What is point in doing science...

reply to post by PollyPeptide


what about E=MC boom?

and the speed of light is correct,, thats science,,
ohh and how plants turn green,,

and space flight,, and cell phones,,??

Science has NEVER been 100% correct, really?

PollyPeptide

undo

PollyPeptide
It is important to note that the fundamental principle behind science is that IT CAN ALWAYS BE PROVED WRONG. That, right there clearly states that science KNOWS it's wrong. So to say science is right, goes against science. On the other hand, Religion CAN NEVER BE PROVED RIGHT.

Proofs are examples of deductive reasoning and are distinguished from inductive or empirical arguments; a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. An unproven statement that is believed true is known as a conjecture.

- Wikipedia

So if Science knows it is wrong, and Religion is nothing but conjecture; the logical conclusion is that EVERYONE INVOLVED IS WRONG.

and so then, who is right?
be honest. i'm not easily fooled.

No one is right, that's my point. No one has ever been right. Science has NEVER been 100% correct, which means it isn't right, and Religion can't provide the proof it needs to show that it is 100% correct. If NO ONE can provide ABOLUTE PROOF, then NO ONE IS RIGHT!

And we will never get absolute proof. I'm wrong. You are wrong. Niel Degrass Tyson is wrong. Einstein was wrong. The Pope, he's wrong too. You're kids, their friends, your neighbors... Face it, NO one knows wtf is really going on. That's why we continue to observe.

edit on 1-11-2013 by PollyPeptide because: (no reason given)

Welp you're right, I guess we should just give up on trying to understand everything. All right everyone let's all shed our clothes and technology and go back to throwing poop at each other. There's no point to these conversations or trying to understand the universe around us, so says some random forum goer on the internet.

i play a video game that employs a programming language that allows countless players to be in their own version of the game, in the exact same physical game space, on the same game server, at the same coordinates, and not be able to see each other, based on where they are at, in the quest chain for that area. this is called phasing. if something is out of phase with you, you would not only not be able to see it, you wouldn't be able to hear it either. this differs, however, from cloaking technology that simply bends light to fool the eye.

Krazysh0t

PollyPeptide
It is important to note that the fundamental principle behind science is that IT CAN ALWAYS BE PROVED WRONG. That, right there clearly states that science KNOWS it's wrong. So to say science is right, goes against science. On the other hand, Religion CAN NEVER BE PROVED RIGHT.

Neither of these totalities are true. Science describes the universe around us, eventually we will get to a point where we know enough about the universe that our science will be correct and cannot be proved wrong. Religion can be proved right, all it needs to do is produce an act of the divine. Just because one is unlikely to show up doesn't mean it cannot be proven correct.

Ummm... Religion describes the universe around us. That's why we came up with it... To try and make sense of what we see around us... Science will never be 100% correct. No measurement is absolute. I can measure distance AB with my ruler, and determine that the distance is x. But you could invent a more accurate ruler, re-measure AB and find that the distance is either > x or < x. Every time you create a new ruler, the distance changes. No measurement is absolute, therefore science will never be 100% correct. Religion on the other hand will never provide the proof. You say a divine act would be required, but some right-wing fundamentalist will just say, "Oh, well that hurricane which ripped through my town and killed everyone but me is proof of an act of divinity." But how can you EXACTLY prove that? They say earthquakes are acts of God; God is divine; earthquakes are acts of divinity. Prove it wrong. Provide me with 100% proof that Earthquakes are NOT acts of divinity....

PollyPeptide

undo

PollyPeptide
It is important to note that the fundamental principle behind science is that IT CAN ALWAYS BE PROVED WRONG. That, right there clearly states that science KNOWS it's wrong. So to say science is right, goes against science. On the other hand, Religion CAN NEVER BE PROVED RIGHT.

Proofs are examples of deductive reasoning and are distinguished from inductive or empirical arguments; a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. An unproven statement that is believed true is known as a conjecture.

- Wikipedia

So if Science knows it is wrong, and Religion is nothing but conjecture; the logical conclusion is that EVERYONE INVOLVED IS WRONG.

and so then, who is right?
be honest. i'm not easily fooled.

No one is right, that's my point. No one has ever been right. Science has NEVER been 100% correct, which means it isn't right, and Religion can't provide the proof it needs to show that it is 100% correct. If NO ONE can provide ABOLUTE PROOF, then NO ONE IS RIGHT!

And we will never get absolute proof. I'm wrong. You are wrong. Niel Degrass Tyson is wrong. Einstein was wrong. The Pope, he's wrong too. You're kids, their friends, your neighbors... Face it, NO one knows wtf is really going on. That's why we continue to observe.

edit on 1-11-2013 by PollyPeptide because: (no reason given)

If we knew, we would be gods.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by undo

 

Yes I am, though I'm not seeing it. Maybe I need to watch the video to get his reasoning. It's fine though, I never tried to imply that science and religion are mutually exclusive. There could very well be a creator who made the universe and everything in it, but the likely answer as to how is science. He is using the laws and theories of science to develop the universe. This doesn't sit well with religious people because it further breaks holes in their idea that the universe was created for mankind. Like that even makes sense, create an infinite universe with all this cool stuff and stick the sole point of creating said universe on a tiny rock in the backwaters of some inconsequential galaxy. If God exists, I'm sure He can't be bothered to meddle in our (humankind's) day to day happenings and He effects things on a universal scale.

i have a complicated answer to this, but it would lead the thread off course.

BobAthome
reply to post by PollyPeptide

 

what about E=MC boom?

and the speed of light is correct,, thats science,,
ohh and how plants turn green,,

and space flight,, and cell phones,,??

Science has NEVER been 100% correct, really?

Yes, really.... if science was 100% correct, why do all those things you listed include probabilities?? Don't you think that if it was 100% there wouldn't be a need for a margin of error??? Why is a 400k ohm resistor actually 400k ohm + or - 3%?? Science say the resistor is 400k ohm, so why does my volt meter read 400,321 ohm? And on the next 400k resistor I get 399,013 ohm?? Because ALL SCIENCE HAS MARGIN OF ERROR!! Meaning, it's not 100% correct!! It's correct, with a tolerance of + or - 3%!

reply to post by undo


That programming concept isn't inherent to a particular language (and yes, I've played World of Warcraft too I am aware of this technique in use). It is computer science design concept probably utilizing threading. Sorry I was a comp sci major.

I mean you could be right, but standing alone, this proof seems circumstantial at best. I need more to demonstrate the divine. The way it looks currently, this is just an application of physics that we don't fully understand and so we (you) are just attributing it to the divine. Just like how science has worked since time immemorial until it has been proven wrong, like Evolution. Keep in mind I'm agnostic, I welcome the idea of a Creator, I just want proof before I believe first.

p.s. well work is over, time to go home.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


If God exists, I'm sure He can't be bothered to meddle in our (humankind's) day to day happenings and He effects things on a universal scale.

scale down there,,lets stay in our own Galaxy,,,before we start telling everyone,, what the rules are for outside our Galaxy as well.
Geee u would think a whole Galaxy would be enough,, before laying clain to Universe's,,whats plural for Universe?

well thats man for ya,,see's it,,mine!

reply to post by SuperFrog


Why does channel 4 block this video in my country if I live in the country that channel 4 airs it's programmes ? I am not using a proxy ????

Krazysh0t
reply to post by undo

 

That programming concept isn't inherent to a particular language (and yes, I've played World of Warcraft too I am aware of this technique in use). It is computer science design concept probably utilizing threading. Sorry I was a comp sci major.

I mean you could be right, but standing alone, this proof seems circumstantial at best. I need more to demonstrate the divine. The way it looks currently, this is just an application of physics that we don't fully understand and so we (you) are just attributing it to the divine. Just like how science has worked since time immemorial until it has been proven wrong, like Evolution. Keep in mind I'm agnostic, I welcome the idea of a Creator, I just want proof before I believe first.

p.s. well work is over, time to go home.

this is what is at issue: the definition of the divine. what if you are divine, and so am i, but we don't know it yet, because we are phased to that reality as a result of our ....encounter suits (physical bodies)? maybe WE are on a quest chain. what has happened is the definition of "divine" has been translated as "impossible", but as science unfolds the secrets of the universe, the more we can see the actions of the divine described with science. so what was thought of as impossible fairy tales, 300 years ago, is no longer the case. this is not anti-divine, it's doing what it's supposed to do. it's helping humans find out who and what they are. it's also not anti-science, because the evidence is attained via science. 2 different approaches to the EXACT same information. no reason to call each other stupid, after all.

Krazysh0t

PollyPeptide

undo

PollyPeptide
It is important to note that the fundamental principle behind science is that IT CAN ALWAYS BE PROVED WRONG. That, right there clearly states that science KNOWS it's wrong. So to say science is right, goes against science. On the other hand, Religion CAN NEVER BE PROVED RIGHT.

Proofs are examples of deductive reasoning and are distinguished from inductive or empirical arguments; a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. An unproven statement that is believed true is known as a conjecture.

- Wikipedia

So if Science knows it is wrong, and Religion is nothing but conjecture; the logical conclusion is that EVERYONE INVOLVED IS WRONG.

and so then, who is right?
be honest. i'm not easily fooled.

No one is right, that's my point. No one has ever been right. Science has NEVER been 100% correct, which means it isn't right, and Religion can't provide the proof it needs to show that it is 100% correct. If NO ONE can provide ABOLUTE PROOF, then NO ONE IS RIGHT!

And we will never get absolute proof. I'm wrong. You are wrong. Niel Degrass Tyson is wrong. Einstein was wrong. The Pope, he's wrong too. You're kids, their friends, your neighbors... Face it, NO one knows wtf is really going on. That's why we continue to observe.

edit on 1-11-2013 by PollyPeptide because: (no reason given)

Welp you're right, I guess we should just give up on trying to understand everything. All right everyone let's all shed our clothes and technology and go back to throwing poop at each other. There's no point to these conversations or trying to understand the universe around us, so says some random forum goer on the internet.

edit on 1-11-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

Good thing you are so high and mighty to put me in my rightful place... And I must be just some random Internet user, after all, I've only been registered on this site for 7 years. It's not like you with your whole year of being a part of this community...

The human species is like matter: stupid and lazy. We always take the easiest way out, but not before trying every other way just to be sure.

If the field or academia of science wasn't filled with Dogma itself.

Mark Armitage would not have been fired for the Truth...

Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020
www.sciencedirect.com...



Brainwash Facilities is all they are and they employ good scientists to ruin them!!

What is the point??

PollyPeptide

BobAthome
reply to post by PollyPeptide

 

what about E=MC boom?

and the speed of light is correct,, thats science,,
ohh and how plants turn green,,

and space flight,, and cell phones,,??

Science has NEVER been 100% correct, really?

Yes, really.... if science was 100% correct, why do all those things you listed include probabilities?? Don't you think that if it was 100% there wouldn't be a need for a margin of error??? Why is a 400k ohm resistor actually 400k ohm + or - 3%?? Science say the resistor is 400k ohm, so why does my volt meter read 400,321 ohm? And on the next 400k resistor I get 399,013 ohm?? Because ALL SCIENCE HAS MARGIN OF ERROR!! Meaning, it's not 100% correct!! It's correct, with a tolerance of + or - 3%!

no. not really, it depends how accurate a resistor is made
this 3% comes from production fault not science

AbleEndangered
If the field or academia of science wasn't filled with Dogma itself.

Mark Armitage would not have been fired for the Truth...

Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020
www.sciencedirect.com...

 

Brainwash Facilities is all they are and they employ good scientists to ruin them!!

What is the point??

edit on 1-11-2013 by AbleEndangered because: additions

Only none of that is true, as I've posted several times before.

His work doesn't even go against accepted science, as previous researchers have published like findings (Schweitzer).

Posting the same lie multiple times doesn't make it "more true". You need to stop getting your info from the Logos project and Godlike Productions.

PollyPeptide

BobAthome
reply to post by PollyPeptide

 

what about E=MC boom?

and the speed of light is correct,, thats science,,
ohh and how plants turn green,,

and space flight,, and cell phones,,??

Science has NEVER been 100% correct, really?

Yes, really.... if science was 100% correct, why do all those things you listed include probabilities?? Don't you think that if it was 100% there wouldn't be a need for a margin of error??? Why is a 400k ohm resistor actually 400k ohm + or - 3%?? Science say the resistor is 400k ohm, so why does my volt meter read 400,321 ohm? And on the next 400k resistor I get 399,013 ohm?? Because ALL SCIENCE HAS MARGIN OF ERROR!! Meaning, it's not 100% correct!! It's correct, with a tolerance of + or - 3%!

All technology has a margin of error.

Science doesn't have the capability of having a margin of error. Something either is or it is not. That is what is observed by the scientific method. Yes or No. I did this, did this happen? No. Why not? I did this + this, did this happen? Yes! Why? I did this + this - this, did this happen? No? Aha! I need this + this to make this happen!

