/sci/ - Science & Math

...huh?

Creationism makes claims pertaining to the physical world dipshit.

The assumption of methodological naturalism is necessary to make any scientific reasoning at all. It's up to the creationists to prove that anything supernatural exists, not the other way around, since we have ample evidence of natural things and zero evidence of the supernatural.

How can Creationism disprove Science if Creationism starts off with "The metaphysical must exist"? Circular reasoning?

science does not start off with, "only the physical exists"

science starts with, "i will only accept and test physical ideas, since these are the only testable ones"

god/creationism/whateverthefuckyou'repushing are supernatural and by definition outside of the consideration of science

science can not disprove god, nor can it prove god ( or anything else supernatural)

however, science does seek to explain all observed physical phenomenon, without resorting to 'god did it', because this explanation is not testable.

saged and reported.

Hurr durr I will disprove/prove God with logic.
Fucking idiots; people waste their lives on this shit. You just come out sounding fucking retarded.

>>2026023
why is /sci/ so narrow minded and intolerant? :(

theres also no way to prove that everything you know is a lie that youve been fed since you were born.

>>2026039

sure there is; logic. something that seems to puzzle and confuse /sci/

>>2026039
Science is based on empiricism not authoritarianism. We know things are true because we go to the fucking lab and test them, not because someone told us so. Hint; that would be religion.

>>2026030
what was intolerant?

>>2026054
so everything you believe you tested it out yourself?

These threads never turn out well

>>2026016

This is probably the dumbest and most overused pass-the-buck argument I keep seeing over and over on here. Are you really that afraid of discrediting yourself? You could just say "I don't really know how to prove otherwise" or "I don't feel like it." Creationism says that the evidence that The Creation happened is all that exists now.
The reason that there is no evidence for the supernatural is because every time we discover evidence supporting something we once thought to be supernatural, we no longer consider that thing to be supernatural and accept it as scientific fact.

"Tomorrow never comes, for it is always today."

>>2026064
I'm testing the last 300 years of physics just by the fact my computer is working, and I understand why.

but doesn't science test things which aren't physical? ex: things denser then the physical and subtler?
Electromagnetic energy=not physical, there are some physical vibrations but there are also non physical vibrations
Dark matter/dark energy/ anti-matter=denser then the physical

I has confused

Electromagnetic energy has an influence on everything physical but the underlying frequencies aren't physical

>>2026030
We just get sick of people making stupid threads on the topic, hindering research if it contradicts their religion, discouraging critical thought, etc. I personally would consider myself an atheist agnostic, and don't really care what other people do as long as they don't try to argue against it, as it can't be argued against, or do anything else stupid.

>>2026093 Electromagnetic energy=not physical
You just went full retard.

>>2026077

Wait wait wait, so I should accept creationism, because supernatural things used to exist - except we found reason for them, thereby making them no longer supernatural. So since we can't disprove something, we should believe it?

>>2026093
trolling so hard.
by physical we mean testable. we can describe the system and predict it's future behavior, this includes mass and energy

>>2026083

So in other words, a self fulfilling prophecy?

Do you hear that sound?
Stop and listen...

There is no punch line, you're just a moron.

>>2026108
sorry first posting here in /sci

>>2026054
why do you trust your lab equipment, how are you reading them. how are you positive that youre not consistently interpreting lies. unless you perspective is objective than you can never be certain.

>>2026150
LOL. Graduated cylinders are poor liars.

Even the most complex equipment is carefully calibrated by its operator. Do you think equipment manufacturers are running a massive conspiracy on the scientific community?

Must.. restrain...from punching.. computer...

>>2026150
this is why other scientists do the same experiment and everybody reports their errors.

not expecting a perfect answer, but one that matches predictions to within instrumental errors

>>2026015
Hahahahahaha! How can Creationists prove supernatural exists through the logic of science? It's impossible, you cannot measure it like that. You're dumb. Creationists > You faggots.

>>2026105

Uhhh...If that's what you think I meant, then sure. I don't know. Should you? All I'm saying is... find out for yourself, and if you don't want to, tell it like it is. Don't just act like it HAS to be the claimer's responsibility to prove it just to cover for your own apathy regarding the matter. People take action to disprove others' claims by searching for the truth all the time, and some succeed. Some find what they never expected.

>>2026158
Do you think equipment manufacturers give a shit if they paint a line a millimeter to high?

>>2026184
Yes, because its easily testable and if its for real work people would immediately stop buying them.

Maybe for high school chem classes it doesnt matter.

>>2026178
Actually, it is the presenters responsibility to prove something before presenting it as a fact or something that everyone should believe in or die.

>>2026178

>>2026192
How do you test it? With more manufactured equipment... Unless you forge your own glass and use some accurate way to mark off the measurements using some other measuring tool that you know is completely accurate.

>>2026193

Well this IS real life, David, and people don't always follow that idealistic model. Remember how the Earth was flat and if you thought otherwise you were a retard that had to die? Those were good times... It took SOMEONE ELSE to disprove that claim since the claimers were so set on believing that it was common sense that needed no proving.

>>2026200
so your argument for god has come down to instrument calibration?

god exists because you think some instrument somewhere might be slightly off from expected?

poor troll. 1/10 for making me feel bad for your stupid, stupid brain

>>2026222
0/10. GTFO. I said nothing about god?

>>2026227
fine, replace god with creationism.

problem? you're still an idiot

>>2026218
It is their responsibility, but there are bound to be people who present their ideas with absolutely no proof and then hoards of dumb asses follow their ideas as if it were a fact (religion).

>>2026200
You know that equipment is used by engineers to test the steel rigidity in bridges, the friction coefficients in brake pads, and the alcohol content of beer.

Shit's not falling apart.

>>2026227

I'm Ron Burgundy?

>>2026158
how do you know that the foundation that the system is built on isnt a lie built upon and endless amount of lies.

>>2026238

The responsibility of proof is taken up by the people who are willing to search for the truth, whether they are setting out to prove their own point, disprove someone else's, or are just wanting to find whatever they might find. In the world of scientific discovery, the greatest scientists realized that they had to have the desire to take the torch, wherever it may come from...and run with it. Regardless of whether your motive is to light an eternal beacon that all will see, to put the torch out forever in the nearest pool of water, or to just see where you end up...you have to have the desire to run with it. Others can't be relied on to do it for you.

>>2026292

Insightful. I agree.

I should kill OP.

>>2026007
>How can Science disprove Creationism if Science starts off with "Only the physical exists"?
Science makes no such claim.

Second, I'm not science really can. You need to take one more baby step from science to rationalist, and then you can disprove creationism.

A scientist is simply the opposite of insanity as defined by Einstein:
>Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
A scientist, when he does something again and again, and he sees the same result, he'll expect the same result in the future.
Complete the inductive reasoning axiom by assuming that the laws of the past are the same as the laws of the present and future, and you have science. Science is the art of learning by making falsifiable predictions on the observable world which are supported by (objective) evidence.

Now, from this, we can clearly prove evolution by natural selection. This does not automatically disprove creationism. Two different explanations can be correct if they both offer the same predictions.

First, one can argue that the inherent bad design in all organisms suggests that it wasn't designed. At best, the designer would have to be purposefully trying to confuse anyone looking at his design.

Second, rationalism. A rationalism demands that positive claims are supported by (objective) evidence. There is no evidence for a creator, so he doesn't exist. Not certainly doesn't exist, but he's just as likely to exist as the tooth fairy or invisible pink unicorns.

>>2026030
We're not narrow minded and intolerant. Science is merely narrowly focused. If you want to discuss the supernatural, then you're not discussing science, so this is the wrong board.

>>2026064
No. We have trust in scientific peer reviewed journals. This trust is not faith. We have evidence that suggests that the science journals are not bullshitting and that someone has actually done the work, collected the evidence, and so on. Moreover, we're still free to test it ourselves, however impractical this might be on some occasions in some topics.

This is different than faith which is believe in the complete absence of evidence.

>>2026150
If am I told a lie which is supported by the evidence, then we have different definitions of the world "lie". If something is supported by evidence, I would call it truth.