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.
Not only that, but the circumference of the Earth was calculated by Eratosthenes quite accurately in about 240 BC using indirect evidence. By using only the angle of the shadows in two different locations, he calculated the circumference of the Earth to be 42,000 km, which is close to its true value, about 40,075.02 km.And what do you consider to be indirect evidence? By some measure, all scientific evidence is indirect. One cannot, for example, ever see the gravitational field itself. One can only see how gravity affects things, including light and massive objects.
Not in science, sorry. In science, a conclusion has to follow from the evidence.Certainly we are free to draw any conclusions that we like, whether sound or not.
If you insist, but the origins of the universe would seem to have everything to do with life. And would effect how life evolves. You can attempt to separate them if you like.Not at all. The Big Bang deals with the origins of the universe. That has nothing to do with life
Now you're expressing my own point.It means that science does not offer absolute proof of anything.
Exactly.Gravity has not been proven. Germ theory has not been proven.
Correct.When one says "only theorizing" as you did, the implication is that a theory is a weak explanation.
I thought you were the one attempting to convince me how a scientific theory is defined.How exactly do you define "theory" scientifically?
Yes.Also, when we speak of gravity, are we also "only theorizing?"
Agreed. But they are a bit far more departed from empirical evidences in such a context."Theorizing" does not, in a scientific context, exclude observation and examination.
You went from 'exclusion' to 'opposition'. Bait and switch. 'Exclusion' and 'opposition' are two different animals.It is, therefore, not proper scientific usage to place theorizing in opposition to observing and examining.
It implies creative intelligence, yes. Is that a problem?But creation usually refers to a creative action by a higher 'being'.
Not at all. In fact, I don't believe that anything can be proven, except it be subjectively in a person's own mind.You imply that something has to be 'proven' to be able to make a valid judgement on it.
The farther one veers from empirical evidences, the weaker the chain becomes.And why would chain reasoning not be valid and not lead to strong conclusions?
But do they? Not likely with any topic that we've been discussing here.Not if all independant lines of indirect evidence point the same way.
Since life exists within the universe, of course the origins of the universe have something to do with life. But the simple truth is that we just don't yet understand enough about physics to say one way or another whether or not the universe is finely-tuned for life. We have a whole lot more research to do in that direction.If you insist, but the origins of the universe would seem to have everything to do with life. And would effect how life evolves. You can attempt to separate them if you like.
Because I am differentiating between long term and short term speciation.Why do you qualify speciation by placing long term in front of it?
The primary difference between the two is that one is short term and one is long term. For example, the difference between days and millennia.Please explain to me the exact difference between short term speciation and long term speciation.
This is due to chain reasoning. If it happened in the short term, then it is a simple extension that it happened in the long term.If you fall back to the we havent observed X then please explain to me why its accepted that some islands were formed by volcano even though we never observed it.
You don't know how black holes are made. You've theorized instead.How do we know how black holes are made if weve never directly observed it?
You don't. More theorizing.How do we know how our planet formed?
You don't know.How do we know a star once exploded in the place we now live?
If you insist. I'll leave that for you to decide.If you can never conclude anything from lines of evidence other than direct observation then so much of our knowledge would have to be thrown away.
Now you're downplaying direct observation? Okay, that's fine. It's just direct observation.In fact, direct observation isnt even as good as youre making it out to be.
Then don't trust it. And certainly don't place theories above it.Direct observation has led to many false ideas over the ages.
Some would assert that it implies intelligent design. This does not necessarily imply belief in a god, however.The big bang is not a proposed creation event.
That which is not directly observed.And what do you consider to be indirect evidence?
All? Could be. How so?By some measure, all scientific evidence is indirect.
Okay.One cannot, for example, ever see the gravitational field itself. One can only see how gravity affects things, including light and massive objects.
That's a very close guess.Not only that, but the circumference of the Earth was calculated by Eratosthenes quite accurately in about 240 BC using indirect evidence. By using only the angle of the shadows in two different locations, he calculated the circumference of the Earth to be 42,000 km, which is close to its true value, about 40,075.02 km.
Your implication is that scientific conclusions are sound.Not in science, sorry. In science, a conclusion has to follow from the evidence.
My view is inerrant, and anyone who does not believe in evolution is going to hell
But the simple truth is that we just don't yet understand enough about physics to say one way or another whether or not the universe is finely-tuned for life.
well if you follow scientific defintions, rather than make up things, then yes they are sound if they follow from the evidence. if the theory explains the evidence well, then by all logic, you should conclude its correct at least about the current evidence.Your implication is that scientific conclusions are sound.
i think he means whether or not life is the conclution of the universe or just something that happened, because of the way things effected the earth, could be wrong thoughWhat do you mean by 'finely-tuned' for life?
How rigid are you in your creation or evolution perspective? Is your stance infallible? Why or why not?
Please understand that I'm not asking for the basis of your creation/evolution stance. Rather, I'm asking if you think that your stance is infallibly correct. Why or why not? I have encountered protagonists on both sides who are each absolutely convinced that they are correct. Is your stance infallible?
"Fine-tuning" in physics is an undesirable description of a theory. It is a statement that of all of the possible values for a parameter to take (like the strength of gravity, for instance), it just happened to take a specific value that gives a universe with properties unlike those if the value was only slightly different.What do you mean by 'finely-tuned' for life?
If you say "big bang or creation", yes. Because that means that there was either a creative process, or a big bang. However, if you hold that the big bang may have been a creative process, this dichotomy that you have conjured up, does not exist.It implies creative intelligence, yes. Is that a problem?
So what is your problem with scientific conclusions then?Not at all. In fact, I don't believe that anything can be proven, except it be subjectively in a person's own mind.
But noone is veering from the empirical evidence. The conclusions, although indirect, do stem directly from them.The farther one veers from empirical evidences, the weaker the chain becomes.
With big bang and evolution, yes, they do.But do they? Not likely with any topic that we've been discussing here.
Very many of them are. Even in the cases where they have been shown false, many of them were sound given the evidence at that time.Your implication is that scientific conclusions are sound.
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?