budaatum:


No one is making such a claim, Nothing. Science is done by fallible human beings, and they can't claim their evidence is always empirical or that bad scientist do not exist, especially if by empirical you mean always based on factual objective evidence. And you are the only one who would make a claim to be "x-raying science" in a thread titled "God And Science". Most would honestly admit to discussing both.

I said severally that sometimes you write much but miss the point. I repeatedly pointed out my points in our discourse. Possibly we were saying same thing in different ways.

I brought the illustrations on the Nobel Prize controversy between Einstein and Borh, the impact of the world war and the anti-Semitic sentiments by most German scientists, the issues around Quantum physics, matter as particles or as waves, hoaxes in sciences, subjectivity in human scientists, biases arising from funding etc just to drive home my point.

I was surprised you simply turned around to conclude I may have been anti-science ( lol).
I just smiled as I intentionally did not argue for or against science or even for religion.

By the way there is nothing wrong with x-raying science and it’s strict objectivity in a thread as this.

LordReed:


Boxed in by your delusions? Bwahahahahaha! Your delusion factory must be on overdrive. LMFAO!

Whenever you are unable to admit you gaffed you start trying to change the subject. LoL. Produce the 5 scientists who say science has proved god doesn't exist. If it is to talk about nonexistent Nobel prize controversies now you will name scientists. LMAO!

I forgot to add your bwahahaha and LMFAO.
Those are meaningless and pointless.

Nobel prize controversy you read in a hurry and picked out what you WANTED TO SEE despite the article showing you severally what transpired. Keep deluding yourself.

Obviously you don’t know why you are godless.
Obviously science did not make you godless.
Obviously science said nothing about God and the supernatural.

Therefore your objections to Christianity must be plain emotional.

Maybe I will also need 5 scientists to assist you.

Workch:
There’s was a thread by kingxsamz that provides theists the opportunity to provide evidence for their supernatural claims, the thread ended with almost 12pages of flimsy excuses. They were even offered 2.5million if they can prove it. I mean, is this not the opportunity for your nonexistent god to answer your financial prayers?
There are other bounties waiting for theists; be it traditionalist, Christian or Muslim to participate and convince all atheist that supernatural exist, all we get are excuses upon excuses.

Men, it’s beyond me how people cling to stuffs that cannot proven even when provided the opportunity to win lots of money if they successfully prove it.
Just one out of many of the platforms will forever make atheist remain silent and the opportunities are begging.

What other opportunity do you want us to give to you to provide evidence for all your imaginary friends? You want us to take your personal bias experiences as evidence?

Maybe you don’t even understand what the Christian believes in and how Christianity works.

[quote author=Bishopkingsley post=107666325]

There is no real Atheist because

We see from the holy scripture

The Bible let us know that it is a person
who choose to says in their hearts that there is no God

But that is actually not what their heart is saying because God truly placed eternity in the hearts of everyone

So the heart of all those who keep saying in their hearts that there is no God what their heart is really saying to them is there is truly eternity somewhere


Psalm 14:1 ►
For the director of music. Of David.
The simpleton says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

New Living Translation
Only simpleton say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!


Ecclesiastes 3:11 ►
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

New Living Translation
Yet God has made everything beautiful for its own time.
He has planted eternity in the human heart, but even so,
people cannot see the whole scope of God’s work from beginning to end.


[quote]

Two tough questions for atheists:

1. what is atheism?
2. Why do you not believe in God?

LordReed:


There we go, delusion factory hard at work! LMAO!

You think I expect something different?
LMAO is what you say each time you are boxed in.

Another antics is to ask for 5 scientists to come and tell me you are a godless fellow.

You aren’t a skeptic because of science is what you admitted.
So why are you a skeptic outside of empirical reasons? You are angry with God? It’s an emotional objection?

I just shake my head for you.

Crystyano:



So, chimpanzees are humans, right


budaatum is just repeating the same thing which budaatum has been repeating since budaatum joined Nairaland which is nothing but an attack on the understanding of anyone that says what budaatum considers to be wrong....


You're not helping yourself by repeating useless questions or disregarding my posts.....



If your conclusion is that I'm saying nothing, that's your cup of wine.....



