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.
then why is it not called a fact? Is anything in science considered fact?
then why is it not called a fact? Is anything in science considered fact?
then why is it not called a fact? Is anything in science considered fact?
Wait, what?As to fact, dont listen to coder.
So we agree. You and I are both saying that evolution (not the "Theory of Evolution") is a fact. Evolution happens, it's a fact.MAYBE evolution is a fact; i think it is.
Wait, what?
So we agree. You and I are both saying that evolution (not the "Theory of Evolution") is a fact. Evolution happens, it's a fact.
No we dont agree. Did you read my post?
Among other things i said I THINK ToE is a fact.
That is very different from saying it IS.
If i went into a seminar and said "I think these are my data points"
I would be subject to laughter.
if i said and therefor the theory based on my data is a FACT, i would look like a complete idiot.
Here's the bottom line spoken by Dawkins himself:
Science doesn't know.
and here's my take on those not knowing limitations: Science, it appears, is limited. It cannot explain the un-fathomable, the inexplicable, and is based on the limited perceptions of flawed man. It can go no further, and never has, in the history of mankind, it has not. Even a child can see the night sky and perceive there are phenomena bigger than they are. SOMETHING had to put all of it in place. SOMETHING BIGGER than that child. Even a child can sense that there is something inexplicable happening when they are happy, sad, in awe of something they canot explain. Even a child senses there is an inexplicable part of them that is the well spring of their emotions and that there's a part of them that is as unique as their thumb print, and that there is no one as unique as them and never will be. Even a child knows the difference between feeling loved and hated or despised. Even a child knows there is a reason for that. And even a child senses that the reason we soooo need to be loved, and why we respond to love is because there is a Being Who DOES love us, and even a child knows that THAT is what makes life worth living.
Science, in its current way of presenting itself has the audacity to, although it cannot explain the inexplicable, says, in essence, "go over there and play with your toys...we don't talk about such things"......same thing. Reminds me of Kay in the Snow Queen story. He was encased in an icy world and was compelled to mechanically form chards of icy triangles non-stop.
Scioence, in its purest form, is full of wonder at the inexplicable, for science would recognize its limitations and realize there is so much further to go, and out of curiousity, continue on....not throw out the inexplicable, like the God so many believe in, Who is inexplicable, and science, honestly must recognize this, and explore those multitudes of inexplicable components that make up the human psyche that connects with an inexplicable God, instead of saying "go over there and play withy your toys..we don't talk about such things".
It would be a start.
It is a fact that evolution is observed to be a myth.
That's a lie. Honesty has never been the virtue of Darwinists.No, that would be a lie. Another clear violation of the ninth.
I have to agree with everyone else here, Hespera. A fact would be saying "the sky is blue." That's a fact. Now, why or how is the sky blue would be the "Theory of the Blue Sky" or whatever.No we dont agree. Did you read my post?
Among other things i said I THINK ToE is a fact.
That is very different from saying it IS.
If i went into a seminar and said "I think these are my data points"
I would be subject to laughter.
if i said and therefor the theory based on my data is a FACT, i would look like a complete idiot.
Why do you think these insidious Darwinists lie and propagate the idea of evolution?That's a lie. Honesty has never been the virtue of Darwinists.
In fact, Darwinists are masters of deliberate treachery, trickery, and deception.
Wait, what?
So we agree. You and I are both saying that evolution (not the "Theory of Evolution") is a fact. Evolution happens, it's a fact.
Do you understand what we mean when we say fact?Is that your final answer? That evolution is a fact? Are you sure you wanna say that?
Originally Posted by brinny
Here's the bottom line spoken by Dawkins himself:
Science doesn't know.
and here's my take on those not knowing limitations: Science, it appears, is limited. It cannot explain the un-fathomable, the inexplicable, and is based on the limited perceptions of flawed man. It can go no further, and never has, in the history of mankind, it has not. Even a child can see the night sky and perceive there are phenomena bigger than they are. SOMETHING had to put all of it in place. SOMETHING BIGGER than that child. Even a child can sense that there is something inexplicable happening when they are happy, sad, in awe of something they canot explain. Even a child senses there is an inexplicable part of them that is the well spring of their emotions and that there's a part of them that is as unique as their thumb print, and that there is no one as unique as them and never will be. Even a child knows the difference between feeling loved and hated or despised. Even a child knows there is a reason for that. And even a child senses that the reason we soooo need to be loved, and why we respond to love is because there is a Being Who DOES love us, and even a child knows that THAT is what makes life worth living.
Science, in its current way of presenting itself has the audacity to, although it cannot explain the inexplicable, says, in essence, "go over there and play with your toys...we don't talk about such things"......same thing. Reminds me of Kay in the Snow Queen story. He was encased in an icy world and was compelled to mechanically form chards of icy triangles non-stop.
Scioence, in its purest form, is full of wonder at the inexplicable, for science would recognize its limitations and realize there is so much further to go, and out of curiousity, continue on....not throw out the inexplicable, like the God so many believe in, Who is inexplicable, and science, honestly must recognize this, and explore those multitudes of inexplicable components that make up the human psyche that connects with an inexplicable God, instead of saying "go over there and play withy your toys..we don't talk about such things".
It would be a start.
Brinny,
Please understand that science isn't saying "God does NOT exist!" Science, when done properly says nothing about God's existence.The key here is not that someone is telling poor Bil O'Reilly he can't think about God, it's that he can't just assume that if there's a gap in science that he can therefore shove in his particular interpretation of the Judeo-Christian God.
The fact is there are numerous gods available for the job and none of them provide an explicable mechanism by which we can use the information to further the science.
That's the key point. Sure there's lots of wonderful amazing things in nature! No one, least of all scientists, denies that! But the amazing parts don't necessarily have to be YOUR particular god or goddess or supernatural being.
They are "unknowns". You may feel with all your heart that you "know" this being. And for that I am happy for you. I "know" my dog, Aleister Growley, loves me. I don't know how I would "prove" that to you. But I "feel it" strongly.
That is what religion does, it fills in our gaps and gives some a feeling or sense of happiness and security. But it isn't a mechanism of explanation that science can use.
If you open that door then you have basically thrown out one of the most important rules that makes science work as well as it has: you allow people to assume un-explained mechanisms as a final answer.
Why didn't my reaction work well in the lab yesterday? Well, perhaps I had angered God in the morning and he decided to disallow thermodynamics at my lab bench. Better get to prayin' and maybe the exact same set of circumstances will result in a completely different result!
Do you see how that is corrosive to science?
NOT that religion is "bad" or science is "anti-religion", but religion has no place in science. Even the stuff we don't know yet. The key word there is "yet".
Maybe it is God! Who knows? But we have to prove God first and the "model" God's actions such that we can utilize the "God Hypothesis" in science to make our models work consistently and understandably.
If Bill O'Reilly wants god in the science class room then he better be OK with that god being: Allah, Aharu Mazda, Zeus, Yahweh, Odin...etc etc etc etc etc etc etc....
Originally Posted by brinny
Is that your final answer? That evolution is a fact? Are you sure you wanna say that?
Yep.
You're absolutely right in that if something is beyond our senses, we can't analyze it, study it, or etc. However, I have to ask you: if your god is beyond our senses, how can you know it exists?How does one put something inexplicable under a microscope, something that is not visible to the human eye, beause it is beyond our senses? How do limited human beings, who are so fallible and weak that they die, take an eon of time, or anything that is beyond our understanding, and put it under a tinker toy, of sorts, like a microscope?
That's a lie. Honesty has never been the virtue of Darwinists.
In fact, Darwinists are masters of deliberate treachery, trickery, and deception.
I have to agree with everyone else here, Hespera. A fact would be saying "the sky is blue." That's a fact. Now, why or how is the sky blue would be the "Theory of the Blue Sky" or whatever.
So, evolution as the change in allele frequency is a fact. That can be readily observed. Why or how it happens is where the Theory of Evolution comes in.
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?