Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Page 2 of 20 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11 ... 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:27 pm

First topic message reminder :

I have listened to theists and creationists make what I view as the most absurd claims about the validity of religious doctrine and scripture. So here's a thread designed for anyone who thinks they can to show any evidence for these claims.

Of course everyone will then be entitled to comment on the veracity of what is presented and whether it has at least as much validity as scientific evidence, or indeed if it really is evidence at all.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that this thread is not just about evolution vs creationism,but seeks to uncover why anyone thinks faith based belief has as much or more validity as scientifically validated evidence.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down


Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:03 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
If thirty people said that putting your hand in a fire would burn you and one said it would not, would you put your hand in?.

If thirty people said that putting your hand in would not burn you and one said it would, would you put your hand in.

The fact is that if thousands of scientists agee on a false theory they are all wrong and if one offered the correct answer he/she would be right.

As I keep trying to tell you a theory is a theory and nothing more.

If a matter can be proven beyond doubt it becomes
a fact and nothing you claim is a fact other than it being someones opinion, it matters not on what it is based it is still theory.

polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:28 pm

polyglide wrote:If thirty people said that putting your hand in a fire would burn you and one said it would not, would you put your hand in?.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No.
If thirty people said that putting your hand in would not burn you  and one said it would, would you put your hand in.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No.

polyglide wrote:The fact is that if thousands of scientists agee on a false theory they are all wrong and if one offered the correct answer he/she would be right.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No, the fact is that the vast majority agree with evolution precisely because it is so overwhelmingly evidenced, and the small minority who are disagreeing are basing their disagreement not on scientific evidence but on faith based belief, again read the link to project Steve.

polyglide wrote:As I keep trying to tell you a theory is a theory and nothing more.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:We're all aware that you keep disingenuously repeating this, as we're all no doubt aware that it's irrelevant as evolution is not just a theory in the narrow definition of the word you're dishonestly trying to claim.

A scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force. The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired.

polyglide wrote:If a matter can be proven beyond doubt it becomes a fact and nothing you claim is a fact other than it being someones opinion, it matters not on what it is based it is still theory.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Someone's not someones, and no it not just opinion, you can keep repeating this silly falsehood it won't change the facts. Science deals in empirical evidence, testable models, and is an objective process that is designed precisely to remove subjective opinion. Unlike religion where it's a free for all and everyone creates the religion they prefer subjectively interpreting religious texts as it suits. You need to study epistemological philosophy just a little as it relates to scientific endeavour, as your claims about facts are entirely wrong, you're again suggesting science deals in absolutes when it doesn't, indeed one of it's strengths is that it doesn't, that nothing is beyond scrutiny, and inly the evidence validates anything. Again this is in stark contrast to religion, and religious faith, where the most absurdly erroneous dogma is held onto long after it's disproved by evidence, look up the trial of Galileo by the RCC under the inquisition for heresy as an excellent example of the Christian church trying to claim itself as the arbiter of absolute truth when Galileo championed empirical evidence and proved them wrong about a geocentric universe.  

avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Norm Deplume on Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:05 pm

polyglide wrote:
Every living thing can be identified by it's DNA and any new life would have it's own DNA.

Does this mean that all species have their own types of DNA unrelated to any other?

All humans share DNA with all other great apes.
All great apes share DNA with all other primates.
All primates share DNA with all other mammals.
All mammals share DNA with all other vertebrates.
All vertebrates share DNA with all other chordates.
Starfish are chordates.
Therefore starfish share DNA with humans.
Therefore humans are the same creatures as starfish since they have the same DNA.

avatar
Norm Deplume

Posts : 278
Join date : 2013-10-10
Location : West Midlands, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Thu Feb 19, 2015 12:09 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:
polyglide wrote:
Every living thing can be identified by it's DNA and any new life would have it's own DNA.

Does this mean that all species have their own types of DNA unrelated to any other?

All humans share DNA with all other great apes.
All great apes share DNA with all other primates.
All primates share DNA with all other mammals.
All mammals share DNA with all other vertebrates.
All vertebrates share DNA with all other chordates.
Starfish are chordates.
Therefore starfish share DNA with humans.
Therefore humans are the same creatures as starfish since they have the same DNA.