At the moment, you're turning things upside down despite the fact that budaatum and LordReed are not new to turning things upside down....

They can also turn things upside down.....

So,if you don't go straight to the point and say your mind instead of wasting your time, your speech will be in vain...

Isn’t it a fair game of turning things upside down? Don’t worry I am not new to nairaland. I have been here since 2007 and notice some of the antics.

budaatum:


It is rather obvious that you are looking at science as some sort of religion or you wouldn't have failed to see that Eve and Christ were practising science as opposed to stupidly ignorantly believing like Adam and the Pharisees did. You even claim science needs a spokesperson like its some sort of god, when it's obvious scientists don't have a chief priest nor organisation that every scientist bows to.

I called the Bible primitive science. The primitive might sound derogatory, but its of equal value, if not more, than Galen's primitive superseded science. Both are the shoulders of giants we now stand on to see much further than they did instead of just believing what they wrote. That is what science is, shoulders, and most scientists know that whatever they claim today may be superseded someday so there's no point believing what you haven't even tested. It's what Paul did with Christ, stand on the shoulders of those who precede them so they can see further, but you would rather stop at Paul as if he had two heads instead of emulating Paul who emulated Christ in seeking and asking and knocking with their own hearts and souls and minds.

Scientists who believe their science will defend their beliefs like you do, and if everyone had done that you'd have been communicating with me with drums instead of with the amazing technology that science has afforded you so you can direct your voice over the vast distance you currently do.

P.s. I have found it common for Bible believers to disbelieve what they see with their own eyes. Its as if they willfully blind themselves so they can't see, which I see as an insult to Jesus Christ, the great scientific optician one may read about in antiquity that they say they believe in. For what's the need of opening the eyes of those who wilfully refuse to see so they can convince themself that an Adam who surely did not die on the day that he ate thereof died on the day he ate that which he believed would kill him?

You are not only overtly a believer, which by the way is not the same as being religious, you are also vehemently anti-science or you wouldn't be here using the few hoaxes and pseudosciences as your examples of what science actually is and has provided you with.

Superfluous verbosity. I am afraid to to admit you say so much but contradict yourself in the process.

Stop forcing unrelated illustrations from the Bible. They aren’t working out fine. Anyone who understands the Bible a bit will notice that.

If by science here you mean seeking knowledge, then everyone is a scientist. But your understanding of the scriptures is very flawed. The Bible has eternal truth for the believers on the mind of God and his plan for humanity. If that is what you call primitiveness, I guess primitiveness is being re-defined by you. Of course you are wrong even though I won’t expect you to admit it.

It is presumptuous of you to try to profile my take on science and religion when I hadn’t said anything to warrant that. In all this discussion, we were x-raying science and how strictly empirical it’s processes could be. The argument isn’t whether religion applies empiricism in its approaches. Religion doesn’t claim that. So what is your point? That’s strawmanning.

I haven’t even said anything for or against science yet you drew conclusions. That’s the opposite of the image you try to project of yourself.

I don’t think you like science better than I do. I don’t think you are a science enthusiast better than I do. Maybe you have a science background. Fine. We all do. So stop the blank categorization of religious people. You aren’t correctly describing religious people. And that’s an error most people like you commit every time: thinking a religious person will be either religious or scientific. Who says it’s one or the other?

I am surprised that someone of your caliber is blindly arguing about an article that clearly said scientific hoaxes in history. Why does it bother you so much? The keyword is scientific and not religious hoaxes. Let it sink in pls. You may wish to contact the writers of the articles and tell them to change the content and title since you are very uncomfortable with anyone attaching the adjective “scientific “ to hoaxes in history.

LordReed:


Yeah you can have the 5 scientists who say that science has proved god doesn't exist ask me. LMFAO!

So you triangulated yourself in.
You concede science has nothing to say on God and the supernatural. Obviously your godlessness isn’t hinged on your knowledge from science.

Should we say you don’t believe in God not because of anything but out of sheer emotional objections? You have knocked off science from that list. Hope we don’t need 5 scientists to help you out

FreeIgboho:


Fool adage. The butterfly knows he’s not a bird

Tell that to Ola Rotimi in “The Gods are not to blame”.

NovesaTillie:
I moved to this city because of my new job and my neighbors have been very homely and helpful to me especially the ones next flat,a young man and his wife with a kid . They have been very kind to me, sometimes when I get home late from work his wife calls me to join them for dinner and hangouts. M
My issue now is I am beginning to grow fond of the man because of how gentlemanly he treats his wife and how dotting he is of their son. He ticks all the qualities that I dream of and sometimes I just feel like inviting him over to my place when his wife is out to tempt him a little
What can I do to stop this feeling?
I don't want someone else man or to destroy a cute family

Please don't insult me. I am in a relationship though very young relationship. I'm just human admiring someone else.

You can intentionally reduce the contact time with the family and restrict your visits to when the wife is around.

LordReed:


Not going to answer any question of yours when you haven't answered mine.

As if I care.

Maybe you don’t why your don’t believe in God or the supernatural. Obviously it has nothing to do with proofs.

Do I also need 5 scientists to ask you?

budaatum:
My Lord, aren't the Gods just so amazing?

Someone just liked this somewhat relevant post as if to remind me we've been here before discussing science with an individual who can't separate objective science from his subjective religious views.

This is irrelevant to this discussion unless you are making presumptions that I am overtly religious and anti-science .

Surprisingly I haven’t made any defense for or against science. I haven’t also made any defense for religion in our presentations.

If you made such presumptions prematurely, then that’s bad cos it utterly contradicts what you have been struggling to say in our discourse.

LordReed:


I asked but you couldn't supply it so now you've shifted the goalpost. This is your MO, shift goal posts once you realise you are in a bind. Then you try to shift the locus of the discussion to avoid admitting your gaffe.

Provide the 5 scientists that say science has shown god doesn't exist. This is the 3rd straight request without a proper response. LMAO!

1. Some say science had made belief in God and the supernatural unnecessary.

2. Some had said science had buried God

3. Some had said science had disproved God.

4. Some had said God doesn’t exist as they could not test him out with empirical tools.

These 4 cover whatever point you think I had claimed in the course of this discussion.

Are they wrong from your point of view? Which do you like and this is okay?

If you think they are all wrong, is it safe to assume with you that science has not said anything about God and the supernatural or made belief in God unnecessary?

I also asked you why you don’t believe in God.
From your response, science isn’t responsible for your skepticism. What could have informed your decision to not believe in God and the supernatural phenomena?

budaatum:


That's what people say when they can't get their heads around what I do say due to their own subjectivity.

Then you need to check again how you present self-contradictory arguments if I am not the only one noticing it.

budaatum:


I guess this pretty much sums up your view. Its why you also claim "scientist speak for science", as if science speaks.

People interpret Scripture, Nothing. The huge number of pastors subjectively doing so in church is sufficient evidence for this, and it's why Christ is written to have sent you the Comforter so you too can read, understand and interpret Scripture for your very own self just as he did.

Scientist (and pastors, as far as Scripture goes), state their own subjective views which other scientists will subjectively review, but since all scientists can't all share the same subjective view, subjectivity is eventually ironed out by testing. That's why science involves experimentation, as in the testing of claims.

Your phone, your car, your television, the electricity in your house, etc, are all results of objective science. While subjective 'science' is like our untested useless juju.

You will forgive me for stopping here. I've said all I need say on the subject.

Sometimes your illustrations from the scripture appear to be off the point.

You are mixing things up actually.
People study the scriptures and try to offer interpretations. But their interpretations must be viewed in line with what the other scriptures in the Bible are saying.

Isn’t that the issue you failed to grasp when I say scientists often speak for science?

Who are the humans arguing that science had made belief in God and the supernatural impossible or unnecessary? SCIENTISTS.

Who are the humans arguing and concluding God does not exist as they had been unable
to empirically test his existence? SCIENTISTS.

Who defend their position about origin of humans and other living things not sourced from God but from evolution? SCIENTISTS.

But do we have any scientific text that had said anything about God, miracles , the supernatural, morality? None.

Can we say science has said anything here? No we can’t. Are they books and articles and debates championed to support the points above? Yes there are. If science did not say all of the above and yet materials abound on them, who would have made those materials available? HUMAN SCIENTISTS.

budaatum:


Really? Despite the numerous times I've said so myself and provided links to the pseudoscience of the drug and cigarette industries?

Sigh.

You contradicted yourself severally.

Baawaa:

This is more spiritual,
Every bird of darkness assigned to kill me,die in thy mighty name of Jesus

I tell you. How do we explain this one?

Unless the man was mentally unstable.

LordReed:


You like moving goal posts when you discover you are in a bind. You claimed that scientists say that science has proved there is no god, asked to produce evidence of these scientists, now you have changed the music to "science has really said nothing about God, the supernatural and miracles".

We are well aware of the limits of science, you on the other hand are not aware of your own limits.

I have been clear on my responses.

I am surprised you didn’t ask for 5 scientists who had claimed there is no God and the supernatural based on science. I am actually suprised. So no need for 5 scientists this time around.

So you mean there are limits in sciences?
What are the limitations of sciences?

I am wondering the basis for your godlessness and skeptical worldview. Do you mind telling us why you don’t believe in God and the supernatural.

budaatum:

No sir, I have not contradicted myself at all. It is you who mixes the objective scientific method which has not changed, with the ever changing subjectivity of individual scientists, which is ironed out by objectively testing what the scientist comes up with. That's the purpose of falsifiability and peer reviews

A good scientist will repeat experiments and keep a record of their method as well as their results so others may test their claim. No serious scientist would respect them if they don't

Its like if you perform the drop cup experiment, I can read your method and perform the same experiment to test if I get the same result you got. And if your result is based on your own subjective input, I'm likely to come to different results because there's no way for me to replicate your own subjectivity.


No one speaks for science! Scientists speak for themselves just as religious people state their own subjective understanding.

Thankfully, in science, we tend to eventually separate the wheat from the chaff.


I posted two examples of bias in science due to funding. Science is done by humans, and no one is claiming they are perfect beings. Their bias will be discovered however when their 'science' fails as it rightly would.


That human element, the subject, can not help being subjective, and that is why independent peers review their work.

A scientist, for instance, may come up with a cure for cancer that is based on subjective error (for that's what it would be), but when reviewed that cure will fail because no scientist will be able to replicate said cure.


You are talking about the hoaxes you presented, likely, and not science. You can't claim to be doing science and allow biases and arbitrariness to come in. Your peers will see it and throw your science in the bin, and you yourself will abandon your supposed 'science' when you find it does not work. Just try making a phone or build a house on bias and arbitrariness and let me know whom you sell it to. And God help us if you decide to perform brain surgery based on biased and arbitrary science. You'd end up in jail for murder!


Spiritual death, lol. The famous wuruwuru to a preferred answer that blinds one to what one clearly sees. You are going to have to find it in you to forgive my inability to accept such bias and arbitrariness. My scientific use of my Jesus endowed senses make me immune to such nonsense.

If you aren’t comfortable with the Pauline writings in the book of Romans on death that came as a result of the moral failure of Adam and life that came through Jesus Christ, then you shouldn’t appeal to the Adamic death in Genesis. Scripture interprets scriptures.

The title of the article was scientific hoaxes in history. If you like twist the arguments all you like, the article is about frauds that happened in science, not in philosophy or in religion or in economics. Just like the arguments are going on in Quantum physics, if tomorrow we get breakthroughs on what to believe in , the scientists will take the glory and the records will go into the annals. But because those backfired even though people believed in them for many years, it has become distasteful to you. No. You don’t twist facts before us.

Peer reviews may reduce the elements of subjectivity but cannot completely rule them out esp where there are gray areas on various outcomes and where philosophical or moral arguments might apply in the application of the research findings. It happens. It will still happen. Why? Because simply describes what it SEES NOW. Once the conditions of nature or tools change tomorrow, the scientist will observe and DESCRIBE another thing they see.
They use objective and empirical methods to describe but with interference from human subjectivity.

Perhaps you failed to understand that scientists all the time speak for science. Scientists all the time wrote scientific journals , articles and texts that shape the works and beliefs of so many other younger scientists who may not have the wherewithal to read-work and reconfirm what they had done earlier, scientists all the time speak for science in defense of their results.
Science does not speak. Scientists speak based on what they observe and describe at any point in time.

We have so many influential scientists who speak and have been speaking and will continue to write and speak.

“Evolutionists ... have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Richard Lewontin

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Richard Lewontin

“The social scientist is in a difficult, if not impossible position. On the one hand there is the temptation to see all of society as one's autobiography writ large, surely not the path to general truth. On the other hand, there is the attempt to be general and objective by pretending that one knows nothing about the experience of being human, forcing the investigator to pretend that people usually know and tell the truth about important issues, when we all know from our own lives how impossible that is.”

Richard Lewontin

Crystyano:


The chimpanzee thinks himself a human being

When next you see people engaging in an important discussion, you don’t really have to join if you have nothing to say. Just sit it and watch by the sidelines. Your time will come to make an input.

You just filled up that response with superfluous verbiage with less to no content and relevance to issue at discourse.

Just so you know, they said chimpanzees share common ancestry (DNAs) with humans. So your adage made no sense.

LordReed:


Yeah please tell me 5 scientists that say science has shown god doesn't exist.

Very characteristic of you.
5 scientists who think so?

So do we agree that science has really said nothing about God, the supernatural and miracles? Or do I also need 5 scientists to confirm this?

LordReed:


Can you name these scientists who claimed so or it this another of your claims that has no support?

You aren’t aware so many skeptical scientists think and say science had made belief in God unnecessary? Or that science has shown God doesn’t exist? You aren’t aware or you will be aware after I point out 5 scientists who expressed such views?

budaatum:

Better to try and fail than to not try at all, and those who don't try end up depending on those who do.

You just you look around you and see how many things those who put in the effort have created for you to purchase and use. Your car, phone, computer, electricity, medical procedures - God forbid you are unfortunate enough to need any - plus all the equipment that would be used for said procedure, were created by those who put in the effort while we Nigerians don't put in enough effort and so end up paying those who do.

Again you miss the point.

“Better to try and fail than not to try at all...” sounds more like using scientific tools to DESCRIBE our natural world based on how WE PERCEIVE IT AT THE MOMENT.

That is not strictly empirical. That’s like saying “ we will do our best with what is available to us at the moment so we can make progress and make amends later.

You just don’t want to concede there are elements of arbitrariness and human influences in choice of varied scientific outcomes with subjective minds.

The texts and articles have said it. But you keep arguing.
You have tried extricate scientists from science and asked the difference between what science says and what scientists say.

What is the difference between what science says in science texts and articles and what scientists TELL US science is saying.

Are all the books, texts, articles, journals we read not results of scientific opinions of scientists?

budaatum:

Like claiming "surely die" is spiritual death?
I get you.

O Lord God Almighty, please let my spiritual death be as productive as the spiritual death of Adam and Eve, in Jesus Mighty Name, amen.

If I spiritually die and then go on to live for a tenth as long as we read they went on to live, and achieve a billionth of what we read they they went on to achieve, I think Nigeria and probably the entire world will make me at least a minor god, though I'd have to insist they don't bow down and worship me but just do greater things than I would have done.

No. This actually what I had in mind.
You twisting something clear before us all isn’t how objectivity is done.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭5:20‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/isa.5.20.ampc

Crystyano:




Honestly,

I think your 'back and forth' with budaatum and XYZ remain baseless

In other words,
You are basically repeating the same thing but budaatum keeps showing unwillingness to consider it reasonable....


It's like you're trying to fetch water with a basket....

budaatum could have summarized it with YOU ARE WRONG.....


But it seems YOU ARE WRONG wouldn't be enough to stop you....



Does it even matter??



Your analogies have been ineffective....


You can never convince budaatum, who goes as far as turning the Bible upside down in order to show that buda has a mind, with your repetitions.....


Neither can you convince me that questions your questions ........


Repetitions don't show correctness so don't be so proud of yours.....


Determine what is right to you and stop asking useless questions so that the people reading your posts won't regret reading them.....


FreeIgboho once did something similar saying he's not sure of his own existence...

Later,he claimed to have TAUGHT LordReed and every other person that met him on Nairaland how nothing is certain....



Anyone can vomit anything and call it whatever it could be called BUT that won't make the person special.....




Ultimately, I dispose as many utterances as possible everyday.......

The butterfly thinks himself a bird....

~An African adage~

budaatum:


I think you are the one who hears this because you are incapable of separating your subjective hearing from that which is objective. Its common with religious people to think scientist use words like religious folks do. They don't realise that their religious subjective lens blinds them to scientific objectivity.

Personally, even reading the Bible should be done objectively. It is what Christ meant where he is written to have said, "unless you become as a child". Basically, if you do not abandon your subjective beliefs you can't understand that which is of God's Kingdom, and would end up a mere believer instead of one who understands the God book they read.

You'd see me refering to ignorant Adam who believed he would surely die on the day he ate of the fruit he was forbidden to eat. And despite the fact that he lived an extra 800 or so years after eating it, many still believe he did surely die on the day that he ate it.

I personally can not help be amused that so many refuse to accept what they can clearly see and read for themselves. Unfortunately, such ignorance is precisely why the average life expectancy in nations full of such people is much shorter than in countries full of people who use their own senses to ask and knock and seek.

You are contradicting yourself.
You mentioned in one of your responses that the beauty of science was the falsability component that allows ideas and theories change over time with better and superior outcomes. How objective and empirical are the objectivity of scientific methods if they change every now and then?

Do you deny human scientists speak for science or you think it is religious people who speak for science?

Do you deny biases that come with funding in sciences? Do you deny biases that come with worldviews? Do you deny biases that come from even peer reviews?

I have not condemned the scientific approaches and the great work science had done. I have simply pointed out that the human elements in science sometimes are not objectively objective and empirical. Biases and arbitrariness come in. And these are shared with the public but could be discovered after a few years or even many years and then falsified. Punishments are meted by ethical committes and the process goes on again.

Just like you pointed out in Adam not getting the implications of the spiritual death God talked about and the ultimate death at the end of the day, scientists notice blunders, falsify them and forge ahead after learning a lesson or two.


“Yet death held sway from Adam to Moses [the Lawgiver], even over those who did not themselves transgress [a positive command] as Adam did. Adam was a type (prefigure) of the One Who was to come [in reverse, the former destructive, the Latter saving]. [Gen. 5:5; 7:22; Deut. 34:5.] For if because of one man's trespass (lapse, offense) death reigned through that one, much more surely will those who receive [God's] overflowing grace (unmerited favor) and the free gift of righteousness [putting them into right standing with Himself] reign as kings in life through the one Man Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One). Well then, as one man's trespass [one man's false step and falling away led] to condemnation for all men, so one Man's act of righteousness [leads] to acquittal and right standing with God and life for all men. For just as by one man's disobedience (failing to hear, heedlessness, and carelessness) the many were constituted sinners, so by one Man's obedience the many will be constituted righteous (made acceptable to God, brought into right standing with Him). But then Law came in, [only] to expand and increase the trespass [making it more apparent and exciting opposition]. But where sin increased and abounded, grace (God's unmerited favor) has surpassed it and increased the more and superabounded, So that, [just] as sin has reigned in death, [so] grace (His unearned and undeserved favor) might reign also through righteousness (right standing with God) which issues in eternal life through Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) our Lord.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭5:14, 17-21‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/rom.5.14,17-21.ampc

budaatum:


And yet, scientist keep discovering new things that build and sometimes supersede what they previously did know.

Perhaps go read about Aelius Galenus. A lot of what he thought to be true has since been superseded and proven to be wrong, but his contributions to medicine are still recognised though not believed.

You have the full text of that article.
You could read further.

Scientists have bitterly argued about which methods are the best, and, as we all know, bitter arguments rarely get resolved.
In my view, the biggest mistake scientists make is to claim that this is all somehow simple and therefore to imply that anyone who doesn't get it is a dunce. Science is not simple, and neither is the natural world; therein lies the challenge of science communication. What we do is both hard and, often, hard to explain. Our efforts to understand and characterize the natural world are just that: efforts. Because we're human, we often fall flat. The good news is that when that happens, we pick ourselves up, brush ourselves off, and get back to work. That's no different from professional skiers who wipe out in major races or inventors whose early aspirations go bust. Understanding the beautiful, complex world we live in, and using that knowledge to do useful things, is both its own reward and why taxpayers should be happy to fund research.
Scientific theories are not perfect replicas of reality, but we have good reason to believe that they capture significant elements of it. And experience reminds us that when we ignore reality, it sooner or later comes back to bite us.

budaatum:


That does not mean science is all fraud, Nothing. Its like say an article were titled fraud in church or religion. You would not be here claiming church or religion is fraud, I hope.

Stop the strawmanning here pls.

The article is clear on TOP 10 FRAUDS in science.

I see you like Bible quotes. Isaiah said something about people who see something and called it something else.

Top 10 frauds in science isn’t same as ALL SCIENCE IS FRAUD.

Crystyano:



Nothing is okay since you think I'm playing games...


I want to understand you but you're turning my statements upside down...

I have said so many things.
I have replied you with additional facts.
You have seen the conversation going on within the thread.
I guess you already understand the discourse.
I don’t really know what you want me to type again here.

Please pardon me if you think I misunderstand you. No vex abeg

budaatum:




Do I seriously need to read any further than the first paragraph when it is only repeating what I've repeatedly said here already?

Go read a Gospel. You'd find Jesus was repeatedly arguing with believers who were unwilling to reconsider and scrutinize their beliefs and rejects old ideas, hoaxes and myths. He so threatened them with his superior knowledge gained from his own willingness to reconsider and scrutinize (become as a child and ask and knock and seek), that they spat on him and nailed him to two by fours and stabbed him in the side till he died.

You don’t have to go further than that.
I have stressed it over and again that what we call strict empirical data has elements of human interventions, whims, errors, prejudices, philosophical worldview that affect how scientists carry out their observations.

That is why errors are easily spotted even within a few years and falsified.

I have never said scientific theories were cast on stone. I had always maintained science had done very well in helping us TRY to understand a little about the universe.

If science were strictly empirical and objective, there would be no need to falsify every now and then. Murder is murder always. Rape is rape always. Kidnapping is kidnapping always. Genocide is genocide always. Terrorism is terrorism always. But we have been taught so many things about the nature of the atom and electrons with debates still raging.
Matter and energy debates have raged on: discrete packets, quanta, continuous waves, dual nature etc.
If everyone were strictly seeing same thing and if the matter had not changed, why should most people see different things?

Perhaps because the observations were really not objective, or the equipments used are different. If the equipment are different, then it implies with different equipment tomorrow, we would see a different picture while the matter perhaps had not changed.

budaatum:


I am saying the frauds are not science! Not one credible scientist could have possibly accepted any of them as scientific facts for long.

You are however welcome to show me scientists who did, after all, scientist me is unlikely to believe you and will require facts and evidence that I can verify gor myself.

But the title and the article is on frauds in science.

What should that article be on? Fraud in sports? In religion? In politics? In science.
Why are you debating this?

So give us an alternative theme for the article.

budaatum:


Science and scientists are not one and the same thing, and using bad scientists to judge science is just plain lazy. Its the equivalent of using bad pastors to judge the Bible.

As some bad pastors have made the Bible a bad book and created opposers, so have some bad scientists given science a bad rap. I mean, see you disregarding all the achievements of science to concentrate on a few hoaxes while using the same scientific achievements to communicate it!

Have you not got electricity in your home, Nothing, and are you beating a drum to communicate with me over the long distance you are communicating over?

Science that is not empirical and objective is not science. If you build a house with it the rain will fall and the floods will come and the winds will blow and beat on your house and it will indeed fall because you had founded it on sand! Even faith that is not verified is useless, and those who have such faith tremble like demons.

Has science ever said anything ?
Has science ever spoken on God, religion, morality, miracles?
All the time secular scientists makes claims how science had disproved God?

Theists scientists also speak and say how science support the Bible.

Who are these scientists speaking?

Aren’t they same scientists that write the texts we read as science and form our opinions and further studies?

Is evolution not in our science texts? Wasn’t it an idea of human scientist?

Scientists will always speak as if science had said anything. It is same scientists who will come back years later to falsify what was originally empirical and objective.

Should empirical and strictly objective science change over time? Like the arguments in Quantum Physics and the nature of matter and energy.


From what I see here, science has been very helpful to humans but moral and religious issues seem to be more eternal and hardly change overtime.