“Truly, God works in mysterious ways. The wheels of His mercy and justice move quietly, but they do move.” — Billy Graham
Sorry to break it to you, but I am not the one who you quoted there. Nor am I Billy. Nor is nature God. Gong!
Are you getting the picture? What shortcomings you are assigning to science, is in reality a projection of your belief system.
The realities of what science uses as the basis for models of the past is very much unrelated to my beliefs. Realities like using the present to model what the past was like. I won't ask you if you are getting the picture. I won't even ask you if you can afford to rent a clue.
You have never heard of the scientific method have you? Let me enlighten you about Science and how it works.
The scientific method is often represented as an ongoing process
Scientific method
The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century.
So you admit science does not cover the creation/origin issues then, unless you think the earth came to exist in the 1700s? Notice the word ‘knowledge’ in there? The problem with origin sciences is that they are faith based and not knowledge related in the least! There is nothing that is known that I disagree with at all!
It involves careful observation,
Wrong. Have you observed a first life form!? Have you been to the far reaches of the universe and observed what time is like there? No. Have you observed what nature and laws on earth were like many thousands of years ago? No. There are zero observations to back up the basis of origin claims.
applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation.
Too bad you observe nothing in relation to the origin claims then. Sad. That doesn’t stop so called science from assumptions/belief/interpretations though!
It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations;
There are no observations for origin claims. Name any two if you claim there are.
experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.
You cannot and did not test what time itself is like in the distant universe, or what nature on earth was like to name a few things. Try not to conflate actual science with evolution and old age claims, and origin ‘science’ models!
Science is based on consistency and predictability. The advancement of society is based on consistency and predictability – science.
Even Nature depends on the science of consistency and predictability.
There is no known consistency for time and space as we know it on earth in the universe actually. All that is consistent is the predictably earth centred perception and basis used by the dreamers who have tried to attach themselves to what is called science. Nature does not depend on what so called science thinks is predictable either! Science does not even know what nature is (why laws and forces we see now at work exist as they are) and it sure does not know what nature WAS and WILL be! All religious little in the box, in the fishbowl so called science knows about nature is how it NOW works! Pitiful. All their creation/origin models are based on that. That is not science but bad religion.
Yes, I deny nothing ever in actual evidence or fact. I never question what is known. Try not to conflate the faith based origin branches of science with actual knowledge or fact or truth or reality.
Nature does not depend on what so called science thinks is predictable either! -- dad1
Really interesting statement there, I mean in anthropologist type view. But, first:
A lot of forums would have shut down this conversation a while ago, and at the very least, made more stringent warnings to dad1 and probably some other posts too. So, I hope everyone is enjoying themselves. Ad-hominem attacks are not just childish name-calling or R rated language. it’s when the person is criticized, not the argument. That’s been going on since dad1 got here, both from him and at him. There is not “who started it” that I care to track down or that would matter to anything.
Any conversation needs a basis. The most serious discussions I’ve had about human nature began with an agreement that there is no certainty, that some things aren’t known and aren’t provable. When the discussion turned in that direction, everyone had to recognize it and turn back to what can be demonstrated, and if not that, have some suggestion of possibility, and if not, qualified with a statement like “I feel” or “my personal experience”.
What, we have here, is, a failure, to communicate. We have “this is true, and there is something wrong with you if don’t agree with me”. Some, you just can’t reach. I don’t like it any more than you do.
Now, the quote above. That’s right, nature doesn’t care. Nature doesn’t have feelings. Animals seem to, even plants make a decision in a manner of speaking, but the laws of nature are a description of nature, they help us predict and sometimes we are wrong, they aren’t the things in nature. That I have to explain this, shows how diametrically opposed you are to the way of thinking that this forum is about. I don’t care who is right here, but you need to make some effort to understand where we’re coming from. The people here have spent years studying your book and your beliefs and they are engaging with you now in an attempt to understand. Adjust your attitude.
The most serious discussions I’ve had about human nature began with an agreement that there is no certainty, that some things aren’t known and aren’t provable. When the discussion turned in that direction, everyone had to recognize it and turn back to what can be demonstrated, and if not that, have some suggestion of possibility, and if not, qualified with a statement like “I feel” or “my personal experience”.
What, we have here, is, a failure, to communicate.
We have “this is true, and there is something wrong with you if don’t agree with me”. Some, you just can’t reach. I don’t like it any more than you do.
Nature does not depend on what so called science thinks is predictable either! — dad1
@Lausten. Now, the quote above. That’s right, nature doesn’t care. Nature doesn’t have feelings. Animals seem to, even plants make a decision in a manner of speaking, but the laws of nature are a description of nature, they help us predict and sometimes we are wrong, they aren’t the things in nature.
That I have to explain this, shows how diametrically opposed you are to the way of thinking that this forum is about. I don’t care who is right here, but you need to make some effort to understand where we’re coming from. The people here have spent years studying your book and your beliefs and they are engaging with you now in an attempt to understand.
