Im curious why i am not getting the better sources credit as im the only one who provided any citation, provided repeated citation, and provided (imo) good citations.
Re: bible
being illogical usually requires contradiction. a contradiction usually requires at least 2 points. human's susceptibility to sin is just 1 point, you have to finish the sentence to complete a thought:
"A good God would not create a people so susceptible to sin, and then obsess about it as a priority."
I also followed it up with other aspects that dont fit with a "good god."
I do not find those things as depressing because there was no design intending them, and if you look back at the history of humanity, a few hiccups aside, we have been slowly marching in the direction of less atrocities and suffering, more equality and empathy. Our subjective morality has only improved, and continue to improve, with time. I have faith in humanity. Institutional secularism was one of those steps, a step that was championed by our forefathers.
your bible passages: are these the words of jesus, or the narrator? especially John 3:16, is jesus talking in the 3rd person?!? "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son." So far I have mostly agreed with sayings attributed to jesus in the 1st person, it is these disciples, the presumed narrators, that I question and am often horrified by.
question 1: Regarding my personal god... yes.
Was that not btw the reason for the protestant reformation? to make your own personal connection to god? using the tools god has given me, this is the only obvious conclusion. I believe that to be a more trustworthy source then word of mouth.
question 2: I am assuming the god of the bible, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent. However, i dont agree with the events and claims the bible makes about him. Many like the 10th plague gnaw at the root of his benevolence. hardening his heart to coerce someone in order to justify the final punishment! heck no. that is evil. eternal hell for disbelief regardless of actions, evil. only bad men are obsessed with worship.
Re: morality
I didn't say anyone lacks a world view. I said atheism is not a world view. No other group is defined by what they dont believe in or partake in. Its like saying someone is not a poker player... that says nothing about what activity they actually do. There are many moral philosophies independent of god. Saying not god doesnt say anything about what they actually believe in. Furthermore, theistic morallity is hardly objective. Which theism? They dont all agree! And considering it is possible this is a man made book, there is nothing objective about it.
Re nazis
It was their morality that what they did was right. It was our morality that they were very wrong, and justified war to stop it. It is scary. We are responsible for our own actions and decisions. Responsibility is a very scary thing. I think we live up to it.
I didnt mean anything by dominance of atheism because atheism isnt a thing. It isnt a belief. Its a lack of belief. I was using your language from your claim that an atheist minority is dictating the world view. What our forefathers did was remove religion from places of power (government) because religion cannot be trusted to not oppress other faiths. They didnt establish atheist dominance, they removed religious dominance to create a neutral society that protects all people. As it should be.
Re: intelligent design
The point of that example was to be hypothetical. To show that no matter the scenario, a designer is always an option. However for nature there is but 1 outcome... and that is the outcome that we see... too coincidental.
Nature is far from random. It may be chaotic, but everything follows precise rules. Only the elements on the top right of the periodic table are prone to easy reactivity. They are the elements that make up life. Nature is good at making small adaptations, but not starting from scratch. The eye is an excellent example: according to science, it evolved underwater, which explains why til this day ALL eyes, including our own, are filled with fluid with the exact same light bending index as sea water. Our brains must constantly compensate for the blur. Nature could not simply make a new eye from scratch, it accomidated what it had. However god could do anything. Make every animal unique and function in a different way. That is impossible for nature. The mechanism of.evolution demands slow change from an original default. Fundamentals like sugar metabolism are unchanges throughout the tree of life
Life on a random planet is unlikely, just like winning the lotto. Maybe even less. But the universe is vast, so is time. If you play the lotto 99 trillion times... your statistically gauranteed to win. Given enough attempts, the improbable becomes inevitable.
Positive evidence for intelligent design requires not the likelyhood of a design, but evidence of a designer. Right now intelligent design has evidence (arguable due to the statistical argument i just said) equivalent to the expansion of galaxies creating the big bang HYPOTHESIS. That was not proof but just a suspicion. And i do not think we well be able to detect anything of the designer any time soon. God is as of now a matter of faith, impossible to prove or disprove. Science cannot say he does not exist, and never has. But it also cannot say he does exist.
Re: bible
Warning, i quit discussing religion because the following response upsets many of my opponents.
Ive learned parts of it as a child, If you believe in a God, it may convert you to a specific God, but it is doubtful it can make one theistic. Too fantastical. As an adult, only a personal experience will matter. I acknowledge, and am open to the idea of a god, but the only religion that makes any sense is b'hai, which pretty much said God sent each people a different message based on what they needed to learn (unity, law, tolerance, etc). Christianity is illogical and depressing. A good God would not create a people so susceptible to sin, and then obsess about it as a priority. He would not give the most insignifcant of sins an infinite punishment passed down forever (and the womens punishment sounds like it was written by a man). And he would not vainly demand endless repitions of lord and how hallowed his name is. Those are *clearly* optional, and i think he would appreciate your own words.
Even If i were to become theistic, i like wont be religious. Especially christianity which i personally think would appaul jesus. The only obsession jesus had with personal social sins (not greed and murder), was to embrace the people and seek to improve them through support and love. Not shame and tough love. Maybe christianity is as good as any other, just not the way the mainstream or at any point in history practice it. I already have an idea of god, and it doesnt fit anything in what i consider to be the varied work of men. I already live by the good values he would represent. I also appreciate this reality. If he is sentient, he will understand. If not, my appreciation is not affected. Although my "appreciation" would be different if i wasnt born so lucky. (Healthy, 1st world).
Morality is subjective. Spartans thought it was good to essentially abort in the desert already born infants. Even if we look to God different versions say different things. Society A would not think B is moral because B thinks a certain way, you see the world through your own values. We have all independently decided murder was bad, but that wasnt always the case, especially for peasants or slaves. This applies to our ancestors as well. Its nice to think there are objective unchanging morals, but that isnt the case. The bible has condoned slavery within limits. Those limits are no longer acceptable.
My worldview is my own, but i dont declare things i know are important in the grand scheme to be irrelevant just because they are irrelevant to me. Im not sure what you mean by atheism taking precedence, but if i am to take a guess its because atheism is not a worldview, its a lack of a certain worldview. If you dont like watching tv, you arent an atvist, you are a book reader, or a radio listener. We dont usually declare something by what it is not. To enforce atheism you simply dont enforce it. To enforce theism is to actually enforce it. What do you do with people who disagree? Or have a different theism then you, cause theism is not a single belief, none of.you agree on much. (Besides the fundamentals shared by all humanity, like dont kill, steal)
The dominance of atheism (as you call it) was established by theists, like our fore fathers, precisely because it is good. It is objective. And it doesnt stop you from being theist.
