Liars in Genesis: "6-7k" year-old Allosaurus

[JD50]

So are you saying that one can reject football and not reject sports altogether, but conversely one cannot reject the conclusions of one field of science without rejecting science altogether?

How would you class a person who rejects evolution but is in full acceptance of the scientific age of the earth, or the age of dino fossils?

Is he accepting or rejecting science?

You should probably just drop the sports analogy because it makes absolutely no sense.

 

[realibrad]

So are you saying that one can reject football and not reject sports altogether, but conversely one cannot reject the conclusions of one field of science without rejecting science altogether?

How would you class a person who rejects evolution but is in full acceptance of the scientific age of the earth, or the age of dino fossils?

Is he accepting or rejecting science?

There is a flaw in your analogy. The sports (sciences) did not come before the method. The method of science lead us to the conclusions and fields that you are defining. Evolution comes from the scientific method. If that Method is valid in 1 area, why would it not be valid in another. If its its not, why does it not invalidate the other fields.

This is why you cannot cast aside the method in 1 area, and not in the others. Either the method works, or it does not, and it needs to be reworked.

 

[fskimospy]

So are you saying that one can reject football and not reject sports altogether, but conversely one cannot reject the conclusions of one field of science without rejecting science altogether?

Yes.

Again, football is a game while science is a process. You don't need to like football in order to accept the concept of competitive sports, you might just think it's boring. A more accurate analogy would be if you still would be considered to be accepting the principle of competitive sports if in the case of football you were no longer willing to accept that we determine who wins by what team has the most points. Once you have decided to reject the method for determining who is better, even if only sometimes, you are now no longer accepting the process, just taking the outcomes that conform what you already believe.

How would you class a person who rejects evolution but is in full acceptance of the scientific age of the earth, or the age of dino fossils?

Is he accepting or rejecting science?

Unless he can come up with a scientific reason to reject evolution he is rejecting science. I'm unaware of any scientific basis for rejecting evolution, so there's only one choice.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes.

Again, football is a game while science is a process. You don't need to like football in order to accept the concept of competitive sports, you might just think it's boring. A more accurate analogy would be if you still would be considered to be accepting the principle of competitive sports if in the case of football you were no longer willing to accept that we determine who wins by what team has the most points. Once you have decided to reject the method for determining who is better, even if only sometimes, you are now no longer accepting the process, just taking the outcomes that conform what you already believe.



Unless he can come up with a scientific reason to reject evolution he is rejecting science. I'm unaware of any scientific basis for rejecting evolution, so there's only one choice.

But no ones rejecting the principles of science, just certain conclusions derived from those methods or principles.

That's my point.

 

[fskimospy]

But no ones rejecting the principles of science, just certain conclusions derived from those methods or principles.

That's my point.

But those conclusions have come from the same principles that the other conclusions came from. You either accept the process and the answers it gives you or you don't. No exceptions.

If you're making exceptions it means you don't really accept the scientific method.

 

[SlushySolid]

But no ones rejecting the principles of science, just certain conclusions derived from those methods or principles.

That's my point.

Picking and choosing which conclusions to believe (without adequate proof) is rejecting the principles of science though. You can't "follow" the scientific method and just reject something based off of your personal bias/preferences. Science is unbiased.

 

[Retro Rob]

But those conclusions have come from the same principles that the other conclusions came from. You either accept the process and the answers it gives you or you don't. No exceptions.

If you're making exceptions it means you don't really accept the scientific method.

Now you're making science a dogma -- "accept the answers it gives you or not...no exceptions"...I guess someme forgot to tell Pasuter and Enstien that as regards spontaneous generation and Newtonian gravity.

The same process used to draw those now wrong conclusions was the same one used to disprove them. Though creationists question them on non-scientific grounds, the point is that other near fact and "you're stupid for not accepting them, no execeptions" theories were simply not accepted "no exceptions", and the fact that everything is open to question is the reason why we no longer believe rats can magically come from hay, or maggots from rotten meat.

 

[fskimospy]

Now you're making science a dogma -- "accept the answers it gives you or not...no exceptions"...I guess someme forgot to tell Pasuter and Enstien that as regards spontaneous generation and Newtonian gravity.

Science is not a dogma. The scientific method is simply a process you can choose to accept or not accept, it's up to you. The fact that the scientific method has led to wrong answers is not a problem, as it 1.) makes no claims to be perfect and 2.) you use the same method to correct those errors.

It's simple, you either accept the scientific method as a valid way through which to understand the world or you don't. If you do, that means its a valid way to understand the world regardless of the topic. If you are rejecting its conclusions through non-scientific means, that means you are rejecting its validity as a method to understand the world.

You are very welcome to reject science if you want to, it's your life. There's no need to fool yourself into thinking you accept science when it clearly is inadequate for you.

The same process used to draw those now wrong conclusions was the same one used to disprove them. Though creationists question them on non-scientific grounds, the point is that other near fact and "you're stupid for not accepting them, no execeptions" theories were simply not accepted "no exceptions", and the fact that everything is open to question is the reason why we no longer believe rats can magically come from hay, or maggots from rotten meat.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. Science does not say you must accept theories without exception, in fact it says the exact opposite. This is just a question of definitions. If I say "I accept gravity except at my house where I don't think it applies" I am welcome to think that, but that means that I don't in fact accept the theory of gravity as it makes no such exception and I've provided no scientific evidence for why I think otherwise.

Additionally, I've never said you were stupid for not accepting science, I just said the fact that your support for scientific theories changes by topic and not by evidence means you don't actually accept the scientific method.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Now you're making science a dogma -- "accept the answers it gives you or not...no exceptions"...I guess someme forgot to tell Pasuter and Enstien that as regards spontaneous generation and Newtonian gravity.

The same process used to draw those now wrong conclusions was the same one used to disprove them. Though creationists question them on non-scientific grounds, the point is that other near fact and "you're stupid for not accepting them, no execeptions" theories were simply not accepted "no exceptions", and the fact that everything is open to question is the reason why we no longer believe rats can magically come from hay, or maggots from rotten meat.

You don't understand what he wrote.

 

[realibrad]

Now you're making science a dogma -- "accept the answers it gives you or not...no exceptions"...I guess someme forgot to tell Pasuter and Enstien that as regards spontaneous generation and Newtonian gravity.

The same process used to draw those now wrong conclusions was the same one used to disprove them. Though creationists question them on non-scientific grounds, the point is that other near fact and "you're stupid for not accepting them, no execeptions" theories were simply not accepted "no exceptions", and the fact that everything is open to question is the reason why we no longer believe rats can magically come from hay, or maggots from rotten meat.

There is a reason we call things Theory in science even though we are pretty sure we are right.

If the Method is wrong, but you get the correct answer, you will continue to assume the method is right, until that time its proven wrong.

If you think the Method is right, but the outcome is wrong, then you have a flawed method that needs to be fixed. You need to then identify how the method is wrong, and get it better to the point where you get the correct outcome.

Each incremental improvement makes the method better and better. But, you don't have a reason for believing that the method is wrong, other than not liking the outcomes it provides. The method cannot be right, and the outcomes wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

But, you don't have a reason for believing that the method is wrong, other than not liking the outcomes it provides. The method cannot be right, and the outcomes wrong.

This is the best way to put it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Science is not a dogma. The scientific method is simply a process you can choose to accept or not accept, it's up to you. The fact that the scientific method has led to wrong answers is not a problem, as it 1.) makes no claims to be perfect and 2.) you use the same method to correct those errors.

It's simple, you either accept the scientific method as a valid way through which to understand the world or you don't. If you do, that means its a valid way to understand the world regardless of the topic. If you are rejecting its conclusions through non-scientific means, that means you are rejecting its validity as a method to understand the world.

