How Credible is Science?

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Not Swallow or Willow

@Swolliw

Science generates propositions which after scrutiny, may or may not turn out to be reasonable.

Whereas theism generates a basic principle, elaborates it with folk tales, and assumes this is good enough.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Balloons.

Balloons.

Factfinder

The scientific method is one of the most credible human endeavors taken on in our history. Religion has been among several things, well intentions gone awry.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Swolliw ; Science is only as "credible" as mankind and the propensity for graft and obedience to the mob...

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: A Wonderful Response From My Chatbot

Several key factors contribute to the credibility of science:

1. Empirical evidence and testability: Science relies on observable, measurable evidence obtained through experiments and observations. Scientific claims must be testable and potentially falsifiable[4].

2. Collective and cumulative process: Science is a collaborative effort involving many researchers building on previous work. This allows for verification, replication, and refinement of results over time[4].

3. Sustained engagement with the world: Scientists continuously interact with the physical world through experiments and observations, grounding their work in reality[2].

4. Social character and peer review: The scientific community critically evaluates research through peer review and open debate, helping to identify and correct errors[2].

5. Established methods and standards: Scientists use proven techniques, analytical methods, and evidential standards developed over centuries of inquiry[2].

6. Self-correction: The scientific process allows for the revision of theories and conclusions as new evidence emerges[1].

7. Transparency and openness: Scientific methods and data are meant to be openly shared, allowing for scrutiny and replication[2].

8. Practical successes: The reliability of scientific knowledge is demonstrated through technological advancements and accurate predictions[2].

9. Institutional safeguards: Scientific institutions enforce ethical standards and research integrity[1].

10. Consensus building: On well-established topics, a broad consensus among experts emerges based on the weight of evidence[1].

These factors collectively contribute to science's credibility by ensuring that scientific claims are rigorously tested, openly debated, and continually refined based on evidence.

Citations:

[1] Five factors that assess well-being of science predict support for ... https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/appc-five-factors-assess-well-being-science-predict-support-increasing-us-science-funding

[2] What Makes Science Trustworthy - Boston Review https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/philip-kitcher-what-makes-science-trustworthy/

[3] Do you trust science? These five factors play a big role https://www.science.org/content/article/do-you-trust-science-these-five-factors-play-big-role

[4] Why can we trust the information produced by scientific research? https://thesciencebehindit.org/why-can-we-trust-the-information-produced-by-scientific-research/

just_sayin

If you look at science textbooks from 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, you realize that science got a lot of things wrong.  People were saying smoking was good for the lungs.  They were using leeches to suck out blood. The Bible however has been around for millennia.  It claimed that the universe had a beginning 3 or 4 thousand years before current scientific theory concurred that was indeed true.  Scientists like to brag that science discovered that man came from dust - but the Bible taught that in Genesis thousands of years before.  Scientists are just missing the God part of the equation which is necessary.  There are at least 10 miracle level problems with chemical evolution (miracle level meaning that the odds are infinitesimally small - less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power).  But scientists claim these 10 miracles are needed and therefore must have happened.  To me, if you need 10 miracles, you need a God.  just sayin

Asking the Bible to be a science book, is like turning to a history book to solve a chemistry equation, or going to a math book to find out what a noun, verb, or run on sentence is.  The fields are different.  While the Bible does contain different genres - such as history, law, poetry, proverbs, prophesy, and parables, it would be wrong to think it a science text book.  Its aims and objectives are different.  Its like faulting a math book for not providing you all the insights needed to understand Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

YOUR ONCE AGAIN EMBARRASSING QUOTE WHERE YOU CAN'T DEFEND IT:  "The Bible however has been around for millennia. "It claimed that the universe had a beginning 3 or 4 thousand years before current scientific theory concurred that was indeed true."

Now, for additional laughter towards YOU by the Atheists, tell the membership that in you being a dumbfounded pseudo-christian like I have easily shown you to be, tell us that you have to biblically accept that the universe and the creation of mankind is only approximately 6000 years old, where that scary word for you called "SCIENCE" says the universe is approximately 13.8 billions of years old, and mankind is approximately 6000 million years old! 

BEGIN:


Atheists, hold off the laughter towards the blatant pseudo-christian Just_LYING until our number 2 Bible FOOL explains the biblical axiom above, shhhhhhhh ......... don't embarrass him yet!





.

just_sayin

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@just_sayin

YOUR ONCE AGAIN EMBARRASSING QUOTE WHERE YOU CAN'T DEFEND IT:  "The Bible however has been around for millennia. "It claimed that the universe had a beginning 3 or 4 thousand years before current scientific theory concurred that was indeed true."

Now, for additional laughter towards YOU by the Atheists, tell the membership that in you being a dumbfounded pseudo-christian like I have easily shown you to be, tell us that you have to biblically accept that the universe and the creation of mankind is only approximately 6000 years old, where that scary word for you called "SCIENCE" says the universe is approximately 13.8 billions of years old, and mankind is approximately 6000 million years old! 

BEGIN:


Atheists, hold off the laughter towards the blatant pseudo-christian Just_LYING until our number 2 Bible FOOL explains the biblical axiom above, shhhhhhhh ......... don't embarrass him yet!





.

Where in the Bible does it say that the universe is 6000 years old?  It doesn't.  Why do you lie so much?  @Factfinder lies because of his unsolved hate issues against God.  What is your excuse?

JulesKorngold

The 6000-year estimate comes from calculations made by scholars like Archbishop Ussher in the 17th century, not from a direct biblical statement.  These calculations rely on assumptions about biblical genealogies being complete and literal 24-hour creation days

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Where in the Bible does it say that the universe is 6000 years old?  It doesn't.  Why do you lie so much?  Factfinder lies because of his unsolved hate issues against God.  What is your excuse?

Says the fool as he's laying the ground work for deception again. Are you too stoopid and don't know the bible and what 21CenturyIconoclast is referring to or was this intentional avoidance cause you've lost every bible discussion as of late and had no retort? I mean, its hard to tell as both dishonesty and ignorance are observed character traits when reading your posts. 

Factfinder

@Swolliw

Odd how as scientific success grows and accumulates in the quest for answers to once tough questions, the role of religious efforts in the same query diminishes. 

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

The 6000-year estimate comes from calculations made by scholars like Archbishop Ussher in the 17th century, not from a direct biblical statement.  These calculations rely on assumptions about biblical genealogies being complete and literal 24-hour creation days

The earth exists in Genesis 1:2  BEFORE the days of creation.  There is nothing that tells us how hold the earth was when the 6 days of creation begin.  Further, the genealogies have gaps in them.  The expression often translated 'son of' actually just means descendent of.  You can see gaps when you compare the lists, and there may be more that people aren't aware of.    

Factfinder

@just_sayin

The earth exists in Genesis 1:2  BEFORE the days of creation

So you believe the earth was created before the sun? Yes or no?

21CenturyIconoclast

@RickeyHoltsclaw


'

MEMBERSHIP: PERTAINING TO THE RUNAWAY RICKEYHOLTSCLAW!

Well, as explicitly seen since the poor RickeyHoltsclaw came back from his sabbatical of taking a short time off to try and regroup from being easily Bible Slapped Silly by Atheists that have forgotten more about the Bible than he will ever learn from it, the Christian Cultist Rickey cannot address my posts directed to him anymore!!!  

I knew this day would eventually come in his behalf because it was to easy for me to make him this Religion Forum's number one BIBLE FOOL, as other Atheists as well did with ease! LOL!


Here is a video of "RickeyHoltsclaw" since he cannot 
address my posts anymore, but to only run away from them and hide
and he wants to call himself a Christian?!  NOT!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI7ni7zL8qU

RUN RICKEY, RUN AWAY FROM ME BEING AN ATHEIST 
THAT EASILY OWNS YOU AND YOUR CULTIST FAITH 
OF CHRISTIANITY, PRAISE ZEUS!





.