God gave us mind to know Him,or deny Him?

[Kirran]

Indirectly you said that :

#201Kirran, 57 minutes ago

#206Kirran,

Well I don't see how you understood that meaning from those posts, but we'll put it down to a misunderstanding. I didn't say it at all.

What's of import is your continued refusal to listen to explanations of the concept of a theory in science. That video used the term theory in the colloquial, not scientific, sense as far as I could tell from a cursory viewing.

 

[Godobeyer]

Well I don't see how you understood that meaning from those posts, but we'll put it down to a misunderstanding. I didn't say it at all.

What's of import is your continued refusal to listen to explanations of the concept of a theory in science. That video used the term theory in the colloquial, not scientific, sense as far as I could tell from a cursory viewing.

You are wrong,and lying , the vidoes and links than I post discuss theory of science proved wrong.

 

[Kirran]

You are wrong,and lying , the vidoes and links than I post discuss theory of science proved wrong.

Good Lord Godobeyer, please listen! The word theory has multiple meanings! A casual meaning and a scientific meaning!

 

[gnostic]

I think that we have to maintain a balance with regards to scientific truth. What is proven should be unquestionably accepted by one and all but where there is uncertainty, disagreement and not complete agreement then maybe we can accept it provisionally until some more better explanation comes along.

No, loverofhumanity.

You don't understand science.

Science is not about being "proven", but about what is probable or improbable.

And the only way to show the science is true or false, or probable or improbable, is to challenge his own hypothesis or theory, by finding evidences or through tests or experiments.

Why do you think scientists have to rigorously and repeatedly test their works?

To show that the hypothesis, theory or statement can be refuted, so a scientist has to be willing to be proven wrong. The statement has to be falsifiable and testable.

Any statement (be they be theory or hypothesis) that unfalsifiable and untestable, would immediately disqualify the statement as being "unscientific".

Take Isaac Newton's theory on gravity, on forces and body in motion, as an example. Now, his theory is right and true, ONLY as long as the object is moving slower than the speed of light, and it is not bigger than a star or galaxy, or smaller than the atom.

Albert Einstein has shown that if anything astronomically large (like stars, galaxy or even the universe itself) can move as fast or nearly as fast as the speed of light, then Newton is wrong.

Newton's theory is also wrong regarding to things that are smaller than protons. Quantum physics and particle physics show that the world is very different to Newton's and Einstein's Relativity.

Newton's theory is still valid, only if we not dealing with out in deep in space or with particle much smaller than a speck of dust.

No, loverofhumanity. Any scientific theory or hypothesis can be challenged and questioned. But any challenge must be backed up with strong verifiable evidences.

The reason why evolution is accepted is not because of faith and belief or in the case of Gobobeyer's deluded paranoia of "western" conspiracy theory, is that the theory of evolution has many strong evidences.

There are not just evidences in fossils or in speciation, though there are strong evidences here; no I am talking about testable theory like in the studies of viruses and vaccines/antibiotics.

That viruses can developed and changed in new strains of viruses, when a new vaccine is being used, the viruses become resistant or immune. The vaccines force the viruses to change or to evolve.

Those changes in the viruses are clear evidences of Natural Selection and Mutation - two different evolutionary mechanisms.

Scientists can challenge evolution, but they have to have evidences to challenge evolution, not mere belief.

Neither creationism, nor intelligent design can challenge evolution because they have "no evidences" to support the existence of this Creator or this Designer.

 

[Godobeyer]

Good Lord Godobeyer, please listen! The word theory has multiple meanings! A casual meaning and a scientific meaning!

you miss this :

....and kirran meaning

 

[Valjean]

No. These examples are not theories. They're Theorems, at best, and mostly folklore and non-scientific speculation about scientific subjects.
And, of course, when science seriously examined these claims, they were overturned.

 

[Kirran]

you miss this :

....and kirran meaning

No, there are legitimately two meanings, I'm not claiming some extra 'Kirran's meaning'. You're being really weird man, this is being explained perfectly clearly to you.

 

[Kirran]

The difference between the theory of evolution and the idea in that video is of course that upon examination evolution has consistently been shown to be true, while those were thrown out!

 

[Godobeyer]

No, there are legitimately two meanings, I'm not claiming some extra 'Kirran's meaning'. You're being really weird man, this is being explained perfectly clearly to you.

I done with you servel times,

I reject your explaintion, because it's dishonesty.

 

[Kirran]

I done with you servel times,

I reject your explaintion, because it's dishonesty.

Like, what am I being dishonest about? I'm explaining to you a point of the English language, and about scientific terms. Lots of people have tried to explain the exact same thing to you, and you haven't listened to any of them either.

 

[gnostic]

No, there are legitimately two meanings, I'm not claiming some extra 'Kirran's meaning'. You're being really weird man, this is being explained perfectly clearly to you.

Being weird is an understatement, Kirran.

He is not only ignorant in all matters regarding to science, he is also think there is a western conspiracy theory.

He think all the qualified and experienced biologists, biochemists, palaeontologists, etc are all wrong.

Talk about hubris!

 

[Godobeyer]

Like, what am I being dishonest about? I'm explaining to you a point of the English language, and about scientific terms. Lots of people have tried to explain the exact same thing to you, and you haven't listened to any of them either.

I notice maybe just @Valjean which understand my points and honest here.

scientific terms had two types : 1-fact/ 2-theory.

You try to reject some theories of evolution are proven wrong.even some theories of science proved wrong.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, loverofhumanity.

You don't understand science.

Science is not about being "proven", but about what is probable or improbable.

And the only way to show the science is true or false, or probable or improbable, is to challenge his own hypothesis or theory, by finding evidences or through tests or experiments.

Why do you think scientists have to rigorously and repeatedly test their works?

To show that the hypothesis, theory or statement can be refuted, so a scientist has to be willing to be proven wrong. The statement has to be falsifiable and testable.

Any statement (be they be theory or hypothesis) that unfalsifiable and untestable, would immediately disqualify the statement as being "unscientific".

Take Isaac Newton's theory on gravity, on forces and body in motion, as an example. Now, his theory is right and true, ONLY as long as the object is moving slower than the speed of light, and it is not bigger than a star or galaxy, or smaller than the atom.

Albert Einstein has shown that if anything astronomically large (like stars, galaxy or even the universe itself) can move as fast or nearly as fast as the speed of light, then Newton is wrong.

Newton's theory is also wrong regarding to things that are smaller than protons. Quantum physics and particle physics show that the world is very different to Newton's and Einstein's Relativity.

Newton's theory is still valid, only if we not dealing with out in deep in space or with particle much smaller than a speck of dust.

No, loverofhumanity. Any scientific theory or hypothesis can be challenged and questioned. But any challenge must be backed up with strong verifiable evidences.

The reason why evolution is accepted is not because of faith and belief or in the case of Gobobeyer's deluded paranoia of "western" conspiracy theory, is that the theory of evolution has many strong evidences.

There are not just evidences in fossils or in speciation, though there are strong evidences here; no I am talking about testable theory like in the studies of viruses and vaccines/antibiotics.

That viruses can developed and changed in new strains of viruses, when a new vaccine is being used, the viruses become resistant or immune. The vaccines force the viruses to change or to evolve.

Those changes in the viruses are clear evidences of Natural Selection and Mutation - two different evolutionary mechanisms.

Scientists can challenge evolution, but they have to have evidences to challenge evolution, not mere belief.

Neither creationism, nor intelligent design can challenge evolution because they have "no evidences" to support the existence of this Creator or this Designer.

Yes what you say is true about needing evidence to disprove but it takes time and is an ongoing process the investigation of truth.

We can never say we know it all. How often have we been absolutely convinced about something only for it even centuries later to have been proven to be a baseless myth.

Scientific truth evolves I agree and I try and agree with science. But when for instance, a Manifestation of God rarely makes a scientific statement I go with Him as God is All Knowing and in time it will be proven by science.

 

[Godobeyer]

Being weird is an understatement, Kirran.

He is not only ignorant in all matters regarding to science, he is also think there is a western conspiracy theory.

He think all the qualified and experienced biologists, biochemists, palaeontologists, etc are all wrong.

Talk about hubris!

Please stop put words into my mouth ,that's just rude to do.

 

[Kirran]

I notice maybe just @Valjean which understand my points and honest here.

scientific terms had two types : 1-fact/ 2-theory.

You try to reject some theories of evolution are proven wrong.even some theories of science proved wrong.

Yeah, fact and theory are different within science, and theory in science is different to theory in casual use, definitely.

Of course, some ideas have been demonstrated to be wrong in evolutionary science. For example, Lamarck's idea. But some have been demonstrated to be right as well! For example, the change in allelic frequencies over time as a result of selection pressures.

 

[Valjean]

From Godobeyer's post:

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

 

[gnostic]

Yes what you say is true about needing evidence to disprove but it takes time and is an ongoing process the investigation of truth.

We can never say we know it all. How often have we been absolutely convinced about something only for it even centuries later to have been proven to be a baseless myth.

Scientific truth evolves I agree and I try and agree with science. But when for instance, a Manifestation of God rarely makes a scientific statement I go with Him as God is All Knowing and in time it will be proven by science.

Science is about explaining the natural or man-made phenomena, not the mystic or the mythological ones.

Science tried to explain WHAT it is and HOW it work. Science may also deal with HOW it can be used (application).

It is not about explaining the WHO...whether that "who" be a god or fairy or a troll.

If you want about the divine or spiritual "who", then you should try theology, comparative religions or comparative mythology.

If you can't find the evidences or you can't test it, then it is "unscientific".

And that is the differences between science and religion.

Science can be "questioned", "challenged" and "changed". Science can allow for margins for errors and allowed for correction and be amended.

Religion, on the other hand, don't. It is why religion on faith, not evidences.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Science is about explaining the natural or man-made phenomena, not the mystic or the mythological ones.

Science tried to explain WHAT it is and HOW it work. Science may also deal with HOW it can be used (application).

It is not about explaining the WHO...whether that "who" be a god or fairy or a troll.

If you want about the divine or spiritual "who", then you should try theology, comparative religions or comparative mythology.

If you can't find the evidences or you can't test it, then it is "unscientific".

And that is the differences between science and religion.

Science can be "questioned", "challenged" and "changed". Science can allow for margins for errors and allowed for correction and be amended.

Religion, on the other hand, don't. It is why religion on faith, not evidences.

Yes I understand that.

 

[Godobeyer]

Yeah, fact and theory are different within science.


Of course, some ideas have been demonstrated to be wrong in evolutionary science

It's like a dream come true, I wait this moment after 12 pages of discussion

 

[Kirran]

It's like a dream come true, I wait this moment after 12 pages of discussion

Haha, I'm surprised, I never said otherwise. Obviously people get their ideas wrong. Within evolutionary science, within chemistry, within physics, people have got things wrong. So you check to see if an idea is true. In evolutionary science, we have figured out lots of things that are true, and thrown out lots of things that are wrong. That's why we have such a good understanding of evolution now.