You know, sometimes people write stuff that’s worth repeating. Nicely said Lausten. ?
Let’s look at mankind then and test your claim. Our survival, you seem to be saying, depends on “predictability / expectations based on the past” Is that supposed to mean something? Who predicts this stuff that we need to save us exactly? Who expects what based on what…that ‘saves’ us!?
A lot of forums would have shut down this conversation a while ago, and at the very least, made more stringent warnings to dad1 and probably some other posts too.
What I said and you quoted was this “Nature does not depend on what so called science thinks is predictable” That is true of course. Why anyone would think that should be shut down is insanity. Nature is the set of laws and forces that govern the world. That is no possible way depends on anything anyone says thinks or does. If you claim it does, then prove it, or quit the false accusations and censor threats.
So, I hope everyone is enjoying themselves. Ad-hominem attacks are not just childish name-calling or R rated language. it’s when the person is criticized, not the argument. That’s been going on since dad1 got here, both from him and at him. There is not “who started it” that I care to track down or that would matter to anything.
Criticizing lies is not attacking people actually. Too bad some do not know the difference. I never say things like 'I hate your pink shirt and beard'. I do say things like ' the origins claims of science are not really science and you can't support them'. People who misrepresent what others actually say and mean are mean spirited and dishonest. (notice this simple honest and obvious statement is about 'people' rather than some particular person)
Any conversation needs a basis. The most serious discussions I’ve had about human nature began with an agreement that there is no certainty, that some things aren’t known and aren’t provable. When the discussion turned in that direction, everyone had to recognize it and turn back to what can be demonstrated, and if not that, have some suggestion of possibility, and if not, qualified with a statement like “I feel” or “my personal experience”.
I have not been discussing 'human nature'. Why not stick to facts here? The claims of science must be able to be shown to be based on something and supported. It is not supposed to be uncertain and vague or untrue.
Now, the quote above. That’s right, nature doesn’t care. Nature doesn’t have feelings. Animals seem to, even plants make a decision in a manner of speaking, but the laws of nature are a description of nature, they help us predict and sometimes we are wrong, they aren’t the things in nature.
That was my point on nature, that this nature we NOW have cannot be proven to be the nature that used to exist at the dawn of time on earth. Yet they use this set of laws of nature to model what the past was like. That has nothing to do with ‘animals caring’ or plants making some decision!
The people here have spent years studying your book and your beliefs and they are engaging with you now in an attempt to understand.
?? No idea what this has to do with climate change or people making a clear scientific claim they can support in regards to either prophesy of the future or modelling the past. Try not to blame others for not communicating when the problem seems to be in some not comprehending.
Try not to blame others for not communicating when the problem seems to be in some not comprehending.
Others have been trying to communicate with you, in vain. Have you ever considered that the problem of comprehension lies with you.
You may want to visit the website that explains the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
The psychological phenomenon of illusory superiority was identified as a form of cognitive bias in Kruger and Dunning's 1999 study "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments".[1] An example derived from cognitive bias evident in the criminal case of McArthur Wheeler, who, on April 19, 1995, robbed two banks while his face was covered with lemon juice, which he believed would make him invisible to the surveillance cameras. This belief was apparently based on his misunderstanding of the chemical properties of lemon juice as an invisible ink.[8]
Other investigations of the phenomenon, such as "Why People Fail to Recognize Their Own Incompetence",[9] indicate that much incorrect self-assessment of competence derives from the person's ignorance of a given activity's standards of performance. Dunning and Kruger's research also indicates that training in a task, such as solving a logic puzzle, increases people's ability to accurately evaluate how good they are at it
I never say things like ‘I hate your pink shirt and beard’. I do say things like ‘ the origins claims of science are not really science and you can’t support them’. -- dad1
I didn't expect us to come to an understanding in one post. My expectation, my request, is that you make more of an effort to find agreement, to find a basis for this conversation, instead of attacking words, like saying "I have not been discussing ‘human nature’. " Okay, what do you call this discussion? What is it based on? Is it something other than people stating their beliefs with little or no acknowledgment of others?
Let’s look at mankind then and test your claim. Our survival, you seem to be saying, depends on “predictability / expectations based on the past” Is that supposed to mean something? Who predicts this stuff that we need to save us exactly? Who expects what based on what…that ‘saves’ us!? - dad1
Mankind = Climate.
By hook or by crook, the cornonavirus changed and found a wonderful environment for this new change in mankind. And it thrived for many generations. Then the climate changed (mankind took the vax). Coronavirus as we knew it (aka in the past) is on it’s way out because of that UNEXPECTED Environment change - by vax, by infection or by death. Even most of it’s variants seem to succumb to this new (vaxinated/anti-bodied) environment. But if enough learn to live in the new environment (breakthrough cases) another “Species” (not the right word for viruses) will arise.
Or another example that I heard about, but just read a little more on is the Dark-Fly experiments. Interesting evolution of traits.