I wonder if it's even worth pointing out that Darwinian evolution claimed shared ancestry between species groups that has been entirely validated by genetic science? I'm guessing it'll fall on deaf ears.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:05 pm

polyglide wrote: If thirty people said that putting your hand in a fire would burn you and one said it would not, would you put your hand in?. If thirty people said that putting your hand in would not burn you  and one said it would, would you put your hand in.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I put my hand in my fire several times a day, I wear gauntlets made from fire proof and heat resistant material. I trusted the claims made about them because they are based on scientific evidence, like evolution. I have not burned my hands once. I would not, and do not, believe anyone who makes bare claims without evidence however, which is why I don't believe in a deity, and know that creationism is complete hokum.

polyglide wrote:The fact is that if thousands of scientists agee on a false theory they are all wrong and if one offered the correct answer he/she would be right.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No one has claimed otherwise, but since evolution is not a "false theory" as it's been properly evidenced from the start, and new evidence passes science's most stringent scrutiny every single year your claim is entirely erroneous, though of course it would apply to your bare appeal to numbers to validate unevidenced creationism. It's interesting to note however that you decry claims based on argumentum ad populum here, despite the fact you use them repeatedly. Odd you don't see this double standard.
.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:49 pm

polyglide wrote: If a matter can be proven beyond doubt it becomes a fact and nothing you claim is a fact other than it being someones opinion, it matters not on what it is based it is still theory.

by polyglide on Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:19 am
Your attitude is purely based on evolution and I have already stated many times evolution is a fact.
link: http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t1047-are-you-a-child-of-god-will-you-be-gods-master-or-slave#61646

It seems punctuation and grammar are not your only inconsistencies.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:11 pm

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology."

Link http://m.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:17 pm

Some interesting research findings about shared or common ancestry.


"The triangular shark fin that sends frightened swimmers scrambling to shore is made using the same genes that help form the arms and legs of humans, a new study reports.
Researchers found that about a dozen genes that help give rise to a shark's median fins—those that run along its back and belly—also determine where paired side fins will form on its body. These genes are known to play important roles in the development of paired limbs in humans and other land animals.
The genes come from an ancient ancestor shared by sharks and humans."

Now what was Polyglide saying about genetics not supporting evolution? It seems it not only supports it but is increasing our understanding of it and how it works, whilst adding to the already impressive masses of evidence science has to validate Darwin'so original work.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:29 pm

DR. Sheldon,
A few punctuation marks does not invalidate anything, nor validate them.

There is no scientific paper that proves an animal

has been changed into another species, with different DNA. there are only mutations which seldom live for long.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:23 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
                 A few punctuation marks does not invalidate anything, nor validate them.

                 There is no scientific paper that proves an animal

has been changed into another species, with different DNA. there are only mutations which seldom live for long.

Still not one single peer reviewed scientific paper to back your unevidenced claims I see, so they get dismissed summarily using Hitchen's razor, now lets hear from the foremost experts in the field shall we.

"An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners. Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."

"The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".
In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma). This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced.""

Now I wonder can you work out these facts are more compelling than your bare appeal to numbers, or argumentum ad populum? The clue is the scientific expertise of the people whose opinion has been offered. Genetic science entirely validates Darwinian evolution, and that is validated by scientific research and evidence, unlike the erroneous and unevidenced claims you keep making to the contrary.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:27 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
                 A few punctuation marks does not invalidate anything, nor validate them.

                 There is no scientific paper that proves an animal

has been changed into another species, with different DNA. there are only mutations which seldom live for long.

Any particular reason you ignored this? Or do you think erroneous and unevidenced claims about DNA are more compelling than real scientific research? It appears you must do or you'd not keep posting them.

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology."

Link http://m.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:29 pm

polyglide wrote:There is no scientific paper that proves an animal has been changed into another species, with different DNA. there are only mutations which seldom live for long.

Different species share DNA, we share 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Did you not know this? Or is it that you simply don't see how ludicrous this fact makes your claim look?

I'll try and make this as simple as I can Different species don't have their own DNA, so your claim they should evolve in that way is demonstrably false, ludicrously so. Your bizarre claims are nonsense, and I already posted this, with a working link:

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology."

Link http://m.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

Can you not read, or do you think flat denials without evidence and based on spurious pseudo-science constitute evidence?
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by snowyflake on Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:52 pm

polyglide wrote:There is no scientific paper that proves an animal has been changed into another species, with different DNA. there are only mutations which seldom live for long.

Which just shows that you don't understand evolution by natural selection and random mutations.

Please familiarise yourself of Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ that discusses this very topic that you so definitively deny takes place.

It is really not a good idea to discuss science with people who are scientists, work in science or are geneticists, polyglide. You will come off looking quite silly.

If you have any questions about genetics that you are unsure of, I'm happy to help.
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1211
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 58
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:57 pm

snowyflake wrote:
polyglide wrote:There is no scientific paper that proves an animal has been changed into another species, with different DNA. there are only mutations which seldom live for long.

Which just shows that you don't understand evolution by natural selection and random mutations.

Please familiarise yourself of Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ that discusses this very topic that you so definitively deny takes place.

It is really not a good idea to discuss science with people who are scientists, work in science or are geneticists, polyglide. You will come off looking quite silly.

If you have any questions about genetics that you are unsure of, I'm happy to help.

To be fair I don't think using creationist propaganda requires a scientist or someone who works in any field of science to make it look silly. I have no such expertise and only a basic working knowledge of the scientific process and evolution and I can see quite plainly that the creationist clichés he's posting are risible.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by snowyflake on Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:13 pm

Hey Doc Smile I agree but polyglide's level of education is really quite poor in science. He doesn't understand science so to discuss science with scientists just makes him look quite silly. Even though you may not be a scientist yourself, you have made the effort to learn and understand key concepts, something polyglide doesn't bother to do.

BTW Amazon banned me because of a post I made to CW Bradbury which was quite benign compared to some of the things that SST or CW or spin says on the forum. Dance Veteran complained that my post was 'ageist' which I thought was ridiculous since I'm probably nearly as old as CW. Anyway, I noticed she has not been on the forum since I was banned. I have to say I was pleased that Anita took my side with SST, even though our relationship on that forum was fraught with tension, we did respect each other.

I am in 'negotiation's with Amazon at the moment to see whether they will let me back on but I don't think it will happen. They are quite arbitrary and dickheads about that forum. The moderation is arbitrary and quite unfair in my view. They have guidelines but only ban people if someone emails Amazon directly. The report abuse button does frig all.

I don't know if you ever look in on that forum anymore but I was convinced it was SSTii who got you banned because he followed your every post so closely. I challenged him whenever he spoke of you which was quite often. He was obsessed with you.
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1211
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 58
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:26 am

Well I've tried repeatedly to explain some of the criteria science sets for validating claims and evidence, including falsification, peer review and testable models.

I've even had to point out the kind of impact a paradigm shifting discovery like a refutation of a scientific theory as firmly evidenced as evolution, would have not just in the scientific world, but everywhere.

He simply ignores this and rolls on with  claim after claim, and no evidence. We've been here before of course with people who believe pure unevidenced opinion is as valid as scientifically validated evidence,  there's not much you can do if people refuse to acknowledge facts and even try to reverse what is properly evidenced and what is pure faith based belief. More and more of course This does seem to be a trait in religious apologetics. Such woeful apologetics put me in mind of an ostrich with its head in the sand babbling Orwellian double think.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:51 am

Not sure if I've posted this but since falsification is an integral requirement of any claim hypothesis theory or evidence before it can even be considered by science, and failure on this criteria renders anything unscientific by definition, then I'll post the definition here.

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false".

This of course means any and all claims for supernatural causation are by definition unscientific.  This SHOULD make it clear that claims for scientific evidence of creationism or ID are demonstrably false.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:26 am

DR, Sheldon;
It is not very nice to ban anyone unless there are very sound grounds for doing so.

I do not like either your style of debating nor snowyflakes but I would fight to the end to allow you to say exactly what you think.

Just so long as it is not outside accepted behaviour.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:31 am

snowyflake,
I have a reasonable grasp of what scientists say on most subjects and if need be give the basis on which I form an opinion.

