Hans Blaster
Raised by bees
- Mar 11, 2017
- 22,020
- 16,568
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
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.
One more question please?
What are these for?
(Notice I said, what are they for?)
I'm not going to blame all of science on just "some".Some scientists have myopia, but that's why we wear corrective lenses.
Okay ... thank you for honest answers.There not "for" anything. They just are.
But in the study of the past, the evidence is easily misinterpreted. That's even true often with direct observation, if there's a language barrier. I've done enough recreation of historical skills, plus seeing others do them, to know that historical accounts are often wrong. The person watching an indigenous individual work for example, will misinterpret exactly what he or she is doing, then write down his false information. But I'm supposed to believe they get history right when looking at an old bone? The room for error is enormous.No, "facts" refers to the physical evidence. "Theory" refers to the explanation for those facts, the physical evidence.
Of course it is, and paleontologists take care to avoid error. Their work is exacting and requires a great deal of knowledge and experience, sometimes assisted by scientists from other fields.But in the study of the past, the evidence is easily misinterpreted. That's even true often with direct observation, if there's a language barrier. I've done enough recreation of historical skills, plus seeing others do them, to know that historical accounts are often wrong. The person watching an indigenous individual work for example, will misinterpret exactly what he or she is doing, then write down his false information. But I'm supposed to believe they get history right when looking at an old bone? The room for error is enormous.
It is interesting what can be learned from "old bones".Of course it is, and paleontologists take care to avoid error. Their work is exacting and requires a great deal of knowledge and experience, sometimes assisted by scientists from other fields.
Perhaps--but I just don't care about it as much as you do. I expect there will be errors, but I also expect that if there are they will eventually be corrected. ToE is only a scientific theory just like any other, after all, it's not "absolute truth" and nobody's belief system depends on it being absolute truth. I see no reason not to accept it--provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted. If it's wrong, I'm sure that some enterprising scientists will find their Nobel prizes in correcting it.You have much more faith in their accuracy than I do.
Perhaps--but I just don't care about it as much as you do. I expect there will be errors, but I also expect that if there are they will eventually be corrected. ToE is only a scientific theory just like any other, after all, it's not "absolute truth" and nobody's belief system depends on it being absolute truth.
If you appreciate death and decay that much, I can give you some better examples than those of animals dying of thirst and being picked at and their bones broken.For those incapable of appreciating such things, too
bad for them.
Depends on where you live.Not everyone has the capacity to appreciate what is around them.
Ah, contrare. I appreciate everything around me. I thank the Creator for it often. I find your comment particularly amusing, since reading animal sign is one of my favorite things to do. Of course it's so I can kill and pelt them sometimes, but still...It's his loss.
Not everyone has the capacity to appreciate
what is around them.
iAh, contrare. I appreciate everything around me. I thank the Creator for it often. I find your comment particularly amusing, since reading animal sign is one of my favorite things to do. Of course it's so I can kill and pelt them sometimes, but still...
But your bible, and more particularly your interpretation of it, are beyond reproach?But in the study of the past, the evidence is easily misinterpreted. That's even true often with direct observation, if there's a language barrier. I've done enough recreation of historical skills, plus seeing others do them, to know that historical accounts are often wrong.
At least It keeps him from being an agnostic.But your bible, and more particularly your interpretation of it, are beyond reproach?
That is not the definition of a scientific fact.A thing that is known or proved to be true.
We know evolution is a fact that has occurred by observing its results, i.e. modern organisms differ from past formsIf you cannot directly observe something, how can it be a fact?
That is not the definition of a scientific fact.
We know evolution is a fact that has occurred by observing its results, i.e. modern organisms differ from past forms
We know evolution is still occurring by the differences between organisms and their descendants.
We know a evolution theory is fact when it's predictions are observed.
We know a evolution is a fact be consilience of the evidence from independent, unrelated sources.
What facts are you suggesting to replace evolution theory?
When there is consilience of evidence from many fields there is little room for misinterpretation.But in the study of the past, the evidence is easily misinterpreted.
That is why science is peer reviewedThat's even true often with direct observation, if there's a language barrier.
History is not forward looking. It does not make predictions.I've done enough recreation of historical skills, plus seeing others do them, to know that historical accounts are often wrong.
I would think that a person hired to make observations would be trained well trained in the field they are working in.The person watching an indigenous individual work for example, will misinterpret exactly what he or she is doing, then write down his false information.
Sounds like you are claiming that forensic anthropologists wasted loads of time and money for an education that does not give them expertise in their field.But I'm supposed to believe they get history right when looking at an old bone? The room for error is enormous.
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?