Drich is now arguing physics? Dude, go back to your fucking Bible.

(October 31, 2016 at 2:04 pm)Drich Wrote: That's crap. Let look at the scientific method.
In step number 3 you are to formulate a hypothesis and step 4 you are develop testable predictions BASED ON YOUR HYPOTHESIS! That my friend is the definition of a self fulfilling prophesy.

That would kind of make sense, maybe, IF you weren't leaving out the final step, peer review.  That's the step where you release your theory to the world and a bunch of people who can make a name for themselves by tearing yours to shreds go over it for validity.  There's no glory for the scientist who says, "Yep.  He was right.  Wish I'd thought of it."  There IS, however, incentive to say, "That guy is stupid.  I checked his results and they aren't right, making me smarter than him."

(November 2, 2016 at 11:10 am)Irrational Wrote: Drich is now arguing physics? Dude, go back to your fucking Bible.

Oh he does, always, to find whichever bits support where he wants to go.  That way, when he turns it all over to the lord, he is sure of getting where he wants to go anyhow.  We're so lucky to have regular access to his brand of spiritual guidance.[/s]

(November 2, 2016 at 11:16 am)Asmodee Wrote:

(October 31, 2016 at 2:04 pm)Drich Wrote: That's crap. Let look at the scientific method.
In step number 3 you are to formulate a hypothesis and step 4 you are develop testable predictions BASED ON YOUR HYPOTHESIS! That my friend is the definition of a self fulfilling prophesy.

That would kind of make sense, maybe, IF you weren't leaving out the final step, peer review.  That's the step where you release your theory to the world and a bunch of people who can make a name for themselves by tearing yours to shreds go over it for validity.  There's no glory for the scientist who says, "Yep.  He was right.  Wish I'd thought of it."  There IS, however, incentive to say, "That guy is stupid.  I checked his results and they aren't right, making me smarter than him."

In addition, it's not even true that what Drich is referring to is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would the predictions be tested at all if that was the case? Might as well just formulate a "hypothesis" and then look for whatever "evidence" to confirm it.

(November 1, 2016 at 9:43 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I notice the more time I spend on AF the more theists avoid me.

I'm clearly scary to those with poor reasoning.

We 'avoid' you because your posts are typically constructed on the 'Yah-huh/nut-huh' debate structure. Or you just snipe comments.. meaning there is nothing to say to a snarky passing quip.

Look at this post.

The discussion is about faith in science, or a broader topic atheism is a type of religious belief...

Now look at the quoted bit from you..

Out of all the things you could have said you choose to celebrate yourself and your perceived debating skill.. (Rather than show it by speaking topically)

Outside of calling you out and making fun of you for your "skill" i ask you what are theist supposed to say if your not speaking topically?

If you can't come up with anything we are supposed to say, then know you are where we normally are after reading one of your posts..

so know, it is more out of mercy that we let you say what you will, not fear.

I mean seriously look at the line of your peers and the end parade of insults they offer. what is one more clown in the circus?

(November 2, 2016 at 11:10 am)Irrational Wrote: Drich is now arguing physics? Dude, go back to your fucking Bible.

I'm arguing articles and news headlines while pointing out facts a child could see, that you all seem to be missing. which makes 'smart guys' look not so 'smart.'

No wonder you want me off topic.

(November 2, 2016 at 11:16 am)Asmodee Wrote:

(October 31, 2016 at 2:04 pm)Drich Wrote: That's crap. Let look at the scientific method.
In step number 3 you are to formulate a hypothesis and step 4 you are develop testable predictions BASED ON YOUR HYPOTHESIS! That my friend is the definition of a self fulfilling prophesy.

That would kind of make sense, maybe, IF you weren't leaving out the final step, peer review.  That's the step where you release your theory to the world and a bunch of people who can make a name for themselves by tearing yours to shreds go over it for validity.  There's no glory for the scientist who says, "Yep.  He was right.  Wish I'd thought of it."  There IS, however, incentive to say, "That guy is stupid.  I checked his results and they aren't right, making me smarter than him."

Oh, my glob...

Ok I get peer review. Let's for the sake of argument, that just for this one post, you elevate me to someone as smart as you.. Now assume i understand the scientific method as well as you do/explain it here.

Now if you have such an open mind ask yourself now, what am I still 'on' about, if I understand and accept what you had to say here...

In a nut shell what I am saying is there is common everyday scientific 'stuff' that high schoolers can muddle around with in class. Then there is highly technical stuff that makes modern life possible, that makes your cell phone work that connects the interwebs and puts rockets on mars, ect.. Finally there is the fringe science stuff/top shelf theoretical science stuff that one a hand full of people on the planet understand. What worse this process of peer review is further reduced because the equipment needed to generate the raw data needed to support these theories are literally one of a kinda. Meaning there is only one Hadrian supercolider on the planet. There is only one telescope designed to locate black holes on the edge of our universe there is only one mars probe currently able to scan for evidence of life.

All of that means we only have one data point to explain the origins of the universe. All that it is, and all that it is made of. That is the big picture of what you are doing when you say the big bang is the origins of Bla bla bla..

So here is a Review on what we have so far: you have a single point of data collection/one super colider, one black hole telescope ect.. (which is insane as No other industry can make claims to their theories from one singular perspective yet make a universal claim that the whole world will believe without question)

You have a hand full of people on the planet who can interpret the data

You have examples of corruption in the claims made from CERN that were a year latter refuted

yet you think you are getting the same level or type of 'peer review' as you do with a high school level experiment?

Seriously?!!?

The whole scientific process bottle necks when the equipment used to formulate and verify theory becomes a billion dollar venture.

Meaning little to no peer review.

Which leads us to the second half of the discussion with the CERN scientists claiming to have found the Higgs Boson particle and it took a year for a 'peer' to object to their findings.. Long enough for the people who came up with the H/B theory to win a nobel prize...

Do you see it yet? can you see what I am 'on' about?

Science on the fringe level is so easily corruptible.
no or very little over sight, and is money/billions upon billions of dollars driven. Never a good combination.

Which brings up back to my statement that it takes as much faith to believe in 'fringe science' as it does to believe in God, if not more, when corruption is found on the higher levels/at the source of the data that supports theories like the big bang.

Drich... why are you here? Why do you post on AF?

(November 2, 2016 at 11:22 am)Irrational Wrote:

(November 2, 2016 at 11:16 am)Asmodee Wrote: That would kind of make sense, maybe, IF you weren't leaving out the final step, peer review.  That's the step where you release your theory to the world and a bunch of people who can make a name for themselves by tearing yours to shreds go over it for validity.  There's no glory for the scientist who says, "Yep.  He was right.  Wish I'd thought of it."  There IS, however, incentive to say, "That guy is stupid.  I checked his results and they aren't right, making me smarter than him."

In addition, it's not even true that what Drich is referring to is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would the predictions be tested at all if that was the case? Might as well just formulate a "hypothesis" and then look for whatever "evidence" to confirm it.

the higgs/boson theroy was formulated in the 1960s fast forward nearly 50 years of doing that very thing (searching for anything they could use to support it) several billion dollars was spent building the hadron colider and a billion more will be spent to keep chasing this pig in a poke particle.

Not to mention after the accelerator was built, the Cern 'scientist' took took a phenoma that could be used to verify the H/B but also several other theories of other particles and out right lied it was definitive proof of the H/B to further their research. they even fooled the Nobel Prize committee into issuing a Nobel prize to the guys from the 1960s who came up with the theory, based on what the Cern scientists claimed they found!!!

What You mocking said in your quoted post, was in real life fleshed out by the scientist who are supposedly providing evidence to support the big bang...

They literally had a theory and collected evidence to support it, and tried to play down the fact that said evidence could be used to support several others.