to provide explanations.
The use of computers helps but again computers are designed by people bound by the anthropic principle.
If you read cosmological papers. The good scientists understand this and are very careful with words.
Cosmology for those that don't know use philosophy quite a bit. Physicists work with philosophers to help understand the meaning of data.
Data is the data but knowing what it means is entirely different. Partial understanding of a physical concept is similar to a half truth.
Evolution is not cosmology. Evolution is not even part of cosmology. It's biology.
Tha majority of the Abrahamic faiths do not take genesis literally. It's a relatively new phenomenon.
You would have to publish a paper in a known science journal to know how the review process works. The most important aspect of any research publication is whether it's repeatable. If other researchers get the same results for the same experiment, then that verifies the experiment. If they don't, then questions are asked.
Again, if you've never published a serious scientific paper, it would be hard to understand how the process works.
Can you explain to me how a human limited by their senses and capabilities could extend past that? How a group of people checking with limited abilities compared to the knowledge necessary could see what the data means?
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Phantom423
I think you miss my point.
One the anthropic principle most likely limits the ability to understand actual reality.
Two cosmology does not always have current testable falsifiable tests other than math.
Three I trust the process but understand human limitations and thus leave the ego at the door that we are really capable of understanding the entire cosmological model in our current biological form.
We aren't talking about making a laser or treating cancer. This is an infinite regress issue.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier
Can you explain to me how a human limited by their senses and capabilities could extend past that? How a group of people checking with limited abilities compared to the knowledge necessary could see what the data means?
...
The review process rules out fraud (i.e. a Creationist crackpot),
...
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Woodcarver
Same as well I'd get 'em young, like at school or even pre-school, easy to shape young minds.
originally posted by: whereislogic
A Chemist Finds Powerful Evidence of Creation
How Can I Defend My Belief in Creation?
Creation Reveals the Living God
The apostle Paul provides one reason why we can be convinced that God exists, even though we cannot see him. Regarding Jehovah, Paul wrote: “His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” (Rom. 1:20) How might you help someone who doubts the existence of God to see the truthfulness of Paul’s inspired words? You could consider some of the following evidence from creation that reveals our Creator’s power and wisdom.
GOD’S POWER EVIDENT IN CREATION
...
GOD’S WISDOM REVEALED IN NATURE
...
Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories