Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[Upisoft]

Theories are human constructs. There aren't any theories out there that we are unaware of, even though I am certain there are many natural phenomona we do not understand entirely.

That means it is not possible that in the future we will find another theory that is better than ToE. Claim equivalent to denying its falsifiability.

 

[mzungu]

That means it is not possible that in the future we will find another theory that is better than ToE. Claim equivalent to denying its falsifiability.

ToE is here to stay; However further refinement is an ongoing process. ToE is basically a constant as far as theories go.

 

[Upisoft]

ToE is here to stay; However further refinement is an ongoing process. ToE is basically a constant as far as theories go.

So ToE is not falsifiable?

 

[Hespera]

So ToE is not falsifiable?

in theory it is, in fact it isnt because it is true

 

[Upisoft]

in theory it is, in fact it isnt because it is true

Prove it.

 

[Hespera]

Prove it.

haha

 

[Upisoft]

haha

The laugh is on you, as you make empty assertions then. If you don't want to prove what you assert, then why you assert it?

 

[Split Rock]

That means it is not possible that in the future we will find another theory that is better than ToE. Claim equivalent to denying its falsifiability.

That is not what I said, although evolution is very unlikely to be overturned completetely at this point. What I meant is that theories are human constructs to explain natural phenomena. There aren't any undiscovered theories, since they do not exist until a person(s) come up with them. Theories are not waiting around to be discovered, in other words. There are surely phenomena waiting to be explained, but it is not really correct to say there are theories to be "discovered."

 

[Hespera]

The laugh is on you, as you make empty assertions then. If you don't want to prove what you assert, then why you assert it?

you are aware, i guess, that no theory can be proven, not can any natural law.

so unless to make a joke why did you bother saying for me to prove it?

if tho you think all assertions should be provable, I can follow you about the forum demanding that you make no positive statement without proof.

 

[Hespera]

That is not what I said, although evolution is very unlikely to be overturned completetely at this point. What I meant is that theories are human constructs to explain natural phenomena. There aren't any undiscovered theories, since they do not exist until a person(s) come up with them. Theories are not waiting around to be discovered, in other words. There are surely phenomena waiting to be explained, but it is not really correct to say there are theories to be "discovered."[/quoteh

To completely overturn the toE would involve blowing up pretty much all theory in all of the sciences.

 

[mzungu]

The laugh is on you, as you make empty assertions then. If you don't want to prove what you assert, then why you assert it?

Let me put it this way; The sun is at the centre of our solar system and the planets revolve around it. This is a fact and it will not change. However what will change is the accuracy of measurements.

Perhaps you are thinking that ToE defines how life started? If so then you are mistaken because that is the realm of Abiogenesis.

ToE is a PROCESS and as such it has been observed and proven beyond a doubt that this process exists and even predictions were made based on this process.

Asking one to prove ToE in a few sentences is like asking to show Dirac's equation and prove it in one sentence.

 

[Upisoft]

That is not what I said, although evolution is very unlikely to be overturned completetely at this point. What I meant is that theories are human constructs to explain natural phenomena. There aren't any undiscovered theories, since they do not exist until a person(s) come up with them. Theories are not waiting around to be discovered, in other words. There are surely phenomena waiting to be explained, but it is not really correct to say there are theories to be "discovered."

OK. Second pass. Like a C++ compiler.

I agree with the odds of overturning ToE completely. What I say is that if there are such odds, however minimal, you still cannot claim full knowledge. You can't say: "that's not going to change" and be justified saying so.

I also agree that there aren't any undiscovered theories. A theory is either discovered or not in the spacetime continuum. What I say is that our unique location in that spacetime continuum is necessarily giving us only partial information. My example was that we don't know what will happen in the future. You didn't agree much with it, but still we live in spacetime. What can be said about time, you can say it about space. So, there can be such a theory, and not time but space obstructs us to know about its existence somewhere in the universe. Say advanced aliens visited earth, collected much more data that we could collect now and left with their theory, much better than ours. It even doesn't need to be aliens. We people could have found better theory than ToE number of times, but people who did that never communicated it.

 

[Upisoft]

Let me put it this way; The sun is at the centre of our solar system and the planets revolve around it. This is a fact and it will not change.

Not if I'm dreaming all of it and there is no objective reality.

Also even if there was objective reality, the Sun is not in the centre of our solar system. The mass centre of our solar system is in the Sun (sometimes).

Perhaps you are thinking that ToE defines how life started? If so then you are mistaken because that is the realm of Abiogenesis.

And perhaps I know what ToE is and what it defines. I was questioning the apparent infallibility applied by some of the members here.

Asking one to prove ToE in a few sentences is like asking to show Dirac's equation and prove it in one sentence.

