The Theorem of Kurt Gödel leads to conclusion, that no theory can be Absolutely Proved.
Because must contain unproven assumptions. Does it mean, that Darwin's Theory is not a fact?
But disproval of Gödel is simple: if nothing can be finally proven, then the Gödel's Theorem is not proven as well.
Gödel is plain wrong!
Thus, one can conclude, that a theory is true, when it can be proven. Consider thesis "God exists". The self-consistency of atheistic philosophy can never be established, because God can never be disproven (as all atheists say). Thus, there exists proof of God, and so God must be proven, if He can not be disproven.
According to Popper's criterion, if the theory cannot be refuted, then it is not scientific, therefore it is already wrong, because science is the search for the Absolute Truth. The theory is scientific, if it is possible to disprove it? Money can do all, then how much to pay and to whom to disprove Darwin's Theory?
Opponent: "just by showing us God to the inspection. We would insert thermometers into all His holes!'' Me: "Do you mix science and religion? Are you a pretended believer now? Wolf in sheep's clothing!"
However, Popper is not right himself and his contribution must be changed as follows: a theory is scientific if it can be confirmed (not Popper's wrong wording "can be refuted''). During confirmation of a theory prediction, a theory can become falsified, thus can lost right to be called a theory; unlike the Popper's criterion: once falsified theory is forever false, and, thus, remains scientific. It is the secret, why the Darwin's Evolution is being in schools, however it is many times falsified. Popper's Science is science of lies. No observed Macro-evolution yet:
Please read these too:
Is it really Fermat's Last Theorem proven?
Disproof of Millennium Prize problem proof
Because must contain unproven assumptions. Does it mean, that Darwin's Theory is not a fact?
But disproval of Gödel is simple: if nothing can be finally proven, then the Gödel's Theorem is not proven as well.
Gödel is plain wrong!
Thus, one can conclude, that a theory is true, when it can be proven. Consider thesis "God exists". The self-consistency of atheistic philosophy can never be established, because God can never be disproven (as all atheists say). Thus, there exists proof of God, and so God must be proven, if He can not be disproven.
According to Popper's criterion, if the theory cannot be refuted, then it is not scientific, therefore it is already wrong, because science is the search for the Absolute Truth. The theory is scientific, if it is possible to disprove it? Money can do all, then how much to pay and to whom to disprove Darwin's Theory?
Opponent: "just by showing us God to the inspection. We would insert thermometers into all His holes!'' Me: "Do you mix science and religion? Are you a pretended believer now? Wolf in sheep's clothing!"
However, Popper is not right himself and his contribution must be changed as follows: a theory is scientific if it can be confirmed (not Popper's wrong wording "can be refuted''). During confirmation of a theory prediction, a theory can become falsified, thus can lost right to be called a theory; unlike the Popper's criterion: once falsified theory is forever false, and, thus, remains scientific. It is the secret, why the Darwin's Evolution is being in schools, however it is many times falsified. Popper's Science is science of lies. No observed Macro-evolution yet:
Please read these too:
Is it really Fermat's Last Theorem proven?
Disproof of Millennium Prize problem proof
Last edited: