Pages
SETI@home is a scientific experiment that uses Internet-connected computers in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). You can participate by running a free program that downloads and analyzes radio telescope data.
I am a Christian. I believe in God. I believe he created the Universe. I believe His fingerprints are all over it.
However, I am inclined to believe that ID is not science, as it can never irrefutably find a first cause. Therefore, even if Scientists found actual fingerprints of God, and then found God sitting in a Laboratory up behind Mars, they still wouldn’t be able to know He was the real God, other than by faith.
Does that make sense?
I think God had some wisdom for us to learn in structuring things in such a way that we must accept things on faith.
I think it has to do with Free Will.
If we actually knew the Truth then we would have no choice, would we?
That’s the way Muslims think.
Even with the words in the Bible, we are never quite sure how to apply them. Murder is a sin, but killing is not. So, when we kill in war, is it murder, or is it justified killing? We think we know, but ultimately, we do not.
So, we have to make a choice based on Faith.
I am a Christian and also a scientist by training…
I think it is quite possible for scientists to detect the works of G-d.
GOD’S WORD� Translation (�1995)
From the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse.
CSI is able to detect the trails left by murderers and criminals and pinpoint the likely suspects by using science.
The problem is that the issue of G-d in science is OFF the table. And the scientific consensus is that they want it to remain that way.
re: #1 Pastorius
I don’t think evolution can or will indisputably discover a first cause either, although the theory of this first cause is taught in and as science today, without any proof, except the hope that someday in the future it will all be proven correct.
I don’t see any difference between that and ID, both are hoping to be proven correct in the future, yet ID only gets branded as non-science, while the other gets a free pass. Granted that ID will never prove the existence of God, but I think it can easily prove the existence of intelligent design.
Just as these scientist at Berkeley believe that can prove intelligent life exists by hearing certain patterns in background space noise, now why is this not considered a non-science, they cant possibly follow the “scientific method” and wont be able to test what they record. Astronomy is based only on observations and conclusions. Yet its considered a science.
I am not looking for science to replace what I accept by faith, like you said, it wouldn’t be faith after that and our freewill would not free.
re: #2 Psaturn
The problem is that the issue of G-d in science is OFF the table. And the scientific consensus is that they want it to remain that way.
That is it in a nutshell.
My feeling is, ID is on the right track or “scientific consensus” wouldn’t be so up in arms about it.
Dogmatic science is non-science. Science is skeptical by its very nature, when it is not, it ceases to be science anymore and it becomes a philosophy which is what evolution is.
re: #4 DownRightMeanAmerican
they cant possibly follow the “scientific method” and wont be able to test what they record.
Sure they can. What makes you say they couldn’t?
BTW, the the only thing the scientific consensus is up in arms about is the fact that a meme can spread like wildfire that proof of ID has been already been obtained by science, when it has not.
Tell me what you would do that would put God back into science. Be specific. How would you prove that God exists via experiments? Tell me. And if you don’t know, then describe (without googling) some experiments that ID’ers have done that proved anything- Okay, go ahead and google, you still won’t be able to find any.
re: #5 claire
Ok, if you can first explain how a palaeontologist uses the “scientific method” and how the experiments with the planets turned out.
Then explain how an astronomer also uses the same “scientific method” and how he experiments with dead stuff, how did those workout?
And you will see how these scientist are in the same boat.
re: #5 claire
Oh, and thanks for the permission for me to google, man without your permission I don’t know what I would do.
re: #6 DownRightMeanAmerican
The methods used and achievements made in the fields of paleontology and astronomy are extremely well documented. Are you really so ignorant as to object to scientific methodology in astronomy because it uses “dead stuff”?
re: #8 FoolsMate
Its paleontology that uses dead stuff (fossils), not astronomy, they study the planets and such.
All I was pointing out was the “scientific method” as commonly believed being “hypothesis-experiment-conclusion” does not apply to all sciences as I think Claire was trying to claim.
Paleontology and astronomy are based upon observation and I am not claiming that these achievements are somehow less then because they didn’t follow some misconstrued idea of the scientific method.
With regard to the article, lets just say they find some noise patterns. What experiment would prove its what they suspected?
Medical science is also extremely well documented, most likely better than those mentioned hereinabove, yet they suggest you get more than one opinion, I wonder why?
Science cant be wrong, cause scientific methodology doesn’t allow for human fallibility or bias, right?
I am not going to explain the scientific method. Nor am I going to answer your questions or comments, which, frankly, illustrate that you lack even a basic understanding of the scientific method, astronomy, paleontology or medical science. Yet you are sitting in judgment over the scientific methodologies of not one, not two, but three entire fields of science. Absurd!
re: #6 DownRightMeanAmerican
Good Lord, but you are ignorant.
“hypothesis-experiment-conclusion& rdquo; does not apply to all sciences as I think Claire was trying to claim.
Of course it does, by definition.
I see we are going to have to start with the basics with you. Read these links in order. But you must possess a kernal of genuine curiosity, and the fortitude to make it through 3 whole articles without wimping out to understand the basics here. I know, I know, it’s hard. Take a break for cheetos and a coke 1/2 way through- You can do it- I know you can!
The Electromagnetic Spectrum
Fundamentals of Astronomy
Seti- signal detection
Then we’ll have a little test to see if you were able to find a few sentences that illustrate how the scientific method is used in astronomy and how alien signals could be detected. You know, it is a sign of the uneducated to think that if you can’t possibly imagine a way for something to occur, that everybody else on earth is just as stupid and hasn’t been able to either. An education can at least give one some inkling of what you know and far more importantly, what you do not yet know, which is vast. You, on the other hand have no idea of what’s even out there to explore. Educate yourself, Man!
BTW, that whole “planet” and “paleontology” thang is working out just grand, thanks for asking, lol.
re: #10 FoolsMate
Absurd indeed.
You continually miss the point either on purpose or because I am really bad at making my point, I suspect the former, then you accuse me of things I never said.
“The scientific method”, is specific by the wording and only refers to the one I mentioned and even laid out, it does not refer to any and all methods that a scientist may use to problem solve.
If I am referring to any and all methods, I would say “scientific methods”, it would not have the word “the” in front of it which makes a big difference, something you cant seem to grasp and that’s the whole problem.
re: #11 claire
Pseudo-pedia. Its notoriously false and misleading, they also employed at least on person with fake credentials.
You really need some higher standards.
There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of “hypothesis-experiment-conclusion.” Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don’t perform Paleontology experiments…
Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method ExistsThe notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.
One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.
Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.
Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science.
W. McComas 1996
Interesting that scientists would solve problems just like the rest of us.
But maybe your right, maybe I am ignorant and just to uneducated to understand.
ID is not a “real science” according to the proponents of evolution, so what else is not “real science”?
Is cognitive science a misnomer?
Is political science a misnomer?
Is social science a misnomer?
Is behavioral science a misnomer?
Is military science a misnomer?
Is library science a misnomer?
The proponents of evolution would like me to believe ID is not a “real science” because its not biological science or exact science, apparently the only “real sciences” anymore, now political science and social science I believe are still taught in schools, so what’s one more “fake science” going to hurt?
/
Is cognitive science a misnomer?
Is political science a misnomer?
Is social science a misnomer?
Is behavioral science a misnomer?
Is military science a misnomer?
Is library science a misnomer?
Ok, which of the above are founded on an appeal to the supernatural? Which of the above are nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on a well established branch of science?
None and none.
But I fail to see how that justifies misuse of the word, either on purpose or through confusion.
re: #15 Jimmah
I do agree with you, I also do not want religion taught in public schools.
And your right ID theory shouldn’t be taught, but evolutionary theory should be properly taught and all data for and against given equal merit, that would be “real-science”, not what is taught today or even back when I went to school.
Trump Allies Test a New Strategy for Blocking Election Results They Don’t Like When a member of Georgia’s Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections refused to join her colleagues as they certified two primaries this year, she claimed she had been denied her right to examine a long list of election ...
Cheechako
US Military M17 & M18 Pistols Causing Unintentional Discharges Documents detail U.S. soldiers shot by their own Sig Sauer guns; military says no reason for concern Around lunchtime on Feb. 8, 2023, inside an administrative office at Fort Eustis in Virginia, a sergeant with the Army’s 221st Military ...
William Lewis
The Cause of the Rain Here? dryad, in Greek mythology, a nymph or nature spirit who lives in trees and takes the form of a beautiful young woman. Dryads were originally the spirits of oak trees (drys: “oak”), but the name was later applied to ... William Lewis
Uncommon US Flags #3: Storm Warning Flags Indianola, Texas after the Civil War became the principal port for the state, due to its location on Matagorda Bay. The town steadily grew as commerce, tourism, and agriculture expanded. In 1875, a powerful Category 3 hurricane struck Indianola, ...
Anymouse 🌹🏡😷
A Friday at the Tail End of SpringJust out and about for a bit. First a walk downtown where the two rivers meet, then a short drive just outside of town. William Lewis
This Civil War Submarine Vanished for 136 Years [VIDEO] A Civil War submarine powered by hand cranks and lit by candlelight. What could possibly go wrong? Meet the HL Hunley. Support the production of these videos through our Patreon: patreon.com Thank you to Nick DeLong from Clemson University ...
teleskiguy
Melting of Juneau Icefield Rapidly Accelerating, Study Concludes The melting of Southeast Alaska’s Juneau Icefield, source of more than 1,000 glaciers, is accelerating, shrinking 4.6 times faster than it was in the 1980s, according to a new study. Researchers tracked snow levels in the nearly 1,500-square mile ... Cheechako
The Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ... teleskiguy