You are very welcome to reject science if you want to, it's your life. There's no need to fool yourself into thinking you accept science when it clearly is inadequate for you.



This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. Science does not say you must accept theories without exception, in fact it says the exact opposite. This is just a question of definitions. If I say "I accept gravity except at my house where I don't think it applies" I am welcome to think that, but that means that I don't in fact accept the theory of gravity as it makes no such exception and I've provided no scientific evidence for why I think otherwise.

Additionally, I've never said you were stupid for not accepting science, I just said the fact that your support for scientific theories changes by topic and not by evidence means you don't actually accept the scientific method.

I don't know how you equate not being satisfied with the conclusions with rejecting the method altogether....we'll just agree to disagree on that one.

But you did say accept the methods and the "answers, no exceptions", which sounds dogmatic to me.

I don't claim to understand science completely, but I do admire scientists who didn't "accept the answers, no exceptions" even enduring criticism from those who thought that questioning newtons theory, for example, or even the steady state theory as mere silliness.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know how you equate not being satisfied with the conclusions with rejecting the method altogether....we'll just agree to disagree on that one.

But you did say accept the methods and the "answers, no exceptions", which sounds dogmatic to me.

As others said, if you accept the process as valid then you accept its output as valid. If you don't accept the output, you don't accept the process.

I don't claim to understand science completely, but I do admire scientists who didn't "accept the answers, no exceptions" even enduring criticism from those who thought that questioning newtons theory, for example, or even the steady state theory as mere silliness.

I'm not sure how to be more clear here, accepting the answers that science gives you does not mean that those answers are right or that they will not change or be challenged. It means you respect the output of the process and accept that this is the best answer we currently have available.

You are perfectly willing to accept the conclusions of science when it does not conflict with your personal views, but in the case of evolution where there is a conflict you dismiss science's conclusion. That means you don't actually accept science, as if you did this would not happen.

When science and your faith come into conflict, you choose your faith. It's your life and your decision to make, but you should accept that it is not a scientific one.

 

[JD50]

I don't know how you equate not being satisfied with the conclusions with rejecting the method altogether....we'll just agree to disagree on that one.

But you did say accept the methods and the "answers, no exceptions", which sounds dogmatic to me.

I don't claim to understand science completely, but I do admire scientists who didn't "accept the answers, no exceptions" even enduring criticism from those who thought that questioning newtons theory, for example, or even the steady state theory as mere silliness.

Those scientists had scientific reasons for disagreeing.

 

[Retro Rob]

As others said, if you accept the process as valid then you accept its output as valid. If you don't accept the output, you don't accept the process.



I'm not sure how to be more clear here, accepting the answers that science gives you does not mean that those answers are right or that they will not change or be challenged. It means you respect the output of the process and accept that this is the best answer we currently have available.

You are perfectly willing to accept the conclusions of science when it does not conflict with your personal views, but in the case of evolution where there is a conflict you dismiss science's conclusion. That means you don't actually accept science, as if you did this would not happen.

When science and your faith come into conflict, you choose your faith. It's your life and your decision to make, but you should accept that it is not a scientific one.

It seems like you're changing your tune now, as telling someone to accept something without exception is telling them to shut the hell up. My mother would use those exact words when she didn't want me questioning her decisions as a child.

Yes, I am happy to say my views are faith based, and not on science. I see faith as a quality not present in many people.

 

[fskimospy]

It seems like you're changing your tune now, as telling someone to accept something without exception is telling them to shut the hell up. My mother would use those exact words when she didn't want me questioning her decisions as a child.

No, my tune has always been the same. I've never said that the output of the scientific method has to be the right answer, and I'm not aware of a single person who has ever made that argument.

Ever.

What the scientific method DOES output is our best understanding of what the right answer is. If you accept science you accept that output, and there are no exceptions.

