Split Science vs faith and indisputable facts

[TomC]

Somebody should point out to them that science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts.

Funny.

When YEC people point that out suddenly people find mountains of indisputable facts.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Such herbal remedies were rather dangerous

Even without the eye of newt?

Somebody should point out to them that science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts.

Funny.

When YEC people point that out suddenly people find mountains of indisputable facts.
Tom

Most of those “facts” are falsifications.
E.g. “The hypothesis of a 6kyo universe is falsified by x, y and z observations.”

The estimated age of the universe provisionally established by cosmological observations and may well be altered if further observations falsify the current 13-point-something billion years estimate.

I have no doubt that “people” come up with lots of purported facts that falsify YEC, but are colloquial statements, not scientific ones. YEC is so stupid that it’s hard to object to such colloquial “facts” even if they’re not scientific.

 

[bilby]

Somebody should point out to them that science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts.

Funny.

When YEC people point that out suddenly people find mountains of indisputable facts.
Tom

Wha?

YEC people don’t point out that science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts; But if they did, they would (for a change) be right.

YEC is a philosophy that depends completely on the claim that there are indisputable facts (and that biblical texts constitute such facts).

 

[TomC]

Most of those “facts” are falsifications.

Really?
The fossil record? Genetics?
These "facts" are falsifications?

There are no "indisputable facts", according to @bilby .
Are you disagreeing with him?

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Somebody should point out to them that science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts.

Funny.

When YEC people point that out suddenly people find mountains of indisputable facts.
Tom

Wha?

YEC people don’t point out that science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts; But if they did, they would (for a change) be right.

YEC is a philosophy that depends completely on the claim that there are indisputable facts (and that biblical texts constitute such facts).

While in the Jesus Mythicism thread we point out that the existence of Jesus as anything but a fiction is itself not an indisputable fact.

Even our observations with our eyes are such. The evidence is there, to the extent that too remains, and even after that, evidence of the evidence.

The fossils are objects best we can tell. Even these are not "indisputable", but they are immutably extant, which is not the same thing.

 

[TomC]

Somebody should point out to them that science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts.

Funny.

When YEC people point that out suddenly people find mountains of indisputable facts.
Tom

Wha?

YEC people don’t point out that science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts; But if they did, they would (for a change) be right.

YEC is a philosophy that depends completely on the claim that there are indisputable facts (and that biblical texts constitute such facts).

While in the Jesus Mythicism thread we point out that the existence of Jesus as anything but a fiction is itself not an indisputable fact.

I've carefully avoided that intellectual circle jerk.
I don't find it amusing.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Somebody should point out to them that science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts.

Funny.

When YEC people point that out suddenly people find mountains of indisputable facts.
Tom

Wha?

YEC people don’t point out that science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts; But if they did, they would (for a change) be right.

YEC is a philosophy that depends completely on the claim that there are indisputable facts (and that biblical texts constitute such facts).

While in the Jesus Mythicism thread we point out that the existence of Jesus as anything but a fiction is itself not an indisputable fact.

I've carefully avoided that intellectual circle jerk.
I don't find it amusing.
Tom

I find this situation, the one revealed I your post, to be amusing..

All sorts of things are clearly NOT undisputable, especially not "facts".

 

[TomC]

All sorts of things are clearly NOT undisputable, especially not "facts".

Explain that to Bilby.
He's the one who asserted that

science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts.

Tom

 

[bilby]

Most of those “facts” are falsifications.

Really?
The fossil record? Genetics?
These "facts" are falsifications?

There are no "indisputable facts", according to @bilby .
Are you disagreeing with him?

Tom

There are no indisputable facts. You can (and should) dispute any claim made by anyone, particularly by yourself.

It’s having withstood serious, concerted, and ongoing dispute that renders a claim factual.

I am not suggesting that there are no facts. Just that all of them are by definition disputable - it’s that dispute that is the core of the scientific method, so “indisputable scientific fact” is an absurd and oxymoronic phrase.

 

[TomC]

Somebody should point out to them that science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts.

Funny.

When YEC people point that out suddenly people find mountains of indisputable facts.
Tom

Wha?

YEC people don’t point out that science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts; But if they did, they would (for a change) be right.

YEC is a philosophy that depends completely on the claim that there are indisputable facts (and that biblical texts constitute such facts).

While in the Jesus Mythicism thread we point out that the existence of Jesus as anything but a fiction is itself not an indisputable fact.

Even our observations with our eyes are such. The evidence is there, to the extent that too remains, and even after that, evidence of the evidence.

The fossils are objects best we can tell. Even these are not "indisputable", but they are immutably extant, which is not the same thing.

Lemme know when you're done editing and adding to your post.
Please.
Tom

 

[bilby]

All sorts of things are clearly NOT undisputable, especially not "facts".

Explain that to Bilby.
He's the one who asserted that

science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts.

Tom

That you apparently don’t realise that those two statements say essentially the exact same thing speaks poorly of your competence to engage in this discussion.

Jarhyn and I are in agreement here; Your stupid attempt to engender conflict between us to distract from your foolish errors is futile.

 

[TomC]

There are no indisputable facts. You can (and should) dispute any claim made by anyone, particularly by yourself.

Explain that to Jarhyn.

He posted

All sorts of things are clearly NOT undisputable, especially not "facts".

Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Can we knock of the derail, please.

 

[Jarhyn]

All sorts of things are clearly NOT undisputable, especially not "facts".

Explain that to Bilby.
He's the one who asserted that

science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts.

Tom

I think you need to read what you wrote here and quote here one more time... Or two more times? However many times it takes you to sort out why bilby is in fact agreeing with me, both in context and in literally thumbs-up agreement...

 

[bilby]

There are no indisputable facts. You can (and should) dispute any claim made by anyone, particularly by yourself.

Explain that to Jarhyn.

He posted

All sorts of things are clearly NOT undisputable, especially not "facts".

Tom

What, exactly, is the supposed difference between what he said and what I said?

If you can’t parse a double negative, then maybe get an eight year old to help you.

 

[TomC]

Can we knock of the derail, please.

Tom