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.
I think you are confusing that with the standard anti-science assertion such as "its just a theory".What I find interesting is that many who subscribe to the theory of evolution claim that, 'it isn't just another scientific theory;' until, you know, it becomes convenient for it ti be one.
I think you are confusing that with the standard anti-science assertion such as "its just a theory".
factI'll get right on that, as soon as you prove that which you claim is indeed a fact.
The evidence of creation is all around us,
So, no example, no explanation, no mechanism of creation, etc., just silly platitudes and slogans.but it takes the logic/good sense our creator gave us to have enough sense to recognize things never create themselves from nothing, something that is essentially the only alternative.
So the only alternative to biblical creationism is that things created themselves from nothing. And then you wonder why we don't take you seriously.The evidence of creation is all around us, but it takes the logic/good sense our creator gave us to have enough sense to recognize things never create themselves from nothing, something that is essentially the only alternative.
Er, yes. That is what your people do on a regular basis. Even senile, astrologer-using Ronzo Reagan said it.
How is it both man and dinosaurs were aboard the Ark?The creationist version of kinds is actually macroevolution .!
How is it both man and dinosaurs were aboard the Ark?
Would you agree that you have to relegate this account (of Noah) to fiction, else the theory of evolution as it is known today would have to be revised?Because it's just a story.
Would you agree that you have to relegate this account (of Noah) to fiction, else the theory of evolution as it is known today would have to be revised?
I would say that we must relegate the Noah's flood tale to fiction because it is fiction.Would you agree that you have to relegate this account (of Noah) to fiction, else the theory of evolution as it is known today would have to be revised?
You don't see a [literary] correlation between the coexistence of man and dinosaurs being detrimental to the theory of evolution as evolution is taught today?No, because Noah's Ark being a fictional tale has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
And if it wasn't, would the theory of evolution as it exists today need some editing?I would say that we must relegate the Noah's flood tale to fiction because it is fiction.
You don't see a [literary] correlation between the coexistence of man and dinosaurs being detrimental to the theory of evolution as evolution is taught today?
I don't want you to worry about it.I worry about it as much as I worry about the literary effects of warp drives in Star Trek being detrimental to modern physics as it is taught today.
In other words, not at all.
I don't want you to worry about it.
I want to know if you see it.
Although I'll admit: science is myopic.
From amasci:
There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.
The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)
Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.
"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar
There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?
Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."
Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.
Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "
This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.
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?