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 3 of 20 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 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 : 3167
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 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.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11

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 6:31 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote: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?

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

I made no claim about what Christians think, as you can clearly see if you read my post it was a comment on what the Christian church had claimed. You keep making these claims, but don't elucidate any farther, it would be helpful if you said WHAT you're claiming I have misunderstood, and what evidence you think you have for this claim. Now I am forced, YET AGAIN, to point out that you have completely ignored my question, and the content of my post. Why I wonder, is that?

1. You claimed that science had been "proved wrong" many times and gave a few examples.
2. I asked for evidence that those examples were ever considered valid by science.
You gave none, and have completely ignored my request.

3. I offered you evidence that at least two of the examples were in fact never considered scientifically valid.
You completely ignored this evidence, and simply rolled on.

4. I pointed out that science had not been "proven wrong many times" as you claimed (without evidence), and that in fact science very rarely had to retract what it considered true, but when it did it was based on new scientific evidence, because science is self policing and this is part of it's robust process for uncovering and validating evidence.
Again you completely ignored this and simply rolled on.

5. You then accused me (again without any evidence or even a clue what you were referring to) of thinking science applied only to what I wanted it to.
6. I asked you for evidence for this claim.
Again you completely ignored this request and rolled on.

Now you opened this discourse with a fairly grandiose claim to be an expert debater, so I have to ask how do you square that claim with your refusal to answer any questions put to you, or your ignoring evidence I have given with links as if it isn't even there?  Any chance you can honestly address these questions now? Starting with the passage from my previous post I have quoted at the start of this post?


Last edited by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:37 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : typos and grammar)
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 25, 2015 10:55 am

Dr. Sheldon,
I have told you previously, all the theories you mention have just as many scientists who disagree or there would be not reason to disagree.

I have just read a scientific investigation on the Galapagos Isles.

It involves finches and their beaks.

They have taken years to discover that when a food source become harder for the bird to eat, the ones with the most suitable beak will survive and ultimately all will have similar beaks.

I have bred birds for over sixty year and I could have told them that in two minutes.
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 Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:03 am

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                I have told you previously, all the theories you mention have just as many scientists who disagree or there would be not reason to disagree.

                I have just read a scientific investigation on the Galapagos Isles.

                It involves finches and their beaks.

                They have taken years to discover that when a food source become harder for the bird to eat, the ones with the most suitable beak will survive and ultimately all will have similar beaks.

                I have bred birds for over sixty year and I could have told them that in two minutes.  

It's an example of evolution in real time, polyglide. I read Beak of the Finch as well. Does this help you understand that evolution is adaptation to environmental pressures over time?

You might have been able to tell them that in 2 minutes but you didn't put together a study, collect evidence and data and analyse the data and write a scientific paper that was peer reviewed and published. The spent nearly 20 years studying finches and gathered a massive amount of data. They are scientists who understand the scientific method. They are trained in data collection, study design, statistical analysis. Did you write anything down? Analyse it statistically? Put together a hypothesis? Which is why they are published and you are not.
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
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 polyglide on Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:23 am

snowyflake,
No, what I do, is believe what I see and experience, along with considering all the options for that which do not.
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 Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:30 am

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                I have told you previously, all the theories you mention have just as many scientists who disagree or there would be not reason to disagree.

Good god how many times must you be told that a scientists opinion is not the same thing as "SCIENTIFIC OPINION". this is a basic and stunning lack of understanding on your part of the most rudimentary methods of science.

You keep claiming Darwinian evolution has been refuted. So you either don't know what refutation means, or you haven't even a basic grasp of what happens when a scientific theory of the size and importance of evolution is falsified. I really can't explain it to you again, but it'd be the biggest news imaginable.

avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:33 am

snowyflake wrote:
polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                I have told you previously, all the theories you mention have just as many scientists who disagree or there would be not reason to disagree.

                I have just read a scientific investigation on the Galapagos Isles.

                It involves finches and their beaks.

                They have taken years to discover that when a food source become harder for the bird to eat, the ones with the most suitable beak will survive and ultimately all will have similar beaks.

                I have bred birds for over sixty year and I could have told them that in two minutes.  

It's an example of evolution in real time, polyglide. I read Beak of the Finch as well. Does this help you understand that evolution is adaptation to environmental pressures over time?

You might have been able to tell them that in 2 minutes but you didn't put together a study, collect evidence and data and analyse the data and write a scientific paper that was peer reviewed and published. The spent nearly 20 years studying finches and gathered a massive amount of data. They are scientists who understand the scientific method. They are trained in data collection, study design, statistical analysis. Did you write anything down? Analyse it statistically? Put together a hypothesis? Which is why they are published and you are not.

Seriously he doesn't understand the difference. Even after it's explained to him repeatedly. I don't even know whether it's deliberate anymore.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:36 am

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
               No, what I do, is believe what I see and experience, along with considering all the options for that which do not.

Told you Snowyflake, he thinks the two methods are comparable. Where do you start with this?

Do you belief that magicians are actually performing magic when you see their performance Polyglide?

Or do you grasp how experiential evidence is subjectively flawed and open to interpretation and your senses can be deceived?
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 25, 2015 5:23 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I am not interested in magicians, not sooth sayers, nor tea cup readers etc;

I see an oak tree and know without a doubt that it originated from an acorn.

I see a butterfly and know all that has happened before it became a wonderful animal.

I see my pet animals and wonder at the divercity of life involved.

I see stupid people who think it all came about by chance and begin to wonder where the brain that was given them has gone.
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 Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:52 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  I am not interested in magicians, not sooth sayers, nor tea cup readers etc;
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I never said you were, but you do understand the concept of a magic show yes? The idea that your senses can be deceived even when you are trying hard not to let it happen?

I see an oak tree and know without a doubt that it originated from an acorn.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Not until someone taught you this, we know things we learn either from others who have examined the evidence or from examining evidence ourselves. I'm afraid epistemology is obviously something else you have no grasp of at all.


I see a butterfly and know all that has happened before it became a wonderful animal. I see my pet animals and wonder at the divercity of life involved.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:"divercity" (sic) Good grief man...   headbang

I see stupid people who think it all came about by chance and begin to wonder where the brain that was given them has gone.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yes you're a genius and we're all lost in admiration at your sagacity.  Rolling Eyes Constantly lying and misrepresenting what others have posted is neither intelligent nor is it expert debating, it just shows every single reader that you have no integrity. No one has claimed that "it all came about by chance" in fact I've told you this repeatedly so why lie? I sympathise though, it must be easier for you to lie about what was said than face the scary uphill task of accepting reality. Sadly all you've done, as well as repeating a lie, is use yet another logical fallacy, it's called the lottery winner fallacy. Google it, it's a quite common spurious creationist lie, almost a cliché really, and any one with any kind of experience in debating would know about it and avoid it, an expert debater would never fall for it of course.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:05 pm

I think there is a colossal lack of understanding and knowledge of science where polyglide is concerned. He wants to believe it all happened by magic. Perhaps we should just leave him to believe that since anything we try to teach him goes in one eye and out the other.

There is such a thing as being wilfully ignorant and I think I've seen enough of that from polyglide for one day.

Good night Doc.
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
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 Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:08 pm

snowyflake wrote:I think there is a colossal lack of understanding and knowledge of science where polyglide is concerned. He wants to believe it all happened by magic. Perhaps we should just leave him to believe that since anything we try to teach him goes in one eye and out the other.

There is such a thing as being wilfully ignorant and I think I've seen enough of that from polyglide for one day.

Good night Doc.

Goodnight Snowyflake.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:17 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:58 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?

You never did answer this, why is that?
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 26, 2015 7:48 am

Since Polyglide has made a  number of claims about the number of scientists who support creationism, but not actually presented any evidence to support the claim beyond his own bare assertions, I think it would be edifying to take a look at the actual facts with some of the evidence available.

"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 article continues.

"One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[24] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists."

This of course from the country that is the driving force behind trying to promote ID or creationism as an alternative to the science of evolution.

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[27] pseudoscience,[28][29] or junk science.[30][31] 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.[32] 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."[33] 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"
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 26, 2015 7:52 am

More information to digest from the above article

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."

A useful comparison here might be to ask Polyglide to name one Nobel prize winner in biology who claims to be a creationist?

Just one.....
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 26, 2015 7:10 pm

Another useful link here to a YouTube clip demolishing their top ten creationists weakest arguments. Polyglide has invoked almost all of them in this thread as well.

Enjoy.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 26, 2015 7:20 pm

For those who enjoyed that one here's the next top ten creationist arguments dismantled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfZFsXfCy6s

avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 27, 2015 4:25 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Only two scientists thought the world was round, all the others thought it flat.

How many times must you be told numbers mean nothing regarding scientific theories.

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 Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:31 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
I have read the above load of tripe and there is no evidence whatsoever involved, it is just a load of opinions.
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 Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:44 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
If you want scientific evidence against evolution, regarding creation, then just put it on your computer and you will have numerous uncontradicted references, that prove to believe in evolution relative to creation is like believing in Santa Clause.
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 Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:26 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                Only two scientists thought the world was round, all the others thought it flat.

                 How many times must you be told numbers mean nothing regarding scientific theories.


Copernicus and Galileo. The rest of the flat-earthers were priests.
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
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 27, 2015 8:52 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                Only two scientists thought the world was round, all the others thought it flat.
Dr Sheldon Sheldon wrote:I see no evidence presented so I'm going to go ahead and say "no they didn't". The point you seem unable or unwilling to grasp is that the evidence is what counts, and yet again I find myself having to explain to you that a scientists opinion is not the same as scientific opinion, the latter is based on the evidence and a robust method. The church though insisted we lived in a geocentric universe, despite the evidence, and they based this on biblical narrative, as you do, try and learn what this means.

How many times must you be told numbers mean nothing regarding scientific theories.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:That's hilarious given how often you resort to Argumentum ad populum, but then it's another quite common logical fallacy you're entirely ignorant of, as we see here. I'll help you out anyway, it's not a bare appeal to numbers if the numbers quoted possess expert knowledge on the topic in question.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 27, 2015 8:57 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                I have read the above load of tripe and there is no evidence whatsoever involved, it is just a load of opinions.

I have no idea what you're referring to? For a self professed expert debater your posts are coming close to playground taunts as well. please do try and make a clear cogent point.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 27, 2015 9:01 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                 If you want scientific evidence against evolution, regarding creation, then just put it on your computer and you will have numerous uncontradicted references, that prove to believe in evolution relative to creation is like believing in Santa Clause.

Just as you can log on and get David Icke's opinion he's Jesus, is that true as well?

Must I point out again how ridiculous it is to claim Darwinian evolution has been falsified and no one has even heard about it? Science still accepts it as true, as do the largest christian churches, no one has been vaulted to fame, stardom and a Nobel prize, and nothing on the news. In short your talking absolute rubbish. Is it a wind up? please tell me your trolling and don't actually believe this rubbish your claiming?
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 27, 2015 9:38 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                I have read the above load of tripe and there is no evidence whatsoever involved, it is just a load of opinions.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Then again, that's just YOUR opinion, and you've not evidenced it. I believe PMLMAO is the correct acronym.

You still haven't attempted an answer to this after two requests:

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:17 pm


Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:58 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?

This is very rude behaviour to continually ignore every question put to you. Also you keep insulting the English skills of other posters and can't spell spontaneous, hilarious.  
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 27, 2015 10:09 pm

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method
Copyright © 1999-2012 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

Link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

Also I'll repost the definition of a scientific theory, as opposed to just a theory as Polyglide keeps misrepresenting evolution as the latter.

"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. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)."

LAstly we have a concise explanation of the ise of the word theory in a scientific context.

"In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis'). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions"

As opposed to the definition of the word theory:

"Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory."

As we can see Polyglides semantics when he refers to evolution as 'just a theory' as well as being lazy and untrue, use the word theory where if he were honest he would use hypothesis. Of course it is neither an hypothesis or just a theory.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 27, 2015 10:37 pm

Common decent or shared ancestry is an integral part of Darwinian evolution, since this also has been dismissed by Polyglide in favour of unevidenced superstition, or the facts about genetic support for evolution misrepresented as the opposite I'll post a link to an article outlining some of the evidence that destroys his claims.

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

I'll quote an extract here as he claims to be a bird breeder yet doesn't seem to grasp how artificial selection provides evidence for shared ancestry.

"The diversity of domesticated dogs is an example of the power of artificial selection. All breeds share common ancestry, having descended from wolves. Humans selectively bred them to enhance specific characteristics, such as colour and length or body size. This created a range of breeds that include the Chihuahua, Great Dane, Basset Hound, Pug, and Poodle. Wild wolves, which did not undergo artificial selection, are relatively uniform in comparison."
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:55 pm

Why are moths fatally attracted towards the light?

For several million years they have navigated by the light of the moon, which is of course not close enough for them to fly to.

Only in the last 100 years or so has man-made light entered their equation, with disastrous results.

quora.com
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11902
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 snowyflake on Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:48 am

Do penguins have knees? scratch
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
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 polyglide on Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:22 am

Dr, Sheldon,
You asked me for my explanation of evolution against creation and I gave you step by step the answer.

All the relevant information, from energy to the atom and all that follows.

All are available and confirmable, all that is required is a creature capable of carrying out the above.

Evolution on the other hand, that means an alternative, needs so many random, unbelieveable events, with odds against that no one can calculate, they are so far beyond human understanding that makes it impossible, in terms accepted by all
sensible people as impossible.

Now I asked you to do the same regarding both the buttrefly and the acorn.

To date, NOTHING.
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 Mar 07, 2015 12:07 pm

The Quercus genus is quite old, being one of the early angiosperms of the Miocene epoch (26-12 million years ago). Over time, oaks have divided into two main lineages, with an intermediate subgenus for less genetically distinct species. The red oaks (Erythrobalanus) are characterized by pointed leaves with bristles or spines that can be either lobed or unlobed. The acorns have a hairy inner shell and mature in two years (except for California live oaks, Q. agrifolia which mature in one year) on the twigs of the first year's growth. The smooth bark is dark gray, black or brown, with reddish brown wood. The white oak (Leucobalanus) leaves are rounded and smooth but can also be lobed or unlobed. Acorns mature in one year and have a smooth inner shell. The wood is light brown or yellow and the bark is scaly or rough brown to light gray. The leaves of the intermediate oaks (Protobalanus) are unlobed, although some may have green spines or teeth. The inner shell of the acorns can be either smooth or hairy, but does not mature until the second year. The bark can be either scaly or rough, with a wide color range. The wood is generally light brown and not as commercially valuable as that in the other oak families.

Read more: Oaks - Evolution - Brown, Smooth, Mature, and Inner - JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/4805/Oaks-Evolution.html#ixzz3ThWGmegj
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
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 Mar 07, 2015 12:10 pm

Acorns are the fruit of the tree, like apples are. The seeds which germinate into the next generation of organisms.

Here's one for butterflies. It's only 3 minutes long and you can search for more videos and links from here.
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
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 Mar 07, 2015 3:12 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                You asked me for my explanation of evolution against creation and I gave you step by step the answer.

                All the relevant information, from energy to the atom and all that follows.

                All are available and confirmable, all that is required is a creature capable of carrying out the above.
.

That's a lie, all you've posted are your subjective and laughably delusional fantasies. That you think this represents science in any way is deeply sad and fairly worrying.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 Mar 07, 2015 3:17 pm

polyglide wrote:Evolution on the other hand, that means an alternative, needs so many random, unbelieveable  events, with odds against that no one can calculate, they are so far beyond human understanding that makes it impossible, in  terms accepted by all sensible people as impossible.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Is that English? As I told you the llast time you made up this lie, if you can't calculate something then how can you claim it as evidence? Besides the world of science doesn't defer to you, despite your obvious ego on this matter.

Now I asked you to do the same regarding both the buttrefly and the acorn. To date, NOTHING.

Another bare faced lie, and I'm happy for those with the wit to understand English, and the ability to search this thread and others, and a passing knowledge of science to acknowledge I have answered both of these more than once. You're making yourself look very dishonest and more than a little desperate with this kind of obviously false claim.


Last edited by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:26 pm

I think we both know, Doc, that polyglide is not interested in scientific evidence. Facts and truth are not what he's after. He wants his delusion to be real so he can sing endless praises to god in heaven when he dies.

There isn't a life so wasted as that spent stocking up rewards for a non-existent after life.
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
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 Mar 07, 2015 3:38 pm

snowyflake wrote:I think we both know, Doc, that polyglide is not interested in scientific evidence. Facts and truth are not what he's after. He wants his delusion to be real so he can sing endless praises to god in heaven when he dies.

There isn't a life so wasted as that spent stocking up rewards for a non-existent after life.

I have seen nothing in his posts to indicate he has even the remotest grasp of the scientific process. His posts, not unlike a few other theists I have encountered on these kinds of discussions, suggest his faux piety is a thin disguise for someone on a massive ego trip. Knowing the thoughts and desires of an omniscient omnipotent deity always strike me as massively egotistical.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:23 pm

Why do moths fly into a light bulb?

For well over a million years, moths navigated at night by the light of the moon and stars. Only in the last 150 years has such strong man-made light appeared. In proportion that's a very short time in which to adapt to changed circumstances, but why wasn't that anticipated in the first place, one wonders.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11902
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 snowyflake on Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:32 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Why do moths fly into a light bulb?

For well over a million years, moths navigated at night by the light of the moon and stars.  Only in the last 150 years has such strong man-made light appeared.  In proportion that's a very short time in which to adapt to changed circumstances, but why wasn't that anticipated in the first place, one wonders.

Do penguins have knees? Smile
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
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 Mar 07, 2015 7:47 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Why do moths fly into a light bulb?

For well over a million years, moths navigated at night by the light of the moon and stars.  Only in the last 150 years has such strong man-made light appeared.  In proportion that's a very short time in which to adapt to changed circumstances, but why wasn't that anticipated in the first place, one wonders.

This is nonsensical, since the earth is only 6000 years old, and humans have always existed, then so has the artificial light that humans use. You Sir are trumped, by the inerrant fact that "goddidit". silent
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 Mar 09, 2015 1:20 pm

polyglide wrote:You asked me for my explanation of evolution against creation and I gave you step by step the answer.

Actually I never asked for this. I have in the title asked theists to present evidence for theistic claims that dispute established scientific truths, and to explain why such evidence is valid. It follows that if you're going to deny evidence validated by science then the very least one can expect is that you present evidence equally validated by a process as robust and thorough as science. All you've done is repeat the claims of your own beliefs based entirely on faith. Which rather misses the whole point of the thread.

I'm not really surprised as your posts indicate you have no grasp of the relevance of evidence being validated by science at all, as opposed to subjective opinion validated only by faith based belief.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 Mar 09, 2015 1:30 pm

polyglide wrote:Evolution on the other hand, that means an alternative, needs so many random, unbelieveable  events, with odds against that no one can calculate, they are so far beyond human understanding that makes it impossible, in  terms accepted by all sensible people as impossible.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Take this last claim for example, it's laughable nonsense to be sure but you don't seem aware of this, or why this is the case. Evolution has been validated again and again by 150 years of scientific scrutiny, never once has any of that falsified it, on the contrary the evidence keeps supporting Darwinian evolution. On the other hand creationism can't even get one shred of evidence validated by science, it's not even recognised as scientific because it fails at the first hurdle, as it is not falsifiable.

Now I asked you to do the same regarding both the buttrefly and the acorn. To date, NOTHING.

The last sentence is simply a lie as I have answered this more than once, candidly and offered links to seminal works on evolution all of which have withstood the same rigorous scientific scrutiny.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
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 3 of 20 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 11 ... 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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