:2v223e3l

You are merely demonstrating your ignorance of science.

Scientists look at the evidence and form hypotheses based on this evidence they then test this evidence
and formulate theories which provide an explanatory framework to for data.

If a theory or hypothesis is falsified scientists discard the exsting theory and formulate new hypotheses which are consistent with the data and proceed to test these new hypotheses. This allows scientists to discard bad ideas such as the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old which was falsified by geologists towards the end of the 18th century.

It is the scientific method which has allowed our species to travel into space, to cure numerous deadly diseased and come up with important inventions such as the computer.

The reason why science employs methodological naturalism is because applying the supernatural to explain natural natural phenomena does nothing to enhance our understanding of such phenomena as such claims are in themselves unfalsifiable and cannot be tested and where they can be tested they have been falsified.

Creationists on the other hand begin with the apriori view that their religious doctrine is true and then proceed to reject all evidence which contradicts their position. This can be seen in the statements of faith that creationists organisations usually require of their members and also in the fact that the "work" of so called creation scientists consists of little more than logical fallacies, misrepresentations of the scientific data and outright falsehoods.

In essence most creationists hold the view that when reality and doctrine differ reality is wrong and doctrine is correct.

:2v223e3l

The reason is that one side has a sound methodology that works and has improved our standard of living significantly and the "other side" rejects any evidence which doesn't confrom to their particular ancient mythology and has a dogmatic belief in the "truth" of this particular mythology.



The fact that scientific findings are always open to revision is one of its biggest strengths. As mentioned above it is this that allows scientists to discard bad ideas that are unable to explain the scientific data such as those of creationists.

You can stop your absurd rhetorical bull. You haven't, and won't, answer any questions. That's a fact.


Tosh. Scientists look at data scientifically. That would of course include, if there were any evidence of a god or gods, god. They do not remove god. There is no evidence of god.

You correctly identify the belief in god as "baggage" and again correctly realise that this baggage hinders any rational examination of evidence, as the result has to include a god, and that obviously pre-excludes any explanation that excludes god. In other words, if the truth does not include god, then they could never reach it.


I don't know. I can't think of a single example. perhaps you could post some links to this bizarre claim?


Nice straw man, but I have not done so.

If you don't even understand what a theory is, and conflate theory with fact, then what hope is there for debating in English? A grasp on language of at least that level is a prerequisite.

In the context of what we are talking about, a fact is something we observe in the world. A theory is our best explanation for it. For example, things fall. The theory of gravity explains it. Newton first outlined the theory, Einstein much improved and expanded the theory, scientists have done gazillions of experiments, tests and refinements, and the theory of gravity remains very much under research and development. There's a lot we now know, and a lot that we don't. But the fact that we do not have a 100% complete theory doesn't affect the fact that gravity exists and it doesn't affect the fact that it makes things fall.

The present state of the theory as to how the Giant's Causeway was actually constructed, which is the product of huge amounts of diligent and peer reviewed scientific research, tests and analysis, is what I would call a scientific theory.

It is not to be confused (but you do confuse it) with somebody saying "Yes, but I think it was formed in Noah's flood", because that is only a theory about as much as someone else saying "I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it". In other words, not a theory at all, but an irrational belief.

Many scientists hold deep spiritual and religious beliefs, it has nothing to do with how they interpret the natural world around them. Just saying God made everything, just as it is, is plainly rediculous.
If God made everything then he made the tide flow and he made rocks break when waves hit them. He must also have made the elements and be responsible for how they interact with each other. Unless God sits there and direct every wave and moves every grain of sand in the wind personally then blindly trotting out explanations for rock formations that are along the lines of "God created them just the way they are" without trying to understand the physical mechanism involved is so stupid not even God would be able to find a way of measuring it.

And what is this "Facts are facts. They do not change. Scientific 'facts' on the other hand do change" bullS4h!t? What's a scientific fact and what's a fact? Give me a fact then.

kirkstaller is a massive gormclops. FACT!

No, it isn't. I'm beginning to realise that you don't actually know what these words you keep using mean.


They interpret empirical evidence according to proven scientific principles. They don't [iremove[/i God - he simply isn't required. Plus you conveniently ignore the large number of scientists who are people of faith.


You recently claimed to understand science. This paragraph alone demonstrates how very far from understanding science you actually are. It is so wrong on so many levels that I literally do not know where to start. You are quite staggeringly ignorant about science and about the way the world works.

I want to hear one of these "Fact" facts.

You are doomed to burn in the fires of Hell. FACT.

Just to show I'm no scientific evangelist... www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 3509a.html I've read a few articles recently on things like this. Most biological academic research cannot be reproduced in commercial labs and the industry is getting pretty worried by the garbage being churned out. The feeling is that academic research is now motivated too much by money, to the point where contradictory results are shelved or ignored, only "impact" results are published and peer review is now innefective. Scientists are people and too many labs are out to make a name for themselves or sell what they do to business for big returns. Read the comments to that article - some solid opinions. I've nearly 25 years in the industry at many levels and I have never had that much faith in peer review. I'm not the only one either. I read a paper by one of our customers that was so awful it wouldn't have managed a pass at GCSE, yet it got published. They made so many mistakes in the method that the results were utterly meaningless. When you then add a set of truly colossal egos, a back scratching culture that would make the Mason's look open and big grants, that's what happens with human beings. Good science is about being sceptical and dilligently reproducing your results and evidence again and again. There is a saying that you can't prove a hypothesis, you can only disprove it with 100% certainty. Scepticism and evidence are the last thing on the minds of the religious, these are two concepts beyond their understanding. Faith is all they need.

Just to show I'm no scientific evangelist... www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 3509a.html I've read a few articles recently on things like this. Most biological academic research cannot be reproduced in commercial labs and the industry is getting pretty worried by the garbage being churned out. The feeling is that academic research is now motivated too much by money, to the point where contradictory results are shelved or ignored, only "impact" results are published and peer review is now innefective. Scientists are people and too many labs are out to make a name for themselves or sell what they do to business for big returns. Read the comments to that article - some solid opinions. I've nearly 25 years in the industry at many levels and I have never had that much faith in peer review. I'm not the only one either. I read a paper by one of our customers that was so awful it wouldn't have managed a pass at GCSE, yet it got published. They made so many mistakes in the method that the results were utterly meaningless. When you then add a set of truly colossal egos, a back scratching culture that would make the Mason's look open and big grants, that's what happens with human beings. Good science is about being sceptical and dilligently reproducing your results and evidence again and again. There is a saying that you can't prove a hypothesis, you can only disprove it with 100% certainty. Scepticism and evidence are the last thing on the minds of the religious, these are two concepts beyond their understanding. Faith is all they need.

Perhaps you could repeat here then. Let's get this sorted once and for all. You can, of course, choose not to.

Tosh. Scientists look at data scientifically. That would of course include, if there were any evidence of a god or gods, god. They do not remove god. There is no evidence of god.

Scientists come with baggage - their rejection of almighty God.



I admit it is baggage. We all look at the evidence with our own biases. Mine just happens to be right.



The hopping around of the age of the Earth?



I didn't say that you had, I was pre-empting your response. That is not a straw man.

Meh, all opinion.

brainwashed