Sure it can be explained by a designer. All forms of chaos and order can be explained by a designer. Just look at modern art! But nature is just a straight line of cause and effect. Simple, and consistent.
Im sorry, but the "evidence" for intelligent design is not empirical, it is philosophical.
First off intelligent design advocates do not make arguments for intelligent design. Their arguments, like the unmoved mover and the clockmaker are thousands of years old and were mostly apriori. That just hijacked a bunch of scientific terms to make it *sound* scientific. No original arguments have been presented. Instead intelligent design advocates simply assume that by questioning scientific theories, their designer will be proven by default without the need to find actual positive evidence of him.
And can you truly say that in a world where life and existence were near certainty (the opposite of the current fine tuning) you wouldn't argue that "this is too perfect, it had to be designed!" The designer story fits all scenarios.
Lets look at biology for a second. All animals are extremely similar in basic body structure (head to tail with limbs in between and a digestive system that runs the length. Same sugar metabolism, same cell structure, same dna) could be by design. But one would expect nature to simply run with a working model. Its hard to develop a whole new chemistry, and if some simplified life forms tried, established ones would eat them quick before they evolve to compete. They are starting from scratch.
However if we saw.many different systems. Physical laws that vary in different areas.. that could also be described by a designer. He designed it that way. Different rooms in my house are very different. Function, design, materials... but nature is uniform. And uniformity is what we see.
Ive already listed the uniformity of life, the universe is no different. All of it is just repeating solar systems that come out in preset ways depending on what, and how.much, you put into the original blender. Repeatedly clustered into galaxies, clustered into clusters as far as light can reach. All with the same laws everywhere.
Again, not difficult, just less effective. I for one dont believe juggling is usually productive, but i am eager to end this side discussion. We'll let the debate decide how constructive it is :)
Unfortunately your video doesnt match your argument. The video uses my first proof at time stamp 1:50, and my second proof at 6:10. So not only does it support my conclusion, but also my methods.
As i said, im open to going your way, and i didnt mean that it is particularly difficult, just less efficient/effective in comparison to focusing on 1 assertion at a time.
Each round we will rebutting different subjects. Seems suboptimal. But im down to see how this works out. I just wanted to make my concern known, not insist upon it.
I disagree that historical and scientific evidence have confirmed/not contradicted biblical events. The flood for example was never established as world wide, and in fact seems to be found in pre christian cultures only in that region, and with different explanations. If god came down and told the only suriving person what he did, it likely wouldnt have been so badly misinterpreted and attributed to other or many gods before returning to the "accurate" story. Many centuries/millenia later.
Historians do agree jesus was likely a real person, but his miracles have not.
Btw, eyewitness accounts are amongst the weakest version of courtroom evidence. Objective evidence from the scene, similar to what science searches for, is the gold standard. Memories are not recordings of an event. Memories are notoriously faulty.
Finally, one would expect a worshipped holy book would be perserved and copied more then most books, but what of other books, like those of hinduism that saw similar worship? They were likely spread to every temple and home as well. Its widespreadness is due to cultural importance. Mass appeal has never signified truth.
Re: life
You are conflating 2 issues.
The lack of proper definition of life/death is due to incomplete data.
The lack of scientific input on abortion is because that is not for scientists to decide. Scientists are to tell us objective data. When the heart stops. When cells stop. when the brain stops. When the breathing stops (or starts) And what happens to the rest of the systems when any of those happen. To figure out the border between life and death, we need a ton of data, and that is a major definition we should not rush. We have tentative definitions for those borders, but they are not wholly satisfactory to our standards.
Scientifically speaking, there is no objective measure of personhood/individuality. That is a social border we as a public should determine while weighing the objective data of fetal development as discovered by science. Expert opinion on personhood could come from social scientists, policy makers, social philosophers, and even lay people. It is not an objective measurement, but a subjective one based on varying criteria. Personhood is not a physiological process, brain activity is.
Science is the supreme method of aquiring knowledge, that doesnt mean it is the supreme repository of knowledge. If god is the supreme repository of knowledge, we do not have access to that repository and he has only shared his moral guidance, and zero information regarding the workings of his creation. Thus im not sure what your issue is. As far as a method of attaining knowledge, not having all the answers only raises the importance of the method to get those answers objectively.
Your world view is a personal thing. It does not account for the broader view that disagrees with you. What is gods definition of life? and how can you determine objectively that it came from god and not some joe writing fiction? There are numerous eye witness accounts of harry potters victory in his first golden thingy event, but those witnesses come from the same source
Interesting.
However i dont see how one can make a logical connection between people who feel they are the wrong one of 2 physical genders, and people who feel they are on a spectrum of personality genders. Like gender nonconformists.
The term may be used as an umbrella by lay people vut the conditions and issues are completely unrelated!
Re: scientific method
I dont think there is much difference. I think the acid base reaction is quite similar. We mix the reactants, we get the results. But what happened in between is not observed, it is assumed based off studies and observation. Until perhaps extremely recently we did not watch the individual atoms interact. We just worked the process back logically based off of the fallout from the reaction.
We have objectively looked back at the early universe (distance = back in time due to speed of light limitations), we saw a blob of undifferentiated energy and loose matter. This is no eternal universe, this is the result of a condensed mass, and that mass is in every direction back in time. It is as indisputable as the acid base reaction. Maybe even more so cause quantum mechanics is a heck of a mess. Large scale physics are actually much better understood then quantum reactions.
As for intelligent design. It is my opinion that any situation fits intelligent design, however only a few scenarios fit natural design, and reality seems to suspiciously fit the narrow expectations of natural design. If the explanation that requires very specific circumstances to be true, ends up having all of its circumstances confirmed, the explanation that would fit any and every scenario seems less likely in comparison. I dont think i can fit a detail explanation of that claim in this post. Ill probably save it for the next round.
Perhaps, but i am trying to be persuasive, and your words are now part of this discussion independent of you yourself. I find them supportive of my stance with a bit of elaboration, so they were mentioned. Thanks!
I didnt forget that factor. I didnt say its infintely close to 1. I said it IS one.
Its also very much a real number, an official category with an official definition. Not only is 0.999... a real number, its a "rational" number, unlike pi, or square root of 2 which are "irrational numbers"
Infinity is not a number, but 9.999... is not infinity. It has infinite 9s after the decimal point, but it isnt itaelf infinity. How can a number smaller then 11 be infinity?
The math i used was math intended to be used for repeating decimals. Did you really read my arguments? Or are you offering to be a new challenger?
Trans is just the "T" in LGTQ...
Queer has its own letter: "Q"
Trans stands exclusively for people feeling unease at their birth sex, seeking to become the other OF 2 GENDERS. To *TRANS*isition.
All 3rd gender issues are about as related to trans as a homosexuality. None of these issues are related in anyway besides joining up in an acronym.
Can you show any reference to trans including any of those other groups cause i think you are very mistaken.
Sarcasm is incredibly hard to convey through text, especially with no attempt to clearly convey it, and to someone who knows nothing about you. Furthermore his second paragraph explaining why he voted for pro with "nevertheless", a statement that supports the assertion that he is voting against his beliefs.
An ant on a beach ball can see the curvature of the beach ball.
You can see an ant on the beach ball
You cannot see people on the earth from space.
You cannot see bacteria on a beach ball
Bacteria see the beach ball as a flat plane.
Their bridges are so tiny they do not need to take any curvature into account.
If the earth was a beach ball, you would be the size of a bacteria, or maybe some slightly bigger single celled creature.
You see the earth as a flat plane. Your bridges are tiny. Because you are so tiny.
Everest is 30,000 feet tall. Mariana trench is 36,000 feet deep.
The circumference of the earth is 131.5 MILLION feet. If you ran your finger along the earth from space, it would feel as smooth as a billiards ball.
A lack of understanding of scales does not prove a flat earth.
No flat earth model can explain both the solar and lunar eclipses. Both lunar and solar eclipses do happen. Therefore the earth is not flat. Vote Nemiroff! Thank you very much! šš»
Its funny that most of you are talking primarily about trans, who btw agree there are only 2 genders... their just the wrong one. Lol
The 3rd gender issue is seperate, has nothing to do with a dysphoria, and is simply people who dont fit gender norms, but are perfectly fine with their birth sex.
This confusion is on both sides, the ignorant attackers and the blind defenders :p
A revelation in another thread may have helped me clarify my opening assertion. Although i say scientific principles like big bang, evolution, atomic theory, or germ theory are both fact and theory, there is a difference between big bang fact and big bang theory.
The theory is a complex description of the fact, and although the details may change (how fast the expansion, when/where the expansion, the steps of the expansion). The fact (a simple 1 sentence statement like "the big bang happened") remains true and will likely never be debunked. Daltons theory was tweeked, but overall the existence of atoms as described by him was not, and in all likelyhood, will not be debunked. Gravity, evolution, germs all definitevely exist no matter how much we may clarify their mechanisms in the future.
Unlike abiogenesis or the aether which were totally debunked from the fine details to the fundamental concept. All thrown in the trash.
Everything you said is 100% accurate. However that doesnt change the fact/theory duality of things like evolution.
Even if some aspects of our details about evolution (aka the theory) change, the overall process of evolution is a fact.
We may modify the rate of change, add some mechanisms, etc to the theory, but that wont change it from evolution to not evolution. Kinda how minor tweeks to general relativity wont debunk the fact of gravity.
The sheer number of lies he has told us the people should have gotten him impeached a long time ago. Using the power of the presidency to attack political rivals is insane. Enlisting foreign governments to do that is just icing.
Dude, your starting to sound like donald trump. Everything that doesnt go the way you want must be unfair and part of a conspiracy against you. No debator has (apparently) ever been treated as bad as you. WITCHHUNT!!!
You should really look up the definitions before making definitive statements. Some words have more technical definition within certain fields... like theory in science.
I would imagine the only real argument for this would be based off pure liberitarian free market principles.
Yes there is little free about china's economy, however that is public knowledge and private compabies have been more then willing to freely hand over their IP in exchange to access to chinese markets.
I am not a liberitarian and am not willing to risk national security for private profits. I believe we as a society have a greater duty to our people, our economy, and our nation, then we have towards some blind, self defeating ideology.
Re: life
I define life in a very technical sense, meaning the organ is just as "alive" as a person, but the organ is clearly not a person. In discussions like abortion i stress the question of whether it is a person or an individual rather then is it alive. It certainly isnt dead at any point!
For the most.part i agree with the consensus tentative defintion of life. Reproduction, internal locomotion, metabolism, etc.
If your definition of life is body+soul then does that mean all animals have souls? And does that also include microbes? Most christians do not think animals have souls, but they are definitely alive. Just clarifying.
2. I was gonna comment earlier but as we have no definition of life, we have no actual definition of death. Its painfully obvious when someone is dead, but when was the moment of death? Cessation of brain activity? Maybe just the upper part of brain activity? The heart? The last cell? The last breathe? Are the brain dead actually dead? We dont know. The body is a complex interaction of many system and identifying a border is very much subject to debate.
3. "my understanding of life does not require a strict definition that encompasses all living or potentially living things. Whether a virus is alive is inconsequential."
Whether its inconsequential to you does not speak for others, and in general we try to define things technically. The existence of dictionaries is proof. And the qualification of viruses is imperative in determining that definition. Your arguments did not negate, or acknowledge, the overall need of a definition regardless of your personal disinterest.
4. I understand your source of morality, however how does one verify its authenticity vs the morality of other gods? You spoke of how science should require only direct observation and recreation for facts, is this same standard applicable here?
Absolutely if it is.possible recreating the reaction is great! However how can we recreate the fusion of elements higher then helium or hydrogen in stars? We cannot. Should we surrender to ignorance despite the plentiful availability of other evidence?
We know the math makes sense, so there the theoretical proof, but to find empirical proof, we can simply identify stars of the same type and then compare their chemical makeup. Young stars have mostly hydrogen and helium, old stars have more heavy elements. Supernova cores are almost entirely heavy elements. Obviously a small survey of a handful of stars is anecdotal, but a survey of millions of stars by thousands of astronomers, or even billions by computer algorithms keep showing the *exact* same result, the proof is as strong as the assertion that the sun will rise tomorrow. We cant recreate the future today, but we have enough evidence to establish certainty (unless god decides to freeze it again)
The first time i posted dalton's theory was a direct paste. The second time with the parenthesis was to show how little changed with the parenthesis being the minor corrections.
Also the proportion was not of atoms, but atomic weights. A technical correction but it still fails in the same way with complex molecules.
Regarding your conundrum, there are many variables and questions i have. An accepted theory is not the work of 1 man, and others may add or modify parts before it becomes a consensus theory. His historic propositions were almost entirely correct, but that doesnt mean his original work was accepted without controversy or modification. However i think in this specific case it was. I will have to reevaluate my initial claim, thank you very much for stepping up to the challenge. I knew my absolute statement was a bold assertion, however the spirit of my claim rings true as this 200 year old theory regarding miniscule atoms we have just now been able to visualize, is still almost entirely accurate; that is amazing. And his limitations were entirely technological as most isobars are rare, radioactive elements likely not discovered and destroying atoms took many many many advances in technology.
What i initially envisioned as a "debunked theory" was something like the aether or the original version of abiogenesis (maggots from rotting food) where the whole thing ended up being absurdly wrong and completely barking up the wrong tree. Those "theories" were never tested or established, just assumed. They were believed by scientists, but they were in no way science.
Islamic slavery was most often debt slavery, and in all the thousands of years they did not commit as much brutality as american slavery did in a few hundred years. It was likely the most brutal slavery of all human history.
All slavery is bad, but your first sentences contradicts the rest. Just as many were raped, and it may have not been castratation, but the mutilation inflicted on southern slaves may have been worse. Castration keeps them from.making you more slaves!
You are wrong. Idk about most chirstians, but the chattel slavery of america is of the most horrific and brutal kind. They were not people, the were objects.
Re: Life
If I may pause you, I must make some corrections.
1. they are all life. the ball of cells at conception, the sperm and egg before conception, the person, the tumor, the bacteria. All life. Being life doesn't qualify you as a person.
2. science doesn't make moral judgements. Doctors are the ones that tend to support abortion, for scientists, its usually a personal call.
3. you dont understand the definition of "definition."
4. If science alone lacks the answer, where do we get it, and how do we verify it? You say god, but another god (hindu) said cows are sacred too. possibly more then man.
There is no start to life, since the very start. Life is a continuous process. When do we become a person is the question.
For me it is the spark of consciousness that occurs when upper portions of the brain become activated. The way I see it, you can enter an incomplete ship, but you cant enter a pile of wood sitting on the shore. I suspect the entrance of the divine spark would have a noticeble effect, perhaps a sudden rush, or a focusing of electrical activity? of course i'm basing this purely on faith. Once the brain begins to interpret reality, OR, gets some sort of stream of experience, its a person. And once you qualify as a person, you dont lose that qualification until death.
a heart beat has historic and symbolic reasons for being so important. Its just a pump physiologically speaking. The only organ that matters to your identity, the only possible location of the soul if its within the body, is the brain. the rest is basically just a mech suit.
I'm sorry but indirect observation such as air bubbles in ice, tree rings, and the aftermaths of a universal events are all empirical. There is nothing theoretical about them. Theoretical evidence are unrelated to the real world, like the math equations behind string theory, or einsteins general relativity until recently (all that hype over the gravity waves... general relativity, despite decades of popularity, finally got empirical!)
so not only are all of those examples empirical evidence, theoretical evidence isn't all that bad either if its indisputable like general relativity, but unlike string theory.
And it wasn't about technical details. You are fundamentally mistaken regarding what repeatable is in reference to, and you provide a scenario where scientist A is withholding the methodology that led to his results from Scientist B. How is B supposed to confirm anything! If the data is presented, the scientist B would have no problem and your issue is a non issue.
I believe I thanked you for the info, and noted that I would have to change my intro to it regarding limitation statements, like "final," "original," "indestructible," ect. With better tech we can always look smaller or strike harder. however the actual discoveries without those speculations were spot on.
Elements are made of extremely small particles called atoms.
Atoms of a given element are (nearly) identical in size, mass and other properties;
Atoms of different elements differ in size, mass and other properties.
Atoms cannot be (subdivided), created or destroyed by chemical reactions.
Atoms of different elements combine in simple whole-number ratios to form chemical compounds.
In chemical reactions, atoms are combined, separated or rearranged.
2 extremely minor changes i could demonstrate with just paranthesis.
Never heard of isobars and a google search showed something related to meteorology. not relevant
Whole number ratios do not mean just 2. can you demonstrate thats what he meant? your molecule is a simple 12:22:11 all whole numbers. no decimals.
Im not asking you to defend science, im asking you to defend your assertion that a detailed definition is required to identify life.
Chemistry explains the origins of life quite well however your expectations of a clear border is disproven by the viruses, and possibly prions. Is the virus alive?.
When you have free floating replicating material, the point where it becomes life is up for debate. Reality is rarely black or white.
Elements are made of extremely small particles calledĀ atoms.Atoms of a given element are identical in size, mass and other properties; atoms of different elements differ in size, mass and other properties.Atoms cannot be subdivided, created or destroyed by chemical reactions. Atoms of different elements combine in simple whole-number ratios to formĀ chemical compounds.InĀ chemical reactions, atoms are combined, separated or rearranged.
Accurate.
The only changes would be minute expansions on fine details.
We currently accept the standard model as the fundamental forms of matter. We hypothesize more fundamental forms, like string theory which would correct the "most fundamental" part... but none of the discoveries or predicitions of the standard model and its associated theories. It will all still work and continue to ACCURATELY explain the world on that level.
I will have to correct my statement a bit in the future, thank you, but thats more of a technical lawyer like correction rather then a disproving of the process of science.
Your combustion analogy is flawed due to simplicity. It appears to me scientist A made something up as im given no background information of how he was studying it. I may not be able to replicate the original event, but i should be able to replicate his experiment/study. For the sake of relevance, im hoping they are studying an unreplicatable historic event with some sort of measureable fallout and not a personal experience.
A more realistic analogy would be ancient atmospheres. We cannot replicate the atmosphere of ancient times, but we can get a sample of ice from different layers and compare its air pockets. Or measure specific things like amount of CO2 vs tree ring size of old trees. We can piece together information from many different sources to get a better understanding rather then interpreting single studies one at a time. A mountain of evidence is stronger then the sum of its parts.
Im curious why i am not getting the better sources credit as im the only one who provided any citation, provided repeated citation, and provided (imo) good citations.
1 week of voting to go!
Re: bible
being illogical usually requires contradiction. a contradiction usually requires at least 2 points. human's susceptibility to sin is just 1 point, you have to finish the sentence to complete a thought:
"A good God would not create a people so susceptible to sin, and then obsess about it as a priority."
I also followed it up with other aspects that dont fit with a "good god."