Most of science that deals with evolution and genes etc; is still in the theory stage and changes almost daily.

That which is proven does not in any way disprove the possibility of a God and creator.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:47 am

snowyflake @ Dr. Sheldon,
The following are just a few of the theories that scientists thought were true but proven wrong :-

Spontanious Generation.
Blank Slate Theory
Phrenology
Einstein's Static Universe.

There are also many more previous and there will be more in the future, until it becomes clear that only an intelligence far beyond our own, with capabilities far beyond our own, both exists and is responsible for creation.




avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by snowyflake on Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:28 pm

You do realise that genesis says that man came about by spontaneous generation? God created him out of dirt. The reason it was ever entertained as a theory is because of religious belief.
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1211
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 58
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by snowyflake on Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:19 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
                I have a reasonable grasp of what scientists say on most subjects and if need be give the basis on which I form an opinion.

                Most of science that deals with evolution and genes etc; is still in the theory stage and changes almost daily.

                That which is proven does not in any way disprove the possibility of a God and creator.  

Your statement here is incorrect. First, I'm sorry to say but your grasp of science is quite poor and your understanding of the difference between what is commonly called a 'theory' and a scientific theory is wrong. I know I've discussed this with you before so either you are unable to understand the difference or you are wilfully refusing to learn it.

Evolution and genes etc are established science. There is nothing coming down the pipeline that will disprove evolution or genes. Sorry that is a fact. What might happen is that discoveries are made that may slightly alter our understanding of mechanisms but other than that, nothing will come along and disprove evolution as a scientific theory and a fact.

That which is proven does not in any way disprove the possibility of a babadook either.
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1211
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 58
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:40 am

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon;
                 It is not very nice to ban anyone unless there are very sound grounds for doing so.

                 I do not like either your style of debating nor snowyflakes but I would fight to the end to allow you to say exactly what you think.

                Just so long as it is not outside accepted behaviour.

It's not nice to continually lie about what others have posted either. I've not advocated anyone be banned, you owe me an apology Sir, and not for the first time. As for accepted behaviour I'm happy for anyone to read the exchanges and see who resorted first and most often to ad hominem, and who in contrast has made the most effort to tyhroughly address the post contents.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:47 am

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
                I have a reasonable grasp of what scientists say on most subjects and if need be give the basis on which I form an opinion.Most of science that deals with evolution and genes etc; is still in the theory stage and changes almost daily. That which is proven does not in any way disprove the possibility of a God and creator.  

Your posts indicate that you don't have even a basic grasp of how science validates evidence, or else you'd stop making the ludicrously false claim that there is scientific evidence for creationism, when not one shred of such evidence has ever been peer reviewed and published in any worthy scientific journal. Your attempts to claim evolution has been scientifically falsified also speak for themselves.

The last sentence is argumentum ignorantiam, again. I already pointed out that in order for any evidence to be even considered by science it must be falsifiable, and I explained falsifiability within the scientific process. Since no supernatural claim can ever be falsified then science wouldn't look at it as it is the method we use to study the natural world. However science can certainly consider the outrageously erroneous claims on behalf of such deities, and has refuted a great deal of the hokum in the bible and the Koran.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:55 am

polyglide wrote:snowyflake @ Dr. Sheldon,
                                      The following are just a few of the theories that scientists thought were true but proven wrong :-

                                       Spontanious Generation.
                                        Blank Slate Theory
                                       Phrenology
                                       Einstein's Static Universe.              

      There are also many more previous and there will be more in the future, until it becomes clear that only an intelligence far beyond our own, with capabilities far beyond our own, both exists and is responsible for creation.

Jesus wept will you leave that return key alone, I'm sick of editimg out the spaces in your posts before I can respond. Your post is argumentum ignorantiam.

"Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three)."

As for science discarding things the evidence previously indicated as true, well of course it has, the rank stupidity of maintaining a belief against all the evidence speaks for itself. Now the Christian church based it's claim that we lived in a geocentric universe on the bible, they abandoned this, and have also accepted evolution which they previously denied albeit in an ignominiously tardy fashion, so why is this ok with you but science's actions not?
It should be noted that the Christian church made itself ridiculous in trying to hang onto it's dogma and it's grip on being the absolute arbiter of truth when Galileo proved empirically they were wrong. Hardly a laudable action. Science by comparison will go where the evidence dictates, it's one of their biggest strengths, and I've tried repeatedly to inform you of the significance of falsifiability for all scientific claims and evidence, you don't seem able to grasp what it means though, as this post shows again, and it's a very basic knowledge of the scientific process as well.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by snowyflake on Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:04 am

Hi Doc, polyglide, stu and Greatest.

I received an email yesterday from Cutting Edge outlining how they were going to cull the membership. Because I am an infrequent visitor to this thread and I've been booted off the Amazon site, I've decided that I'm not going to visit any forums for awhile and possibly not ever again. There is no point in discussing things with people like polyglide who absolutely refuse to see another person's point of view. He will concede nothing and he refuses to learn anything from anyone else unless it supports his faith bias. So with that realisation, the realisation that belief trumps common sense, knowledge and rationality in this world, I'm done.

This is just to say good bye to you all. Hope you stay well and healthy and enjoy your lives. Take care,

Best wishes, Snowyflake/Frankie
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1211
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 58
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:27 am

Hi Snowyflake, that's a shame as your posts are well informed erudite, and honest. You'll be missed. I hope you change your mind and visit us from time to time, but please accept my best wishes anyway. I'll send this in a PM as well.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by boatlady on Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:11 am

Just for information - I'm not aware of any plan to 'cull' the membership - checking into this as we speak
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3712
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Feb 22, 2015 12:25 pm

The email laid out plans to remove accounts that we're NEVER used or where registrations had not even been confirmed, also to look at accounts that were underused in an ongoing attempt to reduce membership of people who didn't really use their membership. I don't think Snowyflake meant she thought her account was going to be closed, just that she's not been using this forum so frequently and it might be in the future. I received the same email, it said it was going out to all members.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Ivan on Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:29 pm

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” (St Thomas Aquinas)

snowyflake. Maybe I’m being defeatist, but I can see little point in trying to offer reasoned argument and scientific evidence to religious people; they ‘know’ the truth, so no rational explanation will make any difference. Iain Duncan Smith is a Catholic who, when confronted with facts about what his murderous policies are doing to the sick and disabled, just says that it’s not what he “believes”.

I’m sure it’s the indoctrination of children – a form of abuse, in my opinion – which results in adults growing up and believing absurdities. Children are encouraged to believe in the tooth fairy and then Father Christmas, so it’s only a short step from there to having an invisible, all-powerful lord and master in the sky who logs every thought and deed of all seven billion people on the planet.  No

We’ve been 'culling' accounts ever since this forum started in October 2011. If we hadn’t done so, there would officially be at least 400 members now, which would be a grossly inflated figure. If you look through our member list you will see that, so far this year, only 42 of us have logged in to Cutting Edge, and only 93 since January last year. As we allow the general public to read most of the forum, I think it’s reasonable to assume that anyone who chooses to join must intend to at least make a minimal participation on the boards.

Until now, I’ve been writing to people who have never posted any messages and who haven’t logged in for three months. I’ve given them ten days’ notice that the account will be closed if they don’t at least take the trouble to log in. In the vast majority of cases, they haven’t done so, and I’m just trying to save myself some work. Members who have posted a few messages but haven’t been on the forum for at least a year will still get ten days’ notice before their accounts are closed. Members who have posted at least ten messages will never have their accounts closed, regardless of how long it is since they last logged in. This is what the email, which was sent to all members yesterday, said:-

An account may be deleted if (a), it hasn’t been activated within two weeks of registration or (b), no messages have ever been posted AND the owner has failed to log in to the forum for at least three months or (c), the owner has not logged in to the forum for at least twelve months AND has posted fewer than ten messages in total. In future, accounts in categories (a) and (b) above will be closed without prior notice.”
 