Remember, there's no requirement that you accept science. If it doesn't do it for you, that's fine.

Yes, I am happy to say my views are faith based, and not on science. I see faith as a quality not present in many people.

Well then we're in agreement! You don't accept science. Maybe you do sometimes, but you are comfortable with throwing the conclusions of science out the window if it comes into conflict with your faith. I'm serious when I say to you that I find this is a perfectly fine world view for you to have, so long as it works for you. I don't find non-scientific arguments compelling, but you certainly aren't required to have them or make them.

 

[MongGrel]

But it's true. God says so. You don't think you're smarter than GOD, do you?

"Detects a rare Derpasaurus"

 

[Thebobo]

It seems like you're changing your tune now, as telling someone to accept something without exception is telling them to shut the hell up. My mother would use those exact words when she didn't want me questioning her decisions as a child.

Yes, I am happy to say my views are faith based, and not on science. I see faith as a quality not present in many people.

Well good for you. Now what was the real point of this thread?

 

[JD50]

Well good for you. Now what was the real point of this thread?

He thinks it's wrong when people fabricate evidence to fit their beliefs. Somehow he thinks that's different than willfully ignoring evidence that doesn't fit his beliefs.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, my tune has always been the same. I've never said that the output of the scientific method has to be the right answer, and I'm not aware of a single person who has ever made that argument.

Ever.

What the scientific method DOES output is our best understanding of what the right answer is. If you accept science you accept that output, and there are no exceptions.

Remember, there's no requirement that you accept science. If it doesn't do it for you, that's fine.



Well then we're in agreement! You don't accept science. Maybe you do sometimes, but you are comfortable with throwing the conclusions of science out the window if it comes into conflict with your faith. I'm serious when I say to you that I find this is a perfectly fine world view for you to have, so long as it works for you. I don't find non-scientific arguments compelling, but you certainly aren't required to have them or make them.

As for your last remark, if you insist on dichotomizing science and faith, go ahead.

If people have to choose between accepting faith or science, you're gonna lose that battle.

 

[Retro Rob]

He thinks it's wrong when people fabricate evidence to fit their beliefs. Somehow he thinks that's different than willfully ignoring evidence that doesn't fit his beliefs.

Lying and ignoring evidence is not the same, by the way.

 

[MongGrel]

Picking and choosing which conclusions to believe (without adequate proof) is rejecting the principles of science though. You can't "follow" the scientific method and just reject something based off of your personal bias/preferences. Science is unbiased.

That would be Empirical Thought I believe.

Empirical evidence

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

 

[Thebobo]

....There was a time the people running the Smithsonian were robbing the graves of native Americans to prove a theory that White men were more intelligent because their brains were further developed. ....

Link?

 

[alzan]

As for your last remark, if you insist on dichotomizing science and faith, go ahead.

If people have to choose between accepting faith or science, you're gonna lose that battle.

In that they speak to different areas within our lives they are separate; not necessarily opposed. I don't think faith would do a very good job at explaining how mountains are formed, for example. People can and do accept both.

 

[Retro Rob]

In that they speak to different areas within our lives they are separate; not necessarily opposed. I don't think faith would do a very good job at explaining how mountains are formed, for example. People can and do accept both.

I agree people accept both, but I think faith and spirituality speaks more to the core of humanity than knowing how a television set works does. I mean, who really cares (outside of science) how mountains forms? But I think we have more of a natural inclination to faith and spirituality which is why I think they cross over into some many disciplines unlike pure science can.

This is my opinion, because I don't have facts to back that up, admittedly.

But I don't think there is an "either or, faith or science" as if the two cannot co-exist, so I agree.

I also think that if we're forced to choose, then science will lose out in two ways: (1), You'll have people simply abandoning science or (2), you'd have people simply "believing" in science, which would be equal to blind following to avoid being on the receiving end of harsh criticism.

Either way, I think science loses its scientists, and the self-correcting doubt and questioning which makes it work.