- Oct 29, 2017
- 64,441
- 10,678
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
Hmmm... Guess that confirming evidence wasn't so confirming after all.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You're asking for 'confirming evidence' (or a logical 'proof') for what is now regarded as being a scientific hypothesis (Abiogenesis)? The term 'theory', as in the 'Oparin-Haldane theory' is over a hundred years old and its meaning has changed.
Ok .. 'results consistent with the hypothesis' then ..Actually the correct word is testing. What science does is to try to figure out a test that will have one result is a theory is correct and a different result if it is not. The scientist wins either way. Oh perhaps a bigger if the result goes the way they expected. But a win either way.
The person seeking to confirm their religious beliefs is in an entirely different situation. If the result of the test conflicts with their position it is a disaster for them.
Ok .. 'results consistent with the hypothesis' then ..
I suspect you're waiting for answers to questions which are not under test.I'm waiting to see a successful test. So far no one has been able to reproduce those reults
.. which demonstrates to me, the different ways how arrive at a meaning for 'reality', (which I see you're relying on there). Science's way is not via way of beliefs (or delusions, in the case of 'mental' facilities). Those ways are distinguishable via objective testing (of a testable hypothesis).HARK! said:Our entire perception of reality operates purely on personal belief. The mental institutions are full of living examples of those with personal beliefs outside of what most others consider reality.
I don't have a clue what you mean by 'transcends your own perception'. But I do understand how we arrive at meanings for 'reality'.HARK! said:Do you feel that your understanding of reality somehow transcends your own perception?
I'll leave that one up to @Speedwell ..Hmmm... Guess that confirming evidence wasn't so confirming after all.
AV1611VET said:Wow -- the paranoia in this thread is thick.
renniks said:Oh good grief! That's ridiculous on so many levels.
Issued by Geological Society of AustraliaAn essential element in the teaching of science is the encouragement of students and teachers to critically appraise the evidence for notions being taught as science. The Society states unequivocally that the dogmatic teaching of notions such as Creationism within a science curriculum stifles the development of critical thinking patterns in the developing mind and seriously compromises the best interests of objective public education. This could eventually hamper the advancement of science and technology as students take their places as leaders of future generations.
Cool. A bit too Newtonian. Still, not bad. But it doesn't prove creationism.I have this hypothesis that the universe was created. The empirical evidence, and the laws of science, would lead me to no other conclusion of its' veracity.
Science Proves Creation
Yes .. that is your belief .. (I get that).I have this hypothesis that the universe was created. The empirical evidence, and the laws of science, would lead me to no other conclusion of its' veracity.
.. which demonstrates to me, the different ways how arrive at a meaning for 'reality', (which I see you're relying on there). Science's way is not via way of beliefs (or delusions, in the case of 'mental' facilities). Those ways are distinguishable via objective testing (of a testable hypothesis).
Yes .. that is your belief .. (I get that).
Thanks for the QED.Both of you are prime examples of what would happen if the education system masquerading as science and operating on circular arguments by putting the conclusion first and working backwards; a production line of individuals who cannot think for themselves and a hostility towards real science.
The end result is a stagnation of technological and economic progress.
My vote is that they teach creationism in history class.They shouldn't teach it in a science class because it's not science. What they should do is teach about the creation in a religion and philosophy class, starting in kindergarten through the twelve grade.
Exactly backwards. Teaching that's there's More than one possiblity enhances critical thinking, it doesn't stifle it.Both of you are prime examples of what would happen if the education system masquerading as science and operating on circular arguments by putting the conclusion first and working backwards; a production line of individuals who cannot think for themselves and a hostility towards real science.
The end result is a stagnation of technological and economic progress.
This is not exclusively an American problem there are no mincing of words in Australia.
Issued by Geological Society of Australia
Again .. you are asking a question which has an unstated belief (or many of them) as its basis. Science doesn't address beliefs where they cannot be stated in objectively testable ways. (So 'no', I don't agree .. namely because I don't have to agree).I'm still waiting for a conclusive test. This should be easily verifiable under ideal controlled laboratory conditions, right?
Patience .. patience.HARK! said:How much longer do we have to wait? Why are our children being taught this unverified hypothesis in the mean time?
Aids by providing an alternative (and highly useful) way of thinking when compared with chasing beliefs (deluded, or otherwise), and suffering the consequences thereof.HARK! said:How does teaching this unverified hypothesis prepare them to run their own businesses?
You mean where the business actually becomes the hypothesis under test? Sure.HARK! said:Have you ever run a successful business solely on unverified hypotheses?
My vote is that they teach creationism in history class.
I don't have a clue what you mean by 'transcends your own perception'. But I do understand how we arrive at meanings for 'reality'.
What do you mean by 'created'?Scientific law supports that belief.
Absolute factual pure history.A history of religions class? Or, taught as history? How about taught as an interpretation of history?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?