22 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @moonbusTotal BS, unless of course you claim that evolutionary science taught in schools should be only taught with the disclaimer that the theories are simply beliefs based on evidence found and not necessarily the truth.
I make no such demand. I just look at the evidence and draw the obvious conclusion. That you don't like that conclusion is no skin off my nose, but you evidently feel threatened by it.
Are you supportive of that disclaimer in every text book?
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyIs the interpretation of evidence of round Earth in science just opinion?
no, interpretation of evidence in science, which equates with his and my interpretation of evidence, is not just opinion.
Is the interpretation of evidence of round Earth in science just opinion?
I can help out here.
It is an interpretation based on everything but evidence, so, yes: it is "just opinion."
In fact, the evidence shows that it cannot be round, so that makes it an opinion based on opinions which themselves are based on faulty interpretations.
22 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @deepthoughtThis is a very good point.
I don't think this is quite right. Science produces theories about the world, the theories are testable in the sense that one can test the subset of predictions the theory makes that are amenable to experiment. That the answer to a given question is not directly testable does not mean the theory cannot provide it; it just means one's confidence in the answer depends on one's confidence in the theory.
I would argue, however, that untestable questions are not directly relevant to science. What's the utility in asking questions that cannot be answered?
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassThe Genesis question isn't even a question.
This is a very good point.
I would argue, however, that untestable questions are not directly relevant to science. What's the utility in asking questions that cannot be answered?
Those who adhere to the literal Genesis account accept it on blind faith.
Others merely scratch their heads and shrug. It takes more than an old book..
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarI would agree to a statement to the effect that the available evidence is massively coherently in favor of evolution's actually having happened, and that no evidence supports the claim of Creationism.
Total BS, unless of course you claim that evolutionary science taught in schools should be only taught with the disclaimer that the theories are simply beliefs based on evidence found and not necessarily the truth.
Are you supportive of that disclaimer in every text book?
Same for the claim that the Earth is a globe, not flat.
Same for the claim that the universe is very old, on the order of 14 billion years, that the Earth is old, on the order of roughly half that. Same that life on Earth did not appear all at the same time, both simple and complex. The available evidence is massively coherently in favor of the scientific account of the ages of the universe and of the Earth and of the appearance of simple and complex life forms over deep time, and, for all that, it is just a theory.
I have no problem with prefacing electrical engineering textbooks with a disclaimer which says in effect, when you flip the switch the light goes on because that's a fact, and Maxwell's equations are just a theory.
Same for text books on aircraft design and bridge building: steel has a tensile strength superior to aluminum, that's a fact; atoms and chemical bonds are just a theory.
Etc.
This is exactly the disclaimer the Church demanded be added to Copernicus's work on astronomy, that it is just a theory. If such a disclaimer makes you happy, I have no objection to its being added to school books, along with a reference to the case of Copernicus.
You know that the Earth goes round the sun, not v.v., and this is just a theory. It is something more than belief or opinion.
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusWhy do you need the qualification when creation or any mention of any god would be mentioned?
I would agree to a statement to the effect that the available evidence is massively coherently in favor of evolution's actually having happened, and that no evidence supports the claim of Creationism.
Same for the claim that the Earth is a globe, not flat.
Same for the claim that the universe is very old, on the order of 14 billion years, that the Ear ...[text shortened]... round the sun, not v.v., and this is just a theory. It is something more than belief or opinion.
For some reason you believe your beliefs needs to be stated as being superior.
22 Oct 17
5 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbherr, thousand of pictures of round Earth from space from multiple independent sources and international travel around the whole of the round Earth without finding any 'edge' to fall off isn't 'evidence' of round Earth?
It is an interpretation based on everything but evidence,
What are you on?
In fact, the evidence shows that it cannot be round,
Obviously no such evidence exists shows the Earth cannot be round.
But at least at last you have in effect admitted that you DO believe the totally preposterous notion that the Earth is not round with that "the evidence shows that it cannot be round" and thus you must believe the Earth is flat which you are too ashamed to admit directly for obvious reasons.
I guess Eladar will agree with you that it is just opinion that the Earth could just as easily be round not be round and may be flat because all interpretation of evidence is "just opinion".
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarRead his post again. His beliefs are superior.
Why do you need the qualification when creation or any mention of any god would be mentioned?
For some reason you believe your beliefs needs to be stated as being superior.
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @handyandyThanks for sharing your testimony.
Read his post again. His beliefs are superior.
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarMy beliefs are supported by massively coherent evidence and are consistent with laws of nature. That makes them more than opinions.
Why do you need the qualification when creation or any mention of any god would be mentioned?
For some reason you believe your beliefs needs to be stated as being superior.
Christianity got it wrong about Galileo. Wrong again about Copernicus. The track record of dogma against science in matters pertaining to how narture works is bad and not getting better.
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassIt's fun to ask questions such as what is it like in the centre of the Earth or the Sun. In both cases there are some pretty direct constraints on our ability to make direct measurements of the conditions in those places, the answers to those questions might be regarded as having utility. Whether they do or not, it's not clear to me that utility is a determinant of what comes under the purview of Science.
This is a very good point.
I would argue, however, that untestable questions are not directly relevant to science. What's the utility in asking questions that cannot be answered?
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarI'm curious about this phrase "limited truth", what do you mean by this? It's not obvious to me how one sentence about the world can be less true than another without being utterly false.
I do not make claims about what you need to believe. I just make claims of the limited truth of what you believe.
You on the other hand demand that what you believe is true, and what I believe is false.