So-called science has repeatedly erred in making false claims.

[blackbird]

The theory of evolution has become absolute gospel truth the past 150 or so years.  But it has been refuted by a number of scientists.

Now the so called "dark matter" in the universe has just been refuted or called into question.

"We’ve long been told that mysterious dark matter makes up the bulk of our universe.

And yet, a new study suggests that this is not – and, indeed, cannot – be true.

The research, published in The Astrophysical Journal, challenges our current understanding of the cosmos by suggesting there’s simply no room for dark matter."

There may be no dark matter in our universe after all (msn.com)

This just goes to prove that much of what is called science is not really science at all.

 

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

This just goes to prove that much of what is called science is not really science at all.

 

The fact that the ideology allows open discussion, and empirical knowledge Built dynamically over time is a feature.

Those who cling to superstition might see it as a detrimental.

 

 

[French Patriot]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

But it has been refuted by a number of scientists.

This is an outright lie. A poor way to start a thread.

Our ongoing evolution can explain and justify the creation of the evil within that system.

You cannot explain and justify it if your God creates evil, which he does, given that God creates everything. Even all the evil. Right?

 

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Those who cling to superstition might see it as a detrimental.

I thought you said you were a Christian.  Is that superstition?

You have not yet heard that there is empirical science and false science which is speculation or assumptions.  Christians who understand the subject of creation and the humanist religion of Darwinism know there is empirical science which can be credible and false science which is not empirical or proven.

 

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The fact that the ideology allows open discussion, and empirical knowledge Built dynamically over time is a feature.

True science is empirical science which means what is claimed as truth is proven by the scientific method.  That has been abandoned over recent history as old school.  The theory of evolution, which has been taught in schools for decades, is not based on empirical science.  It is based on unproven assumptions.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

1. I thought you said you were a Christian.  Is that superstition?

2. You have not yet heard that there is empirical science and false science which is speculation or assumptions. 

3. Christians who understand the subject of creation and the humanist religion of Darwinism know there is empirical science which can be credible and false science which is not empirical or proven.

4. True science is empirical science which means what is claimed as truth is proven by the scientific method.   

1. If you take it to mean that there's an anthropomorphic god who intervenes in the day-to-day mechanics of the universe.  I was taught in a private Catholic college where they taught evolution to us.
2. "Assumptions" don't make the science false.
3. "Proven" is one of those red flags that I see from people who don't want to use science at all.
4. Explain how the scientific method has "proven" something.

[blackbird]

42 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

You cannot explain and justify it if your God creates evil, which he does, given that God creates everything. Even all the evil. Right?

That is an absurd comment and demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge of the Bible and of God.   You are a created being and don't get to judge God who is eternal, almighty, all-knowing, and completely holy and righteous.

quote

Revelation 4:8

8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

Leviticus 11:44-47

44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. 46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: 47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

Romans 12:1

1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

[blackbird]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I was taught in a private Catholic college where they taught evolution to us.

That might partly explain your lack of Biblical knowledge.  The Catholic church does not accept the Bible as the final authority and they hold to a long list of man-made false beliefs and dogmas.  The Bible is not taken literally obviously by the Catholic college you attended.

Darwinism is contrary to the Biblical account of creation which teaches God created everything in six days in a supernatural event.  So what they taught you is directly opposed to what the Bible says in Genesis.  Darwinism is not supported by empirical science.

[blackbird]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. "Assumptions" don't make the science false.

Assumptions don't make science false and don't make it true or factual.  Assumptions are just that, assumptions.

[blackbird]

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. "Proven" is one of those red flags that I see from people who don't want to use science at all

Are you making an assumption about people?  Who said creationists don't want to use science or have anything to do with it?  

There are things in science we can agree are genuine science.  I am sure we can find some things we can agree on in science.  The scientific method is a process whereby certain things can be proven.  But not all things in the universe can be proven.  So how much do we really know?

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Assumptions don't make science false and don't make it true or factual.  Assumptions are just that, assumptions.

Why did you say "there is empirical science and false science which is speculation or assumptions." then ?

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 The scientific method is a process whereby certain things can be proven.   

Which things ?  I asked for an example.

[blackbird]

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

. Explain how the scientific method has "proven" something.

This little article answers that well.

"

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe. 

The word "science" is derived from the Latin word "scientia," which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, a process known as the scientific method. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California, Berkeley. Anything that is considered supernatural, or beyond physical reality, does not fit into the definition of science."

Science and the scientific method: Definitions and examples | Live Science

The reality is many scientists and others have deviated away from the scientific method and now claim speculation or assumptions are sufficient proof of their hypotheses.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Which things ?  I asked for an example.

"

The steps of the scientific method go something like this, according to Highline College:

Make an observation or observations.

Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.

Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.

Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.

Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility — no science."

Science and the scientific method: Definitions and examples | Live Science

Notice it says the foundation of science is the reproducibility of published experiments.   The theory of evolution does not fit into that definition.  That is why it is called a theory.  But when people and schools teach it as a fact, they are therefore not telling the truth.  

Let's see if we can find an example of something that used the scientific method.

[blackbird]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Which things ?  I asked for an example.

An example might be:

"1500s: Nicolaus Copernicus advanced the understanding of the solar system with his discovery of heliocentrism. This is a model in which Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun, which is the center of the solar system.

1600s: Johannes Kepler built upon those observations with his laws of planetary motion. Galileo Galilei improved on a new invention, the telescope, and used it to study the sun and planets. The 1600s also saw advancements in the study of physics as Isaac Newton developed his laws of motion."

Not all things are infallibly proven.  Some assumptions or perhaps even what we thought were proven facts changed over time.  So perhaps man does not know as much as he thinks he knows.

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

This little article answers that well.

the words proof and prove do not appear.  You said it, what are YOU thinking about this ?


Ah ok - your habit of several replies makes discussion awkward btw

"Not all things are infallibly proven.  Some assumptions or perhaps even what we thought were proven facts changed over time.  So perhaps man does not know as much as he thinks he knows."

Yes, exactly.  The scientific method isn't supposed to prove things but to improve on knowledge.  So if the theory of evolution changes, that doesn't say anything negative about the theory.  The theory hasn't been thrown out.

Edited March 18 by Michael Hardner

[blackbird]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, exactly.  The scientific method isn't supposed to prove things but to improve on knowledge.  So if the theory of evolution changes, that doesn't say anything negative about the theory.  The theory hasn't been thrown out.

The subject becomes quite complex.  It seems different people will have different ideas on what is genuine science.

I have had trouble even trying to locate a simple example of something using the scientific method.

When it comes to the theory of evolution, you need to be very careful because that is obviously not empirical science.  Much like the "Big Bang" is not science.  It is only speculation.

 

[blackbird]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So if the theory of evolution changes, that doesn't say anything negative about the theory.  The theory hasn't been thrown out.

Actually it has been thrown out by some scientists.  If you look at it closely, you have to admit it is unproven.  It is impossible to prove for one thing because it allegedly happened over hundreds of millions of years and it cannot be replicated in an experiment.  It cannot be observed.

Edited March 18 by blackbird

[blackbird]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ah ok - your habit of several replies makes discussion awkward btw

Sorry, I will have to try to reduce the number of replies into one.

Remember, the number of scientists or people who believe something does not make it true.  That is the case with the theory of evolution.

Edited March 18 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. The subject becomes quite complex.  It seems different people will have different ideas on what is genuine science.

 

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

2. Actually it has been thrown out by some scientists.  If you look at it closely, you have to admit it is unproven.  

 

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

3. Sorry, I will have to try to reduce the number of replies into one.

1. I agree.
2.The weight of opinion says it's generally true. "Unproven" is meaningless in this context as you say... impossible to prove.
3. Thanks

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

2.The weight of opinion says it's generally true.

"The history of science has many remarkable examples of the difficulties which can arise when dubious but attractive ideas become firmly established in scientific thinking.  The chemists of three hundred years ago were convinced that fire was caused by something escaping from a burning body.  This of course is eminently reasonable.  A fir cone or a piece of paper , when burned, becomes just a little heap of ash; the form, structure and organization, as well as much of the volume are gone.  Obviously something has been lost.  This "something" was given the name "Phlogiston".

This is not an isolated chapter in the history of science.  Plenty of notable errors have been made, even in this century."

---- Professor Philip Stott in his book Vital Questions

[blackbird]

https://theconversation.com/what-exactly-is-the-scientific-method-and-why-do-so-many-people-get-it-wrong-65117

[French Patriot]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

It is based on unproven assumptions.

Which assumption in particular are you looking at?

[French Patriot]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

That is an absurd comment and demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge of the Bible and of God.   You are a created being and don't get to judge God who is eternal, almighty, all-knowing, and completely holy and righteous.

I see that you do not follow the good advice found in the Bible, even as you push it's genocidal and evil God. 

Note these.

Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

I tested your version of God and condemned his sorry evil ass. All moral people will. 

You know this as you always run from discussing morals.

You ended your statement with a bunch of lies, because you also ignore all the places in your bible that says that God id unknowable, unfathomable and is a mystery.

When you give God traits, your Bible calls you a liar.

If you thank Yahweh for creating you, instead of your now ashamed of your thinking parents, you are an ungrateful cad. They also sustained you for many years.

Perhaps they were too good to their ungrateful child. 

[French Patriot]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Assumptions don't make science false and don't make it true or factual.  Assumptions are just that, assumptions.

What are talking serpents and donkeys and a water walking half breed chimera God, Jesus, who can water walk? Facts or fictions?

[French Patriot]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Not all things are infallibly proven.

Correct.

Science is free, as you showed, to correct itself.

Religions generally and Christianity in particular are not free to correct their God.

When they do, they become the good Christians. Gnostic Christians.

[herbie]

You just blew any serious discussion by using "so-called science" to open it. That proves you have neither any idea of what science is or how it works nor what a theory is.
At your age, you never will learn due to sheer stubborn determination and refusal so there's no point discussing it with you any further,