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.
Speedwell did not say he believed it. He said he accepted it as the best of the currently available explanations. That is is different from believing it.That is your prerogative as a sovereign human to believe the theory of evolution.
Not at all. But I reject the notion that belief in or acceptance of (however Kaon wants to put it) the theory of evolution is being forced on us.Speedwell did not say he believed it. He said he accepted it as the best of the currently available explanations. That is is different from believing it.
Speedwell, please correct me if I have put words in your mouth.
Does that mean you are going to respond to my request?
OK. I understand that you are a time waster, who assigns value to word salad and runs away from a reasonable challenge to their assertions. I don't respect such behaviour. Thank you for your time.No, it means I respect your commentary on what satisfies you academically. Additionally, I also respect that you do not believe I have shown so far have been specifics.
But your point was that belief was being demanded of us, was it not?
Speedwell did not say he believed it. He said he accepted it as the best of the currently available explanations. That is is different from believing it.
Speedwell, please correct me if I have put words in your mouth.
OK. I understand that you are a time waster, who assigns value to word salad and runs away from a reasonable challenge to their assertions. I don't respect such behaviour. Thank you for your time.
I just don't see how that applies to the theory of evolution.One of my points was that there is an imposed demand of acceptance onto the layperson, and our peers in academia - but semantically it is the same thing as belief to an extent. There is no storm trooper demanding we believe in something or we die; there is, however, sociology, psychology and politics that do the work. Ridicule, for example, is one of the ways society qualifies who is wrong (unacceptable), and who is right (acceptable).
I thought the above was clear (even if one disagrees).
Again: do you believe we should be able to reproduce a theory in a laboratory before we impress the expectation of acceptance on the general public or our peers? Are you going to comment on this point?
No. That would be a ridiculous limitation on scientific theories. Theories make testable predictions. Those are the parts we test.
We're not going to collapse a star into a black hole in a laboratory.
Do you think your comments in post #265 apply to the theory of evolution? If so, why?
There is enough substance to know that the data we do have suggests that black holes are very likely formed in that way. No one is making the claim that it is an absolute fact that black holes are formed in that way.Interesting. I find it more ludicrous to write a textbook on something that cannot be reproduced in a lab. That isn't a limitation on science; it is a check and balance. It is what separates science from well-funded philosophy.
Theories are often terribly wrong, and a tremendous amount of time is wasted extrapolating accepted theories that are wrong. That is part of science; why complicate it with no way to ever vindicate the theory.
You can't collapse a star into a black hole to test the theory that collapsed stars cause black holes, but you believe you have enough substance to know that is how black holes are created based on theory. And, you cannot see the myopia in this view?
I will agree that it is human nature to ridicule patently false notions, and that sometimes such ridicule extends to eccentric ideas which turn out after all to be justified, but if they do turn out to be justified, the ridicule ceases.It applies to the fraternity of academia - not just one theory, person or paradigm within it.
Interesting. I find it more ludicrous to write a textbook on something that cannot be reproduced in a lab. That isn't a limitation on science; it is a check and balance. It is what separates science from well-funded philosophy.
Theories are often terribly wrong, and a tremendous amount of time is wasted extrapolating accepted theories that are wrong. That is part of science; why complicate it with no way to ever vindicate the theory.
You can't collapse a star into a black hole to test the theory that collapsed stars cause black holes, but you believe you have enough substance to know that is how black holes are created based on theory. And, you cannot see the myopia in this view?
If we could completely demonstrate it in a lab, then it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a proven fact. The whole point to scientific theory is that we're coming up with an explanation for things we can't completely reproduce at this time. If you insist on laboratory reproduction, then we would have no scientific theories at all.
You are using a computer. Are you seriously wondering why we have scientific theories? A vast amount of our technology today resulted from scientific theories.
I believe I have enough substance to accept the idea of a star collapsing into a black hole as a likely theory. I certainly don't know for sure that's how it happens. I don't know for sure that black holes exist at all. The theory is that certain stars can and do collapse into black holes, and it makes testable predictions. With those predictions, we've discovered objects in space that sure seem to have the properties of stars that have collapsed into black holes.
I will agree that it is human nature to ridicule patently false notions, and that sometimes such ridicule extends to eccentric ideas which turn out after all to be justified, but if they do turn out to be justified, the ridicule ceases.
It happens. One thinks of the work of Wegener with plate tectonics or Lynn Margulis with symbiogenesis. Both were widely ridiculed when they began, but stuck to it and now their work is accepted science.I appreciate your comment, even though I still disagree (mostly with the last part)
Which aptly describes the continued popularity of such foolish and discredited notions as a flat Earth or YECismOtherwise, we end up ignorant and wondering why baby never gets clean (stagnation), or why baby stays infected (erroneous theory continued as acceptable - through ignorance or purposeful misleading.)
It happens. One thinks of the work of Wegener with plate tectonics or Lynn Margulis with symbiogenesis. Both were widely ridiculed when they began, but stuck to it and now their work is accepted science.
Which aptly describes the continued popularity of such foolish and discredited notions as a flat Earth or YECism
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?