If another poster on this forum really annoys you, the answer surely is to say your piece and then ignore them. Leave it to other readers to judge as to who is talking sense and who is on another planet. You and I go back a long way and it’s no reason to leave us now, so please don’t!!  Crying or Very sad
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7044
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:45 pm

Ivan wrote:To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” (St Thomas Aquinas)
 
If another poster on this forum really annoys you, the answer surely is to say your piece and then ignore them. Leave it to other readers to judge as to who is talking sense and who is on another planet. You and I go back a long way and it’s no reason to leave us now, so please don’t!!  Crying or Very sad

I'd just like to second that last sentiment. I tend to agree about the blinkered "indoctrinated" faithful, so am left with the inevitable conclusions that I am either very argumentative and stubborn, or a hopeless optimist. The trouble is I know I'm not that much of an optimist  Embarassed . Now whilst I agree with both Snowyflake and yourself about the results of offering facts and reason to the faithful, it is worth mentioning that many others may be reading who never post themselves, yet may be swayed by informed reasoning and logical polemic, so I like to believe that as frustrating as it sometimes is it's still a worthwhile cause. Especially as Snowyflake's posts are always well reasoned and well informed.


Last edited by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by oftenwrong on Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:45 pm

Administrative "Housekeeping" is clearly necessary, and desirable.

Hands up anyone who curses spam-type email from some organisation they chose to forget about years ago.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11750
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:49 pm

polyglide wrote:The following are just a few of the theories that scientists thought were true but proven wrong :-

1. Spontanious Generation.
2. Blank Slate Theory
3. Phrenology
4. Einstein's Static Universe.  

I know I'm fighting a losing battle asking you to evidence your claims but can you cite any published peer reviewed evidence that any of those were regarded as valid by mainstream science? You see Phrenology is pseudo-scientific nonsense with no scientifically valid evidence, and I'm pretty sure science has never considered Spontaneous generation as properly evidenced. Blank slate theory has some research and evidence to support it, but again I don't believe it was ever accepted by mainstream science as proved in the way you're suggesting, nor as far as I am aware has it been completely rejected.  A Static Universe was not first proposed by Einstein either, but by Giordano Bruno.

"In contrast to this model, Albert Einstein proposed a temporally infinite but spatially finite model as his preferred cosmology in 1917, in his paper Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity."

"After the discovery of the redshift-distance relationship (deduced by the inverse correlation of galactic brightness to redshift) by Vesto Slipher and Edwin Hubble, the Roman Catholic priest Georges LeMaitre interpreted the redshift as proof of universal expansion and thus a Big Bang, whereas Fritz Zwicky proposed that the redshift was caused by the photons losing energy as they passed through the matter and/or forces in intergalactic space. Zwicky's proposal would come to be called 'tired light'- a term coined by the leading Big Bang proponent Richard Tolman."

To be honest I'm not convinced that what you've claimed is at all true, and you certainly haven't attempted to evidence the claims. However as I have repeatedly pointed out science doesn't deal in absolutes in the way religions do, and  has to go with the evidence. Falsifiability is the cornerstone of all scientific claims, if it cannot be falsified then it is rejected, all supernatural claims fail on these grounds of course, but it is also obvious that many claims will be falsified by evidence at some point, it is then rejected.

This of course has not happened to evolution which has received massive scientific scrutiny and research for over 150 years, and all the evidence validates Darwinian evolution, which is why your claims about it being refuted are demonstrably wrong, else it to would have been discarded.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Mon Feb 23, 2015 1:27 pm

D r. Sheldon,
It appears science only applies to what you think it should, science has been proven wrong on numerous occasions.

Darwin's theory has indeed been disputed on several gounds.

Not least of which involves the, leap theory, as opposed to the one Darwin thought. etc;
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:19 pm

polyglide wrote:D r. Sheldon,
                 It appears science only applies to what you think it should,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No I don't, but by all means make some attempt to evidence your claim,it'd be a refreshing change.

science has been proven wrong on numerous occasions.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Not really. Science continually scrutinises claims and evidence, and when something is falsified by the evidence then it's discarded. The robust methods of the empirical scientific process is self policing, so your implication it has been proved wrong is very disingenuous. That's not happened very often though given the massive amount of knowledge empirical science has validated.

                 Darwin's theory has indeed been disputed on several gounds.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You can dispute the rotundity of the earth, it won't make it flat. In order to falsify a scientific theory all anyone need do is get one single piece of evidence validated and peer reviewed and that would be that. Clearly this has never happened. It's truly absurd to claim it has and shows a woeful lack of understanding of the basic scientific methodology and processes.