I was not asking proof of ToE, there is enough evidence to justify it. I was asking about proof for assertion it is infallible.

 

[Hespera]

Not if I'm dreaming all of it and there is no objective reality.

Also even if there was objective reality, the Sun is not in the centre of our solar system. The mass centre of our solar system is in the Sun (sometimes).

And perhaps I know what ToE is and what it defines. I was questioning the apparent infallibility applied by some of the members here.


I was not asking proof of ToE, there is enough evidence to justify it. I was asking about proof for assertion it is infallible.

I wonder if those average out to centering on the sun?

Please identify who on this forum thinks the ToE is infallible.

 

[Upisoft]

I wonder if those average out to centering on the sun?

Next time a policeman stops you for speeding, talk him out of fining you by talking about your average speed for the day.
I wonder if it will work...

Please identify who on this forum thinks the ToE is infallible.

One is you.

So ToE is not falsifiable?

in theory it is, in fact it isnt because it is true

Here you say it isn't falsifiable, because it is true.

Prove it.

And I asked you to prove your claim that it is true.

haha

And that is your proof. If you can't prove something don't claim it. You could say that it is falsifiable, but we have no data that falsifies it. I would agree with you. Instead you said it is true. I'm sorry I cannot agree with that unless you backup your claim.


--- mzungu also claimed "ToE is basically a constant as far as theories go." Also claim it cannot be falsified.

So that makes 2 of you.

 

[Hespera]

Next time a policeman stops you for speeding, talk him out of fining you by talking about your average speed for the day.
I wonder if it will work...



One is you.





Here you say it isn't falsifiable, because it is true.



And I asked you to prove your claim that it is true.



And that is your proof. If you can't prove something don't claim it. You could say that it is falsifiable, but we have no data that falsifies it. I would agree with you. Instead you said it is true. I'm sorry I cannot agree with that unless you backup your claim.


--- mzungu also claimed "ToE is basically a constant as far as theories go." Also claim it cannot be falsified.

So that makes 2 of you.

Next time a policeman stops you for speeding, talk him out of fining you by talking about your average speed for the day.
I wonder if it will work.

Hecliocentric just refers to the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, not that the sun is the exact center. I thought it would be interesting to know if the orbits do average out to a geometric center; you thought it would be interesting to try to find something to make fun of.

Difference in people, I guess.

One is you.

wrong

Here you say it isn't falsifiable, because it is true.

Falsifiable means able to be proven false.

infallible means incapable of error.

In theory, one could prove the ToE to be incorrect; i said, in practice you cant, because it happens to be true. That of course is an opinion, and your asking me to prove it was kind of silly, which is why I asked. You didnt say if you understand that no theory can be proven. Do you?

Now, suppose "god" told you that the ToE is true.

Would that make it an unfalsifiable theory? Why or why not?

Would it make it possible to prove that it is true?

If you can't prove something don't claim it

I will keep it in mind that you said this, and use it for every claim you make from now on, Fair?

Try to prove I think the ToE is infallible, for a start; you will find it tough, as it isnt true.

Then go on to this one, another falsehood on your part-

Originally Posted by Hespera

haha​

And that is your proof.

 

[Upisoft]

Hecliocentric just refers to the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, not that the sun is the exact center. I thought it would be interesting to know if the orbits do average out to a geometric center; you thought it would be interesting to try to find something to make fun of.

Difference in people, I guess.

Well, it was my choice to either make fun of it, or claim red herring. Now, as you persist I have to do the latter. Go see for yourself the original claim made. There is nothing about "average" or "heliocentric". It states plain and clear the sun is in the center of the solar system.
It reminds me about a test question they discussed in "Atheist Experience". The question was "which two planets are closest to Earth?". Can you guess what is wrong with the question?
And yes, I'm different than you. Don't take it personally.

wrong

Falsifiable means able to be proven false.

infallible means incapable of error.

Indeed. I disagree with the "wrong", but the resit is OK.

So, you claim that: "in theory it is[falsifiable], in fact it isnt [falsifiable] because it is true".

So, first in red comes a claim it is able to be proven false, but that is only theoretical.
Second is a claim that the fact are it isn't able to be proven false.
So, you have a theory that is either capable or incapable of error.
An finally it is claimed "it is true" as a reason why isn't able to be proven false. So, that's basically a claim it is incapable of error and therefore infallible.

The facts are that your claim in red disagrees with your claims in black. But still the part in black is claimed factual, so I chose to work with it.

In theory, one could prove the ToE to be incorrect; i said, in practice you cant, because it happens to be true.

Till now. "Practice" instead of "fact" and "happens to be true" instead of "it is true" is telling quite different story. Yes, in practice it happens to be true. Can I assume it must necessarily be true? No. People don't usually go with huge speeds, so in practice Newton mechanics is also true, the error would be well bellow the error of the measurement we could make.

That of course is an opinion, and your asking me to prove it was kind of silly,

Not at all. I'll ask anyone to prove something if it was claimed "true". Don't take it as personal bias or something.

Now, suppose "god" told you that the ToE is true.

I would go to a doctor. I'm free of talking "gods" in my head.

I will keep it in mind that you said this, and use it for every claim you make from now on, Fair?

Yes. Why not.

Try to prove I think the ToE is infallible, for a start; you will find it tough, as it isnt true.

Then it would be quite huge miscommunication fault from your side if you don't think so.

I already did it, look the analysis of your claim in black and red. Now if you meant what you said later, about practice and "happens"(i.e. assumes tests done), then it definitely is miscommunication.

 

[Goodbook]

Just as I suspected. Nobody has convinced me of 'macro' evolution (yes it is so wrong they have to give it a special name) at all by their obnoxious replies, actually, their replies are further evidence that they are trying to prove something that is just speculation, and many times proven wrong. 'Educated scientists' are just that, and can be just as educated in perpetuating lies and given false evidence. I have no problem with people conducting science. Science is observation and experiment. People are free to interpret how they wish. If it goes against consensus, then so be it. I have learned science is as much a peer-pressure activity as any other field. Theory is still only theory. The problem is that people would teach it as FACT. The big bang theory is theory, not fact. People can't go back in time and claim that it happened the way that they think it did. This is impossible. As with evolution, people cannot observe it and claim that it happens the way they think it does, only infer or deduct using reason. As with reason and logic, if based on a false premise, turns out to be erroneous because of all the assumptions made. And nobody knows for sure what the basis of it is. That is why scientists who deny God will continue to grope in the dark. If you want to enter this field, then fine, whatever floats your boat. This wil flatter your ego. But science alone will never give you peace of mind.

God however does not pressure anyone into believing in him. This is faith.

Poor people who think lies are truth and the truth is lies. So why are people bothering to post on a Christian forum if they are not willing to learn about what Jesus teaches? Jesus says he tells us the truth. Science cannot rightly claim this. Science can only teach us human constructs that try and make sense of the world through observation, experiment, measurement. But this is only through our limited human perspective. It ignores the miraculous and dismisses the spiritual.
We cannot see with God's eyes, the purpose of creation, unless this is revealed to us.

That is why science takes a back-seat, and why Christians do not elevate it as a theory above God. Yes we can learn some things from scientific inquiry, but in all practical terms, the ToE is useless and we just see it as the myth that it is.

 

[Cabal]

Just as I suspected. Nobody has convinced me of 'macro' evolution (yes it is so wrong they have to give it a special name)

Lol, not hardly.

Speciation list as follows:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-17/#post56130205

 

[Hespera]

Well, it was my choice to either make fun of it, or claim red herring. Now, as you persist I have to do the latter. Go see for yourself the original claim made. There is nothing about "average" or "heliocentric". It states plain and clear the sun is in the center of the solar system.
It reminds me about a test question they discussed in "Atheist Experience". The question was "which two planets are closest to Earth?". Can you guess what is wrong with the question?
And yes, I'm different than you. Don't take it personally.



Indeed. I disagree with the "wrong", but the resit is OK.

So, you claim that: "in theory it is[falsifiable], in fact it isnt [falsifiable] because it is true".

So, first in red comes a claim it is able to be proven false, but that is only theoretical.
Second is a claim that the fact are it isn't able to be proven false.
So, you have a theory that is either capable or incapable of error.
An finally it is claimed "it is true" as a reason why isn't able to be proven false. So, that's basically a claim it is incapable of error and therefore infallible.

The facts are that your claim in red disagrees with your claims in black. But still the part in black is claimed factual, so I chose to work with it.



Till now. "Practice" instead of "fact" and "happens to be true" instead of "it is true" is telling quite different story. Yes, in practice it happens to be true. Can I assume it must necessarily be true? No. People don't usually go with huge speeds, so in practice Newton mechanics is also true, the error would be well bellow the error of the measurement we could make.


Not at all. I'll ask anyone to prove something if it was claimed "true". Don't take it as personal bias or something.


I would go to a doctor. I'm free of talking "gods" in my head.


Yes. Why not.


Then it would be quite huge miscommunication fault from your side if you don't think so.

I already did it, look the analysis of your claim in black and red. Now if you meant what you said later, about practice and "happens"(i.e. assumes tests done), then it definitely is miscommunication.

would you say that the ToE is falsifiable if it is true?