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.



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.

'"

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

I can give you manyIn the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

And God said, “Let there be an expanse[a] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made] the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven.[c] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth,[d] and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons,[f] and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[g] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
[/i

I see that you're still choosing to ignore the [ifact[/i that there are many scientists who believe in God. Is that deliberate or are you just a bit hard of thinking?

They don't [ireally[/i believe in God. Name me one reputable scientist who has been born again.

Not that believing in God gets you to Heaven, mind.