                 Not least of which involves the, leap theory, as opposed to the one Darwin thought. etc;  

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So you'll have no problem citing the peer reviewed publication of this evidence, or the names of the Nobel prize winners. Your ball.......
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:58 pm

polyglide wrote:The following are just a few of the theories that scientists thought were true but proven wrong :-

1. Spontanious Generation.
2. Blank Slate Theory
3. Phrenology
4. Einstein's Static Universe.  

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I know I'm fighting a losing battle asking you to evidence your claims but can you cite any published peer reviewed evidence that any of those were regarded as valid by mainstream science?


polyglide wrote: wrote:It appears science only applies to what you think it should,

No it doesn't, it appears you made yet another claim without any evidence, and I asked you if you could show any. I guess we have our answer anyway.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:09 pm

polyglide wrote: The following are just a few of the theories that scientists thought were true but proven wrong :- Spontanious Generation. Blank Slate Theory, Phrenology, Einstein's Static Universe.

The Christian church claimed we lived in a geocentric universe based on scripture, and they originally denied evolution. Are you saying the fact they were proved wrong means everything they claim could be wrong? If not why the double standard? After all the Church is basing what it accepts as true on blind faith in ancient dogma, whereas on the very rare occasions science has to falsify anything it held as true it corrects itself based on the evidence.



avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Tue Feb 24, 2015 11:11 am

DR. Sheldon,
I feel you get a little mixed up regarding what Christians think

The way in which Christians refute evolution is as a means of creation and not the improvement or betterment of a species etc;

And please forgive my spelling errors due to my lack oooooooooooof computer skills.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:33 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
                  I feel you get a little mixed up regarding what Christians think

                  The way in which Christians refute evolution is as a means of creation and not the improvement or betterment of a species etc;  

                  And please forgive my spelling errors due to my lack oooooooooooof computer skills.  

All the evidence supports evolution. what's more the Christian churches have accepted this. Creationists are a tiny minority who are simply ignoring the facts.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Norm Deplume on Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:40 pm

polyglide wrote:
 I feel you get a little mixed up regarding what Christians think

 The way in which Christians refute evolution is as a means of creation and not the improvement or betterment of a species etc;  

 And please forgive my spelling errors due to my lack oooooooooooof computer skills.  

You are mistaken about what evolution covers. It is involved only with changes in life-forms over time and says nothing about the origins of life.

Thus your claim is that Christians say nothing about evolution but object to abiogenesis.
You can't refute gravity by claiming that it doesn't explain the expansion of the universe.

['Refute' is not the appropriate word to use if you are a careful writer. Many still insist that 'refute' implies providing compelling evidence that a statement is incorrect; it is not a synonym for 'deny', 'dispute' or 'repudiate' though it is moving in that direction.]
avatar
Norm Deplume

Posts : 278
Join date : 2013-10-10
Location : West Midlands, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:22 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:
polyglide wrote:
 I feel you get a little mixed up regarding what Christians think

 The way in which Christians refute evolution is as a means of creation and not the improvement or betterment of a species etc;  

 And please forgive my spelling errors due to my lack oooooooooooof computer skills.  

You are mistaken about what evolution covers. It is involved only with changes in life-forms over time and says nothing about the origins of life.

Thus your claim is that Christians say nothing about evolution but object to abiogenesis.
You can't refute gravity by claiming that it doesn't explain the expansion of the universe.

['Refute' is not the appropriate word to use if you are a careful writer. Many still insist that 'refute' implies providing compelling evidence that a statement is incorrect; it is not a synonym for 'deny', 'dispute' or 'repudiate' though it is moving in that direction.]

I have tried repeatedly to explain to Polyglide that pointing to the origins of life and the fact evolution doesn't explain it is a bit of a straw man argument.

Inserting supernatural causation is pure assumption as well. Of course moving from that assumption to the cause being his version of his god speaks for itself.

I sometimes think he believes repetition will validate it all somehow, like some sort of mantra. Each time I point this out he repeated the question well what caused evolution then, as if he really doesn't grasp what's been said.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3162
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 20 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11 ... 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum