Quote from: BADecker on November 06, 2014, 12:36:06 AM

Quote from: the joint on November 06, 2014, 12:28:11 AM

Why do you ask "Why...the 'ifs'?" I literally just explained it.

Here:

Quote

You're dissing science because you're essentially complaining that one can always formulate more questions after a scientific conclusion, even with something as seemingly concrete as a scientific law (e.g. "Is it possible that Universal laws can change over time?"). But, in contrast, you defer to and advocate for a religious view (by the way, you invoke a false dichotomy, here -- a fallacy in its own right) by basically claiming that it gives you all the answers so that you don't need to ask any more questions.

And so, getting to the root of your problem, you completely gloss over the relationship between faith and reason, where one uses evidence to justify faithfulness. Accordingly, even with faith, you depend on reason and evidence, and by undermining an inductive process like the scientific method, you are undermining your own inductive reasoning that leads you to live with a religious world view.

Not "dissing" science at all. Simply against the stating as truth and reality certain scientific findings that are theory or less than theory. That's it in a nutshell. Included in the nutshell are the things that say Evolution is real, and the universe is billions of years old, because they include the "if"s at their base or core. If means maybe and maybe not. State it clearly and truthfully, right out in the open, rather than turning it into a religion.

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true. For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time." If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level. And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution. If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data. I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced. If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing. Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical. A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct. All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs. [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.] All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs. Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this: Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time. So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument. I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts. Is that so much to ask?