Science.

reply to post by solomons path


Science is awesome!!

Lets see what Mark says himself!!

Soft Tissues in Triceratops Horn
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QdrxFLxVaE
www.youtube.com...


Science Rules!!
Mark Armitage explains everything here.
MP3 download available to hear interview yourself.

brokenroadradio.com/morning-show-august-26-2013-click-here-to-reveal-links/
brokenroadradio.com...

Dr. Don Clark, along with Jim and Dave, interviews microbiologist Mark Armitage concerning his recent discovery of soft tissue in a triceratops horn unearthed by his crew at Hell’s Creek, Montana and the dilemma his discovery represents for evolutionists and establishment science.

Solomon, between you and I....

Matthew 12 KJV

33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

creation.com/mark-h-armitage
creation.com...

Until recently, Mark served as the Manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the Biology Department at California State University Northridge. Mark was suddenly terminated by the Biology Department when his discovery of soft tissues in Triceratops horn was published in Acta Histochemica.

He is currently seeking relief in a legal action for wrongful termination and religious discrimination by the University.

solomons path

AbleEndangered
If the field or academia of science wasn't filled with Dogma itself.

Mark Armitage would not have been fired for the Truth...

Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020
www.sciencedirect.com...

 

Brainwash Facilities is all they are and they employ good scientists to ruin them!!

What is the point??

edit on 1-11-2013 by AbleEndangered because: additions

Only none of that is true, as I've posted several times before.

His work doesn't even go against accepted science, as previous researchers have published like findings (Schweitzer).

Posting the same lie multiple times doesn't make it "more true". You need to stop getting your info from the Logos project and Godlike Productions.

Google Definition

ter·mi·nate
ˈtərməˌnāt
verb
past tense: terminated; past participle: terminated
1.
bring to an end.
"he was advised to terminate the contract"
synonyms: bring to an end, end, abort, curtail, bring to a close/conclusion, close, conclude, finish, stop, put an end to, wind up, wrap up, discontinue, cease, kill, cut short, ax; More
antonyms: begin, start, continue
(of a thing) have its end at (a specified place) or of (a specified form).
"the chain terminated in an iron ball covered with spikes"
(of a train, bus, or boat service) end its journey.
"the train will terminate at Stratford"
synonyms: end its journey, finish up, stop More
end (a pregnancy) before term by artificial means.
end the employment of (someone); dismiss.
"Adamson's putting pressure on me to terminate you"
synonyms: fire, ax; More
antonyms: hire

His closing comments caught my attention.

"Science is fine as long as it fits the views of the church."

The thing is how is this any worst than Scientist focusing on results that only fit the agenda of whoever is providing the money to conduct the research because they are afraid to lose funding?

reply to post by AbleEndangered


It is a lie that he was fired . . . He was not retained. As he didn't have tenure, he (like all professors) was retained on an academic year basis.

ETA - actually he wasn't even a professor he was manager of their Microscopy Suite . . . a simple state employee, who was still on a year to year contract.

It is a lie that he was not retained for his findings. Sweitzer's work changed the view that osteocytes could not survive the fossilization process. Armitage's work was not "ground breaking", "controversial", or go against "accepted science".

It is Armitage's accusation that his religious beliefs led to his not being retained on staff, not that his paper got him fired . . . an accusation that CSUN denies.

Armitage, supposedly, has filed for legal relief due to him not being retained.

CSUN cannot comment specifically on why he was not retained due to labor laws and, now, the legal action.

If and when any of this becomes public (legal case) then CSUN reasons for not retaining Armitage will be known.

Until then, anything else is mere conjecture (reasons). And, the fact that his work has nothing to do promoting a creationist view of life (again thanks to other's who have found osteocytes) doesn't back up the claims of the creationist websites.

Armitage's conclusions, due to other researchers that have found osteocytes, are bunk. The finding of osteocytes does not mean they are "not old". While fascinating, they do not prove his "the earth is 6000 years old" view (which he has, as a YEC).

You have provided no real evidence, beside the fact that Armitage found osteocytes in a triceratops horn . . . which, was never in question. You have provided Armitage's beliefs, which people like Sweitzer have already disproved with their work on osteocytes found in fossils.

Your smugness and embracing of ignorance is duly noted, though.