Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
And this has been explained to you many times before.
Honestly this same page has been linked dozens of times about this same thing. Have you ever read it ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Let's just link the page again shall we ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Yes ? And ?
The Earth is not round, it is an oblate spheroid. And in 50 years they might correct this even further to something else when they can measure it more accurately.
The scientific method did not prove the Earth was round because the Earth isn't round. It also didn't prove that the Earth is an oblate spheroid because we simply cannot measure it to that kind of accuracy.
But a spherical Earth is more correct than a flat Earth. An oblate spherical Earth is more correct than a spherical Earth.
Your complete misunderstanding of the scientific method and the terms used in Science perhaps ?
All that tells me is that words can be used for whatever meaning one wants them to have. I prefer the old meaning of the word fact i.e. that a thing is true. If a thing starts out as a simply idea in someone's head and has not been verified as a fact by supporting evidence, then evidence must be presented in order to do so. So when someone tells me that something is a fact without actually explaining what they mean by the word fact then I'm inclined to take the normal meaning of the word. How could I do otherwise? Now we know that the earth is not flat, call it spherical, oval or whatever you like (I like calling it round, and by round I don't mean circular - balloons can be round but not necessarily circular) in any case, it has been proven not to be flat. Right? Is it OK for me to accept that much? So the earth is not flat is a scientifically proven fact. Does anyone here want to debate that? Obviously not. Why? Because you know better. So when an eminent scientist like Dawkins walks into a Muslim school and tells the teachers there that evolution is a fact, what other meaning of his words are they suppose to infer unless he stipulates what he actual means when he uses the word fact? That's my point. If you're gonna use words like fact to people whom you know have only one meaning in their head for that word then you must stipulate what you mean or use a different frickin word. Capish???
EDIT: Eventually found the clip: Forward to 25:14 (there are annoying adds that you have to look at unfortunately)
Or just click here0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »All that tells me is that words can be used for whatever meaning one wants them to have. I prefer the old meaning of the word fact i.e. that a thing is true.
The 'old meaning' of the word 'fact' ?
That's the whole entire point. The meaning of common everyday language is not exact.
Look at this statement. 'The Earth goes around the sun'. Is this 'true' ? No.
Science cannot be 'proven' because we simply cannot 'know' 100% something is true. Gravity is a fact in science because we can experiment and observe things falling. That doesn't mean that gravity is 100% true because we cannot know that tomorrow things will definitely fall.
We can be almost certain it is true but we cannot be sure. If you want proof look into maths. Science cannot be proven.If a thing starts out as a simply idea in someone's head and has not been verified as a fact by supporting evidence, then evidence must be presented in order to do so.
Ok then, please show me verification and proof that the Earth goes around the sun or any other thing you'd like.So when someone tells me that something is a fact without actually explaining what they mean by the word fact then I'm inclined to take the normal meaning of the word. How could I do otherwise?
He's a Scientist talking about Science. Isn't it obvious ?
The theory of Evolution is a fact the same way that the theory of gravity is a fact or the theory of heliocentricity is a fact.Now we know that the earth is not flat, call it spherical, oval or whatever you like (I like calling it round, and by round I don't mean circular - balloons can be round but not necessarily circular) in any case, it has been proven not to be flat.
You can prove things to be false, yes.Right? Is it OK for me to accept that much? So the earth is not flat is a scientifically proven fact.
It's been falsified yes.Does anyone here want to debate that? Obviously not. Why? Because you know better. So when an eminent scientist like Dawkins walks into a Muslim school and tells the teachers there that evolution is a fact, what other meaning of his words are they suppose to infer unless he stipulates what he actual means when he uses the word fact?
Because it is a fact the same way as anything else in science is a fact.That's my point. If you're gonna use words like fact to people whom you know have only one meaning in their head for that word then you must stipulate what you mean or use a different frickin word. Capish???
Science cannot 'prove' anything to be true. You are the one who has brought that into the debate. Science uses the word fact in a few ways, linked to you on several websites which I doubt you have read even now.
The theory of evolution is a 'fact' in the closest way anything in science can be a fact. Science cannot give 'proof' in the same way as something like Maths can.
No scientific theory can ever be 'proven' true, its simply not possible.0 -
-
The 'old meaning' of the word 'fact' ?
That's the whole entire point. The meaning of common everyday language is not exact.
Look at this statement. 'The Earth goes around the sun'. Is this 'true' ? No.
Science cannot be 'proven' because we simply cannot 'know' 100% something is true. Gravity is a fact in science because we can experiment and observe things falling. That doesn't mean that gravity is 100% true because we cannot know that tomorrow things will definitely fall.
We can be almost certain it is true but we cannot be sure. If you want proof look into maths. Science cannot be proven.
Ok then, please show me verification and proof that the Earth goes around the sun or any other thing you'd like.
He's a Scientist talking about Science. Isn't it obvious ?
The theory of Evolution is a fact the same way that the theory of gravity is a fact or the theory of heliocentricity is a fact.
You can prove things to be false, yes.
It's been falsified yes.
Because it is a fact the same way as anything else in science is a fact.
Science cannot 'prove' anything to be true. You are the one who has brought that into the debate. Science uses the word fact in a few ways, linked to you on several websites which I doubt you have read even now.
The theory of evolution is a 'fact' in the closest way anything in science can be a fact. Science cannot give 'proof' in the same way as something like Maths can.
No scientific theory can ever be 'proven' true, its simply not possible.
So the phrase: "Scientifically proven." is meaningless?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
It's priceless ... just listen to how Prof Dawkin's answers the five year olds at the end (from 46 minutes on) ... one child asks why Horseshoe Crabs haven't changed much over hundreds of millions of years ... and the good professor tells him that they haven't changed much ... but other things have ... which begs the obvious question as to why crabs haven't changed one iota while Humans were supposedly 'evolving' from something that looked like a mutant frog????!!!Soul Winner wrote: »
!
Another child asked where the Sun came from and Prof Dawkins said that it was the result of another star exploding ... which immediately begs the question as to where the other star came from!!!!
... and finally Prof Dawkins came very close to actually confirming Noah's worldwide Flood when he said that the reason for the extinction of the Dinosaurs was a worldwide steam cloud all around the Earth !!!
I sounds suspiciously like a description of the fountains of the great deep breaking forth, with all of the volcanism and steam that is implied by this part of the account of the Great Flood !!!
... so Prof Dawkins argued for the best part of an hour for the legally enforced replacement of religious education with Atheistic indoctrination in schools ... and he then almost ended up confirming the account of the Great Flood that is common to all three Great Monotheistic Religions!!!!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzJv-5yWx2g
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement