Science is limited

[livingwordlabels]

Science, by definition, can only accept something which can be proven or tested in some way. It is therefore limited to making conclusions about physical things.
I'm not saying this limitation undermines science as a valid and extremely useful source of knowledge. However, what does undermine its reliability is when people use it to make assumptions and conclusions without acknowledging this limitation.

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether God exists or not. God is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science.

Also when people use only what they can observe to explain how mankind was created. This inevitably fails, as they have to limit life to something physical and we get the absurd idea of life evolving out of matter. The Bible offers us a more plausible explanation - that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. If we believe the Bible, we can see that humans are spiritual as well as physical.

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

[bluethread]

So, scientists do not see the causal relationship between the volcanic activity in the late 1200's and the whether patterns of early 1300's as speculative?

Straw man. We are discussing specifically the CO2 that is being put in the atmosphere, right today, and AGW,

We are talking about the limitations of science as exemplified in claiming a causal link between the dissemination of greenhouse gases and global temperatures. In the late 1200's there was serious dissemination of greenhouse gases and there were changes in climate in the early 1300's. Is this or is this not a good example of a causal link and why?

[Goat]

So, scientists do not see the causal relationship between the volcanic activity in the late 1200's and the whether patterns of early 1300's as speculative?

Straw man. We are discussing specifically the CO2 that is being put in the atmosphere, right today, and AGW,

We are talking about the limitations of science as exemplified in claiming a causal link between the dissemination of greenhouse gases and global temperatures. In the late 1200's there was serious dissemination of greenhouse gases and there were changes in climate in the early 1300's. Is this or is this not a good example of a causal link and why?

Personally, I am not a climatologist, I don't have the exact dates involved, and frankly,you are trying to provide a disraction from the issue at hand, with a highly dishonest tactic.

[bluethread]

So, scientists do not see the causal relationship between the volcanic activity in the late 1200's and the whether patterns of early 1300's as speculative?

Straw man. We are discussing specifically the CO2 that is being put in the atmosphere, right today, and AGW,

We are talking about the limitations of science as exemplified in claiming a causal link between the dissemination of greenhouse gases and global temperatures. In the late 1200's there was serious dissemination of greenhouse gases and there were changes in climate in the early 1300's. Is this or is this not a good example of a causal link and why?

Personally, I am not a climatologist, I don't have the exact dates involved, and frankly,you are trying to provide a disraction from the issue at hand, with a highly dishonest tactic.

What is dishonest? If statistical analysis can determine the global effects of specific chemical factors, then we should be able to see such scenarios playing out in the past. Though it was initially rejected, the theory of global climate change caused by a meteor strike has been used to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. Do you consider that to be fact or speculation and why?

[Star]

Though it was initially rejected, the theory of global climate change caused by a meteor strike has been used to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. Do you consider that to be fact or speculation and why?

Although, as previously stated ad nauseum, science doesn't technically prove, we know that dinosaurs lived for quite some time, then went extinct. Their existence abruptly came to a halt in the fossil record, everywhere, all at roughly the same time, along with most other large animals that lived on sea and land. (Fortunately for us, mammals were relatively small and unspecialized at that time.) So we know there was a mass extinction event 65-million-years ago. We also know that large rocks and chunks of ice from space hit the Earth.

The asteroid hypotheses is neither fact nor speculation. It's the leading working hypotheses, and probably accurate, based on several pieces of evidence. Other possibilities include the supernova of a nearby star, or a super volcano. I go where the evidence leads us.

Regardless, climate change is implicated in all these scenarios. Dinosaurs are a typical red herring, which I chose to indulge you in, but Goat was trying to talk to you about climate change today which is due to us.

[bluethread]

Regardless, climate change is implicated in all these scenarios. Dinosaurs are a typical red herring, which I chose to indulge you in, but Goat was trying to talk to you about climate change today which is due to us.

So, is this your working hypothesis or something more definite? How is it that we know what will happen tomorrow, if this working hypothesis proves to be the case?

[Star]

So, is this your working hypothesis or something more definite? How is it that we know what will happen tomorrow, if this working hypothesis proves to be the case?

We don't know what will happen tomorrow. Another asteroid or comet could hit us. Yellowstone could blow. This would then all be a moot point.

What we do know is humankind is releasing a lot of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere over a relatively short period of time, particularly CO2. Greenhouse gas traps heat. Life does better when the climate is stable. These are facts.

[livingwordlabels]

I would say that "Spirit is so poorly defined that there is no way to show the word has meaning'.

I don't feel that is the case. See for example Oxford dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... ish/spirit
noun 1 the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul: the non-physical part of a person regarded as their true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation: the non-physical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost: a supernatural being: (Spirit)short for Holy Spirit.
I think the meaning is clear.

And 'There is no evidence spirit exists except conceptually'.

I would further say that 'That which can not be properly defined' God' can not be shown to exist at all.

When you say 'no evidence' of course you mean no scientific evidence, which is exactly the point I am trying to make. There will not be any physical evidence precisely because it is spirit. If you restrict your source of truth to that offered by science you will of course reject it. By the way, most people in the world don't do this.

[JohnA]

I would say that "Spirit is so poorly defined that there is no way to show the word has meaning'.

I don't feel that is the case. See for example Oxford dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... ish/spirit
noun 1 the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul: the non-physical part of a person regarded as their true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation: the non-physical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost: a supernatural being: (Spirit)short for Holy Spirit.
I think the meaning is clear.

And 'There is no evidence spirit exists except conceptually'.

I would further say that 'That which can not be properly defined' God' can not be shown to exist at all.

When you say 'no evidence' of course you mean no scientific evidence, which is exactly the point I am trying to make. There will not be any physical evidence precisely because it is spirit. If you restrict your source of truth to that offered by science you will of course reject it. By the way, most people in the world don't do this.

If there is no physical evidence, then there must be non-physical evidence. Your faith says there is no evidence. Science has no evidence. If nobody can detect this non-physical evidence, then it is not evidence, but merely wishful thinking.

In case you did not know, we live in a physical word, not a non-physical one. Your dogma is stating this utter nonsense.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 106 by WinePusher]

It is over Winepusher, it's game over.

You now know what to do next. But we both know you will not do it. And we both know why not. (All the answers are in my posts in this thread -comfort yourself. )

Show me wrong, surprise me.

Sincerely hope you enjoyed the free education provided by a rational person that lacks incoherency.


P.S. Arguments are not evidence, but it is for those that have a broken reason filter.

[Goat]

I would say that "Spirit is so poorly defined that there is no way to show the word has meaning'.

I don't feel that is the case. See for example Oxford dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... ish/spirit
noun 1 the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul: the non-physical part of a person regarded as their true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation: the non-physical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost: a supernatural being: (Spirit)short for Holy Spirit.
I think the meaning is clear.

And 'There is no evidence spirit exists except conceptually'.

I would further say that 'That which can not be properly defined' God' can not be shown to exist at all.

When you say 'no evidence' of course you mean no scientific evidence, which is exactly the point I am trying to make. There will not be any physical evidence precisely because it is spirit. If you restrict your source of truth to that offered by science you will of course reject it. By the way, most people in the world don't do this.

That is how some people define it. Other people define it differently.

What do you mean by the 'non-physical side of a person'. What is meant by 'soul'?? The seat of the emotions is the brain, and that is physical. ..

so, that definition leaves so much to be desired, since it makes some vague references to other things that can not be verfied, and some outright pieces of claims that can be shown to be false.