(October 4, 2017 at 2:03 pm)Drich Wrote: Science is the study of what we understand and can duplicate. true but science is also an excersice in faith. (theories based on theories based on evidence that may or may not support anything theorized to date.

The reason science and faith have been separated is because 'scientists' Simply WANT to feel more legit than those of "common faith in God." But in the end scientific origins like any YEC version of origins is a demonstration in the same core faith.

No, it is not. Religious faith is nothing of the kind, because science has supporting evidence, where religion does not.  And how is "common faith in god" legit?  Because it's common?  I know it makes you feel good to try to drag science down to the level of the blindly religious, but it doesn't work with thinking people.

(October 4, 2017 at 8:31 am)Khemikal Wrote: Care to present a single example of an immortal consciousness.....or any reference to an immortal consciousness evolving ....anywhere....... in all of evolutionary biology?

Here Khem.

Look at this picture carefully and tell me if you can see a dead consciousness next to the dead body?






Now about biology Khem.
Apparently biology relate to the study of life and living organisms, including their physical and chemical structure, function, development and evolution which of course has nothing to do with consciousness which by nature is not of physical nature.  

Got it now?  

The absence of consciousness after death does not automatically mean it floated off somewhere.
Rather, it simply ceases to exist.

(October 5, 2017 at 7:39 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(October 4, 2017 at 2:03 pm)Drich Wrote: Science is the study of what we understand and can duplicate. true but science is also an excersice in faith. (theories based on theories based on evidence that may or may not support anything theorized to date.

The reason science and faith have been separated is because 'scientists' Simply WANT to feel more legit than those of "common faith in God." But in the end scientific origins like any YEC version of origins is a demonstration in the same core faith.

No, it is not. Religious faith is nothing of the kind, because science has supporting evidence, where religion does not.  And how is "common faith in god" legit?  Because it's common?  I know it makes you feel good to try to drag science down to the level of the blindly religious, but it doesn't work with thinking people.

That is bizarre Harry.
Someone say that evidence is not proof.
Now is all getting very complicated.  


In science …

Everything’s a theory.

Proof doesn’t exist.

Nothing is certain.

http://theconversation.com/forget-what-y...-thing-578





color mine

(October 5, 2017 at 9:06 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(October 4, 2017 at 8:31 am)Khemikal Wrote: Care to present a single example of an immortal consciousness.....or any reference to an immortal consciousness evolving ....anywhere....... in all of evolutionary biology?

Here Khem.

Look at this picture carefully and tell me if you can see a dead consciousness next to the dead body?

So that's a no, then?  

Quote:Now about biology Khem.
Apparently biology relate to the study of life and living organisms, including their physical and chemical structure, function, development and evolution which of course has nothing to do with consciousness which by nature is not of physical nature.  

Got it now?  

Can you provide a single example of a consciousness which is not of a physical nature?

(October 5, 2017 at 9:08 am)Lutrinae Wrote: The absence of consciousness after death does not automatically mean it floated off somewhere.
Rather, it simply ceases to exist.

Science contradict you Lut.
Nothing ceases to exist in nature especially something so so evolved such as the consciousness, beside science also tell us that nothing come from nothing so when a plant, or an animal or a human being come in this world it, he or she must come from somewhere.  

---

(October 5, 2017 at 9:17 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(October 5, 2017 at 9:06 am)Little Rik Wrote: Here Khem.

Look at this picture carefully and tell me if you can see a dead consciousness next to the dead body?

So that's a no, then?

Wrong once again Khem.
The fact that you can not see anywhere a dead consciousness next to a dead body clearly means that the consciousness is immortal.  

Quote:Now about biology Khem.
Apparently biology relate to the study of life and living organisms, including their physical and chemical structure, function, development and evolution which of course has nothing to do with consciousness which by nature is not of physical nature.  

Got it now?  

Quote:Can you provide a single example of a consciousness which is not of a physical nature?

Obviously you toss sentences after sentences without even thinking what the hell you are talking about.

It would be like saying..............Can you provide a single example of a a driver that is not of a vehicle nature.
Since when the driver is of the vehicle nature and since when the consciousness which is abstract by nature is of a physical nature?  

(October 5, 2017 at 9:14 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(October 5, 2017 at 7:39 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: No, it is not. Religious faith is nothing of the kind, because science has supporting evidence, where religion does not.  And how is "common faith in god" legit?  Because it's common?  I know it makes you feel good to try to drag science down to the level of the blindly religious, but it doesn't work with thinking people.

That is bizarre Harry.
Someone say that evidence is not proof.
Now is all getting very complicated.  


In science …

Everything’s a theory.

Proof doesn’t exist.

Nothing is certain.

http://theconversation.com/forget-what-y...-thing-578





color mine

It's not bizarre. It's not complicated.

'Theory' in science doesn't mean the same thing as it usually means in informal conversation. Your linked article fudges that distinction when it says that all ideas in science are "theories". That's not strictly correct. The author seems to be using the everyday, informal sense of the word to underscore the tentative nature of scientific ideas.

Proof is not something that science supplies except only in the sloppy, everyday use of the word in informal settings. Properly speaking, 'proof' is provided in mathematics and logic -- not science.

'Nothing is certain' is a sloppy way of saying that all ideas/theories in science are tentative, pending further evidence that might falsify them or cause a re-evaluation of the way we think about them. Tentativity: that splinter of honesty that all dogmatists like you seem to lack.

(October 5, 2017 at 10:31 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(October 5, 2017 at 9:14 am)Little Rik Wrote: That is bizarre Harry.
Someone say that evidence is not proof.
Now is all getting very complicated.  


In science …

Everything’s a theory.

Proof doesn’t exist.

Nothing is certain.

http://theconversation.com/forget-what-y...-thing-578





color mine

It's not bizarre. It's not complicated.

'Theory' in science doesn't mean the same thing as it usually means in informal conversation. Your linked article fudges that distinction when it says that all ideas in science are "theories". That's not strictly correct. The author seems to be using the everyday, informal sense of the word to underscore the tentative nature of scientific ideas.

Proof is not something that science supplies except only in the sloppy, everyday use of the word in informal settings. Properly speaking, 'proof' is provided in mathematics and logic -- not science.

'Nothing is certain' is a sloppy way of saying that all ideas/theories in science are tentative, pending further evidence that might falsify them or cause a re-evaluation of the way we think about them. Tentativity: that splinter of honesty that all dogmatists like you seem to lack.

The rule of the game within this physical universe is that everything move and change so what make sense today will be cast in the rubbish bin of history tomorrow that is why atheism that rely on physical science is based on pure fantasy.  

(October 5, 2017 at 11:12 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(October 5, 2017 at 10:31 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote: It's not bizarre. It's not complicated.

'Theory' in science doesn't mean the same thing as it usually means in informal conversation. Your linked article fudges that distinction when it says that all ideas in science are "theories". That's not strictly correct. The author seems to be using the everyday, informal sense of the word to underscore the tentative nature of scientific ideas.

Proof is not something that science supplies except only in the sloppy, everyday use of the word in informal settings. Properly speaking, 'proof' is provided in mathematics and logic -- not science.

'Nothing is certain' is a sloppy way of saying that all ideas/theories in science are tentative, pending further evidence that might falsify them or cause a re-evaluation of the way we think about them. Tentativity: that splinter of honesty that all dogmatists like you seem to lack.

The rule of the game within this physical universe is that everything move and change so what make sense today will be cast in the rubbish bin of history tomorrow that is why atheism that rely on physical science is  based on pure fantasy.  

So you're yet another theist who doesn't understand the difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. No surprise there.

And you're beyond imbecilic if your takeaway from the tentative nature of science is that it is therefore 'pure fantasy'.

But we already knew that about you.

(October 5, 2017 at 11:34 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(October 5, 2017 at 11:12 am)Little Rik Wrote: The rule of the game within this physical universe is that everything move and change so what make sense today will be cast in the rubbish bin of history tomorrow that is why atheism that rely on physical science is  based on pure fantasy.  

So you're yet another theist who doesn't understand the difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. No surprise there.

And you're beyond imbecilic if your takeaway from the tentative nature of science is that it is therefore 'pure fantasy'.

But we already knew that about you.

Wrong again Cross.  

There is no need for getting all these intellectual jargon of .......... metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism in the way.
My understanding of what exist is so so much more simple.

First there is the physical reality and physical science job is to study and find out this particular reality.
Second there is the non-physical reality which physical science can not study.
For this second reality we need a different type of science better known as intuitional science.

As the consciousness is NOT of physical nature come natural that physical science can not possibly study it.
Atheists unfortunately got the demented idea that consciousness is a product of the brain so physical science suppose to be able to study it.

Never mind Cross.
Unfortunately in this life you sunk in a sea of dogmas and fantasies but if you are smart maybe in the next life time you may be able to wake up and grow up and start the way up to human emancipation by developing your consciousness awareness.
Good luck.