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.
There is no scientism.
So confirmed doesn't really mean confirmed.Exactly what it says. All theories are tentative - they're subject to change in light of new data. Nothing is ever 100% provenTentatively confirmed?
What on earth does that mean?
So confirmed doesn't really mean confirmed.
Got it.
Tentative : not done with confidence : uncertain and hesitant : not definite : still able to be changed : not fully worked out or developed
Webster
Confirm : to state or show that (something) is true or correct: to tell someone that something has definitely happened or is going to happen
Webster
I'm scratching my head for a reason.
Suppose that you invent a good guess, calculate the consequences, and discover every time that the consequences you have calculated agree with experiment. The theory is then right? No, it is simply not proved wrong. Because in the future there could be a wider range of experiments, you could compute a wider range of consequences, and you may discover that the thing is wrong.
That's why the laws like Newton's Laws about the motion of planets last such a long time. You get the law of gravitation and all the kinds of consequences for the solar system, and so on, compare them to experiment, and it took several hundred years before the slight error of the motion of Mercury was developed. During all that time, the theory had been failed to be proved wrong and could be taken to be temporarily right. But it can never be proved right because tomorrow's experiment may succeed in proving what you thought was right wrong.
We never are right; we can only be sure we're wrong.
You've never heard of something being 'disconfirmed?'
dis·con·firm transitive verb \ˌdis-kən-ˈfərm\
DISCONFIRM
: to deny or refute the validity of
Just because we confirm something doesn't mean we're 100% right about it - it only means that we've accepted it with all the available facts. For instance, a witness might confirm that a suspect was with them on a particular night. If this witness is shown to be lying, however, this is disconfirmed.
Maybe this can help you - it's an excerpt from Richard Feynman, who, I think, excellently explains the concept.
Does this help? I'm guessing you're confused because you're lumping all the definitions of 'tentative' together, but for the purposes of this conversation, tentative just means that something is subject to change. 'Provisional' would probably be a more precise word.
It's the same way we convict criminals - we use the best available evidence and make a judgement. But if, after the criminal is tried, strong evidence is brought forth showing he's innocent, we, bare minimum, given the criminal a chance to be retried and have his case re-examined with the new evidence (ideally, anyway; that's the way it's supposed to work) We don't say that he's doomed to serve out his sentence no matter what new evidence is presented - the verdict is tentative, in the sense that it can change in the light of new data.
The "facts of men" verses the "Voice of God" in light of True with a capital "T" verses true with a small "t".
When God writes His Word upon our heart through His Spirit, what we hear in heart is capital "T". The facts of men does not compare in being conclusive, absolute, and the like in how things are.
.
Sorry, but they haven't. Scientists are generally irreligious, and religious scientists overwhelmingly reject creationism and intelligent design.Those scientists, PHD'S, Nobel prize winners and nominees, vehemently working in the 50's, 60's, and 70's to prove that evolution proved the lack of necessity of a creator have mostly now changed their minds and taken to believing in God a creator. New discoveries in cell structure and DNA have led them to believe that life on earth was a designed mechanism by a designer. Read David's Gift by H G Keller and The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel.
Both Watson and Crick have changed their minds about life starting on its own. Others such as William Lane Craig, PhD, Jonathan Wells, PhD, PhD, Stephen C. Meyer, PhD, Robin Collins, PhD, Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, Jay Wesley Richards, PhD. and Michael J. Behe, PhD just to name a few. Maybe you are right, that most are irreligious but my statement that most of those in the 50's through the 70's working so hard to disprove our creator have now changed their minds.
William Lane Craig is not a scientist.
REALLY? You are going to refute my argument by saying William Lane Craig was not a scientist? He is a Cosmologist and has written books and articles in philosophical and scientific journals.
There is a cult of ignorance in all countries. In man himself. Why do you want to make it look like the USA is the center of all evil. This is the most Christian country in the world. God has smiled on us for two centuries. Now our country is moving away from God and we are seeing the results of that.
Craig is a philosopher, not a scientist.Both Watson and Crick have changed their minds about life starting on its own. Others such as William Lane Craig, PhD, Jonathan Wells, PhD, PhD, Stephen C. Meyer, PhD, Robin Collins, PhD, Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, Jay Wesley Richards, PhD. and Michael J. Behe, PhD just to name a few. Maybe you are right, that most are irreligious but my statement that most of those in the 50's through the 70's working so hard to disprove our creator have now changed their minds.
Craig is not a cosmologist.REALLY? You are going to refute my argument by saying William Lane Craig was not a scientist? He is a Cosmologist and has written books and articles in philosophical and scientific journals.
Evolution can not be proven because nobody has ever seen it happening
Those scientists, PHD'S, Nobel prize winners and nominees, vehemently working in the 50's, 60's, and 70's to prove that evolution proved the lack of necessity of a creator have mostly now changed their minds and taken to believing in God a creator. New discoveries in cell structure and DNA have led them to believe that life on earth was a designed mechanism by a designer. Read David's Gift by H G Keller and The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel.
We see plate tectonics but do not see the breakup of a supercontinent.
It's true that all scientific history is science-fiction. It's all made up
stories based on current observations. If it can't be duplicated by
skeptical observers then it is not real science. It's just science
based fictions.
When have we ever 'seen' plate tectonics?We see plate tectonics
If it can't be duplicated by
skeptical observers then it is not real science.
No one can duplicate the orbit of Pluto, and no one's ever seen it make a full orbit around the Sun. Are scientists who calculate the orbit of Pluto not using real science?
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?