I do not find those things as depressing because there was no design intending them, and if you look back at the history of humanity, a few hiccups aside, we have been slowly marching in the direction of less atrocities and suffering, more equality and empathy. Our subjective morality has only improved, and continue to improve, with time. I have faith in humanity. Institutional secularism was one of those steps, a step that was championed by our forefathers.
your bible passages: are these the words of jesus, or the narrator? especially John 3:16, is jesus talking in the 3rd person?!? "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son." So far I have mostly agreed with sayings attributed to jesus in the 1st person, it is these disciples, the presumed narrators, that I question and am often horrified by.
question 1: Regarding my personal god... yes.
Was that not btw the reason for the protestant reformation? to make your own personal connection to god? using the tools god has given me, this is the only obvious conclusion. I believe that to be a more trustworthy source then word of mouth.
question 2: I am assuming the god of the bible, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent. However, i dont agree with the events and claims the bible makes about him. Many like the 10th plague gnaw at the root of his benevolence. hardening his heart to coerce someone in order to justify the final punishment! heck no. that is evil. eternal hell for disbelief regardless of actions, evil. only bad men are obsessed with worship.
Damnit. I wanted to be con!
Re: morality
I didn't say anyone lacks a world view. I said atheism is not a world view. No other group is defined by what they dont believe in or partake in. Its like saying someone is not a poker player... that says nothing about what activity they actually do. There are many moral philosophies independent of god. Saying not god doesnt say anything about what they actually believe in. Furthermore, theistic morallity is hardly objective. Which theism? They dont all agree! And considering it is possible this is a man made book, there is nothing objective about it.
Re nazis
It was their morality that what they did was right. It was our morality that they were very wrong, and justified war to stop it. It is scary. We are responsible for our own actions and decisions. Responsibility is a very scary thing. I think we live up to it.
I didnt mean anything by dominance of atheism because atheism isnt a thing. It isnt a belief. Its a lack of belief. I was using your language from your claim that an atheist minority is dictating the world view. What our forefathers did was remove religion from places of power (government) because religion cannot be trusted to not oppress other faiths. They didnt establish atheist dominance, they removed religious dominance to create a neutral society that protects all people. As it should be.
Re: intelligent design
The point of that example was to be hypothetical. To show that no matter the scenario, a designer is always an option. However for nature there is but 1 outcome... and that is the outcome that we see... too coincidental.
Nature is far from random. It may be chaotic, but everything follows precise rules. Only the elements on the top right of the periodic table are prone to easy reactivity. They are the elements that make up life. Nature is good at making small adaptations, but not starting from scratch. The eye is an excellent example: according to science, it evolved underwater, which explains why til this day ALL eyes, including our own, are filled with fluid with the exact same light bending index as sea water. Our brains must constantly compensate for the blur. Nature could not simply make a new eye from scratch, it accomidated what it had. However god could do anything. Make every animal unique and function in a different way. That is impossible for nature. The mechanism of.evolution demands slow change from an original default. Fundamentals like sugar metabolism are unchanges throughout the tree of life
Life on a random planet is unlikely, just like winning the lotto. Maybe even less. But the universe is vast, so is time. If you play the lotto 99 trillion times... your statistically gauranteed to win. Given enough attempts, the improbable becomes inevitable.
Positive evidence for intelligent design requires not the likelyhood of a design, but evidence of a designer. Right now intelligent design has evidence (arguable due to the statistical argument i just said) equivalent to the expansion of galaxies creating the big bang HYPOTHESIS. That was not proof but just a suspicion. And i do not think we well be able to detect anything of the designer any time soon. God is as of now a matter of faith, impossible to prove or disprove. Science cannot say he does not exist, and never has. But it also cannot say he does exist.
Re: bible
Warning, i quit discussing religion because the following response upsets many of my opponents.
Ive learned parts of it as a child, If you believe in a God, it may convert you to a specific God, but it is doubtful it can make one theistic. Too fantastical. As an adult, only a personal experience will matter. I acknowledge, and am open to the idea of a god, but the only religion that makes any sense is b'hai, which pretty much said God sent each people a different message based on what they needed to learn (unity, law, tolerance, etc). Christianity is illogical and depressing. A good God would not create a people so susceptible to sin, and then obsess about it as a priority. He would not give the most insignifcant of sins an infinite punishment passed down forever (and the womens punishment sounds like it was written by a man). And he would not vainly demand endless repitions of lord and how hallowed his name is. Those are *clearly* optional, and i think he would appreciate your own words.
Even If i were to become theistic, i like wont be religious. Especially christianity which i personally think would appaul jesus. The only obsession jesus had with personal social sins (not greed and murder), was to embrace the people and seek to improve them through support and love. Not shame and tough love. Maybe christianity is as good as any other, just not the way the mainstream or at any point in history practice it. I already have an idea of god, and it doesnt fit anything in what i consider to be the varied work of men. I already live by the good values he would represent. I also appreciate this reality. If he is sentient, he will understand. If not, my appreciation is not affected. Although my "appreciation" would be different if i wasnt born so lucky. (Healthy, 1st world).
Morality is subjective. Spartans thought it was good to essentially abort in the desert already born infants. Even if we look to God different versions say different things. Society A would not think B is moral because B thinks a certain way, you see the world through your own values. We have all independently decided murder was bad, but that wasnt always the case, especially for peasants or slaves. This applies to our ancestors as well. Its nice to think there are objective unchanging morals, but that isnt the case. The bible has condoned slavery within limits. Those limits are no longer acceptable.
My worldview is my own, but i dont declare things i know are important in the grand scheme to be irrelevant just because they are irrelevant to me. Im not sure what you mean by atheism taking precedence, but if i am to take a guess its because atheism is not a worldview, its a lack of a certain worldview. If you dont like watching tv, you arent an atvist, you are a book reader, or a radio listener. We dont usually declare something by what it is not. To enforce atheism you simply dont enforce it. To enforce theism is to actually enforce it. What do you do with people who disagree? Or have a different theism then you, cause theism is not a single belief, none of.you agree on much. (Besides the fundamentals shared by all humanity, like dont kill, steal)
The dominance of atheism (as you call it) was established by theists, like our fore fathers, precisely because it is good. It is objective. And it doesnt stop you from being theist.
Continued...
Sure it can be explained by a designer. All forms of chaos and order can be explained by a designer. Just look at modern art! But nature is just a straight line of cause and effect. Simple, and consistent.
Im sorry, but the "evidence" for intelligent design is not empirical, it is philosophical.
First off intelligent design advocates do not make arguments for intelligent design. Their arguments, like the unmoved mover and the clockmaker are thousands of years old and were mostly apriori. That just hijacked a bunch of scientific terms to make it *sound* scientific. No original arguments have been presented. Instead intelligent design advocates simply assume that by questioning scientific theories, their designer will be proven by default without the need to find actual positive evidence of him.
And can you truly say that in a world where life and existence were near certainty (the opposite of the current fine tuning) you wouldn't argue that "this is too perfect, it had to be designed!" The designer story fits all scenarios.
Lets look at biology for a second. All animals are extremely similar in basic body structure (head to tail with limbs in between and a digestive system that runs the length. Same sugar metabolism, same cell structure, same dna) could be by design. But one would expect nature to simply run with a working model. Its hard to develop a whole new chemistry, and if some simplified life forms tried, established ones would eat them quick before they evolve to compete. They are starting from scratch.
However if we saw.many different systems. Physical laws that vary in different areas.. that could also be described by a designer. He designed it that way. Different rooms in my house are very different. Function, design, materials... but nature is uniform. And uniformity is what we see.
Ive already listed the uniformity of life, the universe is no different. All of it is just repeating solar systems that come out in preset ways depending on what, and how.much, you put into the original blender. Repeatedly clustered into galaxies, clustered into clusters as far as light can reach. All with the same laws everywhere.
Again, not difficult, just less effective. I for one dont believe juggling is usually productive, but i am eager to end this side discussion. We'll let the debate decide how constructive it is :)
Unfortunately your video doesnt match your argument. The video uses my first proof at time stamp 1:50, and my second proof at 6:10. So not only does it support my conclusion, but also my methods.
As i said, im open to going your way, and i didnt mean that it is particularly difficult, just less efficient/effective in comparison to focusing on 1 assertion at a time.
Each round we will rebutting different subjects. Seems suboptimal. But im down to see how this works out. I just wanted to make my concern known, not insist upon it.
I disagree that historical and scientific evidence have confirmed/not contradicted biblical events. The flood for example was never established as world wide, and in fact seems to be found in pre christian cultures only in that region, and with different explanations. If god came down and told the only suriving person what he did, it likely wouldnt have been so badly misinterpreted and attributed to other or many gods before returning to the "accurate" story. Many centuries/millenia later.
Historians do agree jesus was likely a real person, but his miracles have not.
Btw, eyewitness accounts are amongst the weakest version of courtroom evidence. Objective evidence from the scene, similar to what science searches for, is the gold standard. Memories are not recordings of an event. Memories are notoriously faulty.
Finally, one would expect a worshipped holy book would be perserved and copied more then most books, but what of other books, like those of hinduism that saw similar worship? They were likely spread to every temple and home as well. Its widespreadness is due to cultural importance. Mass appeal has never signified truth.
Re: life
You are conflating 2 issues.
The lack of proper definition of life/death is due to incomplete data.
The lack of scientific input on abortion is because that is not for scientists to decide. Scientists are to tell us objective data. When the heart stops. When cells stop. when the brain stops. When the breathing stops (or starts) And what happens to the rest of the systems when any of those happen. To figure out the border between life and death, we need a ton of data, and that is a major definition we should not rush. We have tentative definitions for those borders, but they are not wholly satisfactory to our standards.
Scientifically speaking, there is no objective measure of personhood/individuality. That is a social border we as a public should determine while weighing the objective data of fetal development as discovered by science. Expert opinion on personhood could come from social scientists, policy makers, social philosophers, and even lay people. It is not an objective measurement, but a subjective one based on varying criteria. Personhood is not a physiological process, brain activity is.
Science is the supreme method of aquiring knowledge, that doesnt mean it is the supreme repository of knowledge. If god is the supreme repository of knowledge, we do not have access to that repository and he has only shared his moral guidance, and zero information regarding the workings of his creation. Thus im not sure what your issue is. As far as a method of attaining knowledge, not having all the answers only raises the importance of the method to get those answers objectively.
Your world view is a personal thing. It does not account for the broader view that disagrees with you. What is gods definition of life? and how can you determine objectively that it came from god and not some joe writing fiction? There are numerous eye witness accounts of harry potters victory in his first golden thingy event, but those witnesses come from the same source
Interesting.
However i dont see how one can make a logical connection between people who feel they are the wrong one of 2 physical genders, and people who feel they are on a spectrum of personality genders. Like gender nonconformists.
The term may be used as an umbrella by lay people vut the conditions and issues are completely unrelated!
Love the new avatar pic. Perfect! Lol
Re: Dalton
Seems fair. I approve
Re: scientific method
I dont think there is much difference. I think the acid base reaction is quite similar. We mix the reactants, we get the results. But what happened in between is not observed, it is assumed based off studies and observation. Until perhaps extremely recently we did not watch the individual atoms interact. We just worked the process back logically based off of the fallout from the reaction.
We have objectively looked back at the early universe (distance = back in time due to speed of light limitations), we saw a blob of undifferentiated energy and loose matter. This is no eternal universe, this is the result of a condensed mass, and that mass is in every direction back in time. It is as indisputable as the acid base reaction. Maybe even more so cause quantum mechanics is a heck of a mess. Large scale physics are actually much better understood then quantum reactions.
As for intelligent design. It is my opinion that any situation fits intelligent design, however only a few scenarios fit natural design, and reality seems to suspiciously fit the narrow expectations of natural design. If the explanation that requires very specific circumstances to be true, ends up having all of its circumstances confirmed, the explanation that would fit any and every scenario seems less likely in comparison. I dont think i can fit a detail explanation of that claim in this post. Ill probably save it for the next round.
Perhaps, but i am trying to be persuasive, and your words are now part of this discussion independent of you yourself. I find them supportive of my stance with a bit of elaboration, so they were mentioned. Thanks!
I didnt forget that factor. I didnt say its infintely close to 1. I said it IS one.
Its also very much a real number, an official category with an official definition. Not only is 0.999... a real number, its a "rational" number, unlike pi, or square root of 2 which are "irrational numbers"
Infinity is not a number, but 9.999... is not infinity. It has infinite 9s after the decimal point, but it isnt itaelf infinity. How can a number smaller then 11 be infinity?
The math i used was math intended to be used for repeating decimals. Did you really read my arguments? Or are you offering to be a new challenger?
Trans is just the "T" in LGTQ...
Queer has its own letter: "Q"
Trans stands exclusively for people feeling unease at their birth sex, seeking to become the other OF 2 GENDERS. To *TRANS*isition.
All 3rd gender issues are about as related to trans as a homosexuality. None of these issues are related in anyway besides joining up in an acronym.
Can you show any reference to trans including any of those other groups cause i think you are very mistaken.
Best flat earth argument yet!
I may be convinced. š¤
I wish that were always true, especially in online debate channels :p Perhaps if i knew the person better.
Well that settles that lol.
This does negate one of my arguments in another debate so thats vexing. Lol
No, i do not.
Sarcasm is incredibly hard to convey through text, especially with no attempt to clearly convey it, and to someone who knows nothing about you. Furthermore his second paragraph explaining why he voted for pro with "nevertheless", a statement that supports the assertion that he is voting against his beliefs.
May i recommend either of: š,š,š,š¹,š© or š to denote sarcasm. Those who are not emoji-able can use the less technical :p
To be honest it seemed like yet another misunderstand of infinity. Not that ridiculous when 2 debators had already just made that mistake.
An ant on a beach ball can see the curvature of the beach ball.
You can see an ant on the beach ball
You cannot see people on the earth from space.
You cannot see bacteria on a beach ball
Bacteria see the beach ball as a flat plane.
Their bridges are so tiny they do not need to take any curvature into account.
If the earth was a beach ball, you would be the size of a bacteria, or maybe some slightly bigger single celled creature.
You see the earth as a flat plane. Your bridges are tiny. Because you are so tiny.
Everest is 30,000 feet tall. Mariana trench is 36,000 feet deep.
The circumference of the earth is 131.5 MILLION feet. If you ran your finger along the earth from space, it would feel as smooth as a billiards ball.
A lack of understanding of scales does not prove a flat earth.
No flat earth model can explain both the solar and lunar eclipses. Both lunar and solar eclipses do happen. Therefore the earth is not flat. Vote Nemiroff! Thank you very much! šš»
Its funny that most of you are talking primarily about trans, who btw agree there are only 2 genders... their just the wrong one. Lol
The 3rd gender issue is seperate, has nothing to do with a dysphoria, and is simply people who dont fit gender norms, but are perfectly fine with their birth sex.
This confusion is on both sides, the ignorant attackers and the blind defenders :p
A revelation in another thread may have helped me clarify my opening assertion. Although i say scientific principles like big bang, evolution, atomic theory, or germ theory are both fact and theory, there is a difference between big bang fact and big bang theory.
The theory is a complex description of the fact, and although the details may change (how fast the expansion, when/where the expansion, the steps of the expansion). The fact (a simple 1 sentence statement like "the big bang happened") remains true and will likely never be debunked. Daltons theory was tweeked, but overall the existence of atoms as described by him was not, and in all likelyhood, will not be debunked. Gravity, evolution, germs all definitevely exist no matter how much we may clarify their mechanisms in the future.
Unlike abiogenesis or the aether which were totally debunked from the fine details to the fundamental concept. All thrown in the trash.
Everything you said is 100% accurate. However that doesnt change the fact/theory duality of things like evolution.
Even if some aspects of our details about evolution (aka the theory) change, the overall process of evolution is a fact.
We may modify the rate of change, add some mechanisms, etc to the theory, but that wont change it from evolution to not evolution. Kinda how minor tweeks to general relativity wont debunk the fact of gravity.
And what does make for a fact?
The sheer number of lies he has told us the people should have gotten him impeached a long time ago. Using the power of the presidency to attack political rivals is insane. Enlisting foreign governments to do that is just icing.
Dude, your starting to sound like donald trump. Everything that doesnt go the way you want must be unfair and part of a conspiracy against you. No debator has (apparently) ever been treated as bad as you. WITCHHUNT!!!
What is more important: that they call themselves socialist? Or that they actually act socialist?
Hint: words are cheap, actions matter.
You should really look up the definitions before making definitive statements. Some words have more technical definition within certain fields... like theory in science.
Time for argument 12 hours! Screw that.
I would imagine the only real argument for this would be based off pure liberitarian free market principles.
Yes there is little free about china's economy, however that is public knowledge and private compabies have been more then willing to freely hand over their IP in exchange to access to chinese markets.
I am not a liberitarian and am not willing to risk national security for private profits. I believe we as a society have a greater duty to our people, our economy, and our nation, then we have towards some blind, self defeating ideology.
Re: life
I define life in a very technical sense, meaning the organ is just as "alive" as a person, but the organ is clearly not a person. In discussions like abortion i stress the question of whether it is a person or an individual rather then is it alive. It certainly isnt dead at any point!
For the most.part i agree with the consensus tentative defintion of life. Reproduction, internal locomotion, metabolism, etc.
If your definition of life is body+soul then does that mean all animals have souls? And does that also include microbes? Most christians do not think animals have souls, but they are definitely alive. Just clarifying.
2. I was gonna comment earlier but as we have no definition of life, we have no actual definition of death. Its painfully obvious when someone is dead, but when was the moment of death? Cessation of brain activity? Maybe just the upper part of brain activity? The heart? The last cell? The last breathe? Are the brain dead actually dead? We dont know. The body is a complex interaction of many system and identifying a border is very much subject to debate.
3. "my understanding of life does not require a strict definition that encompasses all living or potentially living things. Whether a virus is alive is inconsequential."
Whether its inconsequential to you does not speak for others, and in general we try to define things technically. The existence of dictionaries is proof. And the qualification of viruses is imperative in determining that definition. Your arguments did not negate, or acknowledge, the overall need of a definition regardless of your personal disinterest.
4. I understand your source of morality, however how does one verify its authenticity vs the morality of other gods? You spoke of how science should require only direct observation and recreation for facts, is this same standard applicable here?
Re scientific method
Absolutely if it is.possible recreating the reaction is great! However how can we recreate the fusion of elements higher then helium or hydrogen in stars? We cannot. Should we surrender to ignorance despite the plentiful availability of other evidence?
We know the math makes sense, so there the theoretical proof, but to find empirical proof, we can simply identify stars of the same type and then compare their chemical makeup. Young stars have mostly hydrogen and helium, old stars have more heavy elements. Supernova cores are almost entirely heavy elements. Obviously a small survey of a handful of stars is anecdotal, but a survey of millions of stars by thousands of astronomers, or even billions by computer algorithms keep showing the *exact* same result, the proof is as strong as the assertion that the sun will rise tomorrow. We cant recreate the future today, but we have enough evidence to establish certainty (unless god decides to freeze it again)
Re: Dalton
The first time i posted dalton's theory was a direct paste. The second time with the parenthesis was to show how little changed with the parenthesis being the minor corrections.
Also the proportion was not of atoms, but atomic weights. A technical correction but it still fails in the same way with complex molecules.
Regarding your conundrum, there are many variables and questions i have. An accepted theory is not the work of 1 man, and others may add or modify parts before it becomes a consensus theory. His historic propositions were almost entirely correct, but that doesnt mean his original work was accepted without controversy or modification. However i think in this specific case it was. I will have to reevaluate my initial claim, thank you very much for stepping up to the challenge. I knew my absolute statement was a bold assertion, however the spirit of my claim rings true as this 200 year old theory regarding miniscule atoms we have just now been able to visualize, is still almost entirely accurate; that is amazing. And his limitations were entirely technological as most isobars are rare, radioactive elements likely not discovered and destroying atoms took many many many advances in technology.
What i initially envisioned as a "debunked theory" was something like the aether or the original version of abiogenesis (maggots from rotting food) where the whole thing ended up being absurdly wrong and completely barking up the wrong tree. Those "theories" were never tested or established, just assumed. They were believed by scientists, but they were in no way science.
The op makes a debate about gender but talks almost exclusively about sex. Good luck.
Islamic slavery was most often debt slavery, and in all the thousands of years they did not commit as much brutality as american slavery did in a few hundred years. It was likely the most brutal slavery of all human history.
All slavery is bad, but your first sentences contradicts the rest. Just as many were raped, and it may have not been castratation, but the mutilation inflicted on southern slaves may have been worse. Castration keeps them from.making you more slaves!
You are wrong. Idk about most chirstians, but the chattel slavery of america is of the most horrific and brutal kind. They were not people, the were objects.
Re: Life
If I may pause you, I must make some corrections.
1. they are all life. the ball of cells at conception, the sperm and egg before conception, the person, the tumor, the bacteria. All life. Being life doesn't qualify you as a person.
2. science doesn't make moral judgements. Doctors are the ones that tend to support abortion, for scientists, its usually a personal call.
3. you dont understand the definition of "definition."
4. If science alone lacks the answer, where do we get it, and how do we verify it? You say god, but another god (hindu) said cows are sacred too. possibly more then man.
There is no start to life, since the very start. Life is a continuous process. When do we become a person is the question.
For me it is the spark of consciousness that occurs when upper portions of the brain become activated. The way I see it, you can enter an incomplete ship, but you cant enter a pile of wood sitting on the shore. I suspect the entrance of the divine spark would have a noticeble effect, perhaps a sudden rush, or a focusing of electrical activity? of course i'm basing this purely on faith. Once the brain begins to interpret reality, OR, gets some sort of stream of experience, its a person. And once you qualify as a person, you dont lose that qualification until death.
a heart beat has historic and symbolic reasons for being so important. Its just a pump physiologically speaking. The only organ that matters to your identity, the only possible location of the soul if its within the body, is the brain. the rest is basically just a mech suit.
Re: scientific method
I'm sorry but indirect observation such as air bubbles in ice, tree rings, and the aftermaths of a universal events are all empirical. There is nothing theoretical about them. Theoretical evidence are unrelated to the real world, like the math equations behind string theory, or einsteins general relativity until recently (all that hype over the gravity waves... general relativity, despite decades of popularity, finally got empirical!)
so not only are all of those examples empirical evidence, theoretical evidence isn't all that bad either if its indisputable like general relativity, but unlike string theory.
And it wasn't about technical details. You are fundamentally mistaken regarding what repeatable is in reference to, and you provide a scenario where scientist A is withholding the methodology that led to his results from Scientist B. How is B supposed to confirm anything! If the data is presented, the scientist B would have no problem and your issue is a non issue.
I believe I thanked you for the info, and noted that I would have to change my intro to it regarding limitation statements, like "final," "original," "indestructible," ect. With better tech we can always look smaller or strike harder. however the actual discoveries without those speculations were spot on.
Elements are made of extremely small particles called atoms.
Atoms of a given element are (nearly) identical in size, mass and other properties;
Atoms of different elements differ in size, mass and other properties.
Atoms cannot be (subdivided), created or destroyed by chemical reactions.
Atoms of different elements combine in simple whole-number ratios to form chemical compounds.
In chemical reactions, atoms are combined, separated or rearranged.
2 extremely minor changes i could demonstrate with just paranthesis.
Never heard of isobars and a google search showed something related to meteorology. not relevant
Whole number ratios do not mean just 2. can you demonstrate thats what he meant? your molecule is a simple 12:22:11 all whole numbers. no decimals.
Half way through voting bump
Half way through voting bump
I can take your challenge if you like :D
Im not asking you to defend science, im asking you to defend your assertion that a detailed definition is required to identify life.
Chemistry explains the origins of life quite well however your expectations of a clear border is disproven by the viruses, and possibly prions. Is the virus alive?.
When you have free floating replicating material, the point where it becomes life is up for debate. Reality is rarely black or white.
Dalton's Theory:
Elements are made of extremely small particles calledĀ atoms.Atoms of a given element are identical in size, mass and other properties; atoms of different elements differ in size, mass and other properties.Atoms cannot be subdivided, created or destroyed by chemical reactions. Atoms of different elements combine in simple whole-number ratios to formĀ chemical compounds.InĀ chemical reactions, atoms are combined, separated or rearranged.
Accurate.
The only changes would be minute expansions on fine details.
We currently accept the standard model as the fundamental forms of matter. We hypothesize more fundamental forms, like string theory which would correct the "most fundamental" part... but none of the discoveries or predicitions of the standard model and its associated theories. It will all still work and continue to ACCURATELY explain the world on that level.
I will have to correct my statement a bit in the future, thank you, but thats more of a technical lawyer like correction rather then a disproving of the process of science.
Your combustion analogy is flawed due to simplicity. It appears to me scientist A made something up as im given no background information of how he was studying it. I may not be able to replicate the original event, but i should be able to replicate his experiment/study. For the sake of relevance, im hoping they are studying an unreplicatable historic event with some sort of measureable fallout and not a personal experience.
A more realistic analogy would be ancient atmospheres. We cannot replicate the atmosphere of ancient times, but we can get a sample of ice from different layers and compare its air pockets. Or measure specific things like amount of CO2 vs tree ring size of old trees. We can piece together information from many different sources to get a better understanding rather then interpreting single studies one at a time. A mountain of evidence is stronger then the sum of its parts.