Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I know that as a member of the scientism crowd, you fully believe that the purpose of science is to uncover the truth of what is. Because you assume that "what is" is physical, only, and therefor the exclusive purview of science to investigate and decipher. So I have no doubt that anything I post to the contrary appears wildly "wrong" to you. Such is the nature of a blinding bias. And I can't do anything about that.
Because it seems to me that you can't back up your viewpoint with anything but conjecture using what is called evidence for the theory.
I think it's important to say that (1) I was an honor student, (2) accepted and had NO DOUBT about the truthfulness of the theory of evolution, I did not question it, but later on realized from study that (3) the much of the theory is based on speculation that has no real verification except by consent of many scientists, often publishing thereof. If you care to go into more detail about why you believe what you believe, go for it, the board is yours, no one is stopping you. But please explain in your own words, not a link to someone else's thoughts and statements without verification of their conclusions in real life, thanks.
Not true, because of the inconsistent use of what is data and evidence by definition when relevant to a hypothesis or theory.
Disagree by definition. The accusations of scientism is an illusive belief in Philosophical Naturalism.
@Honest Joe is correct your deliberate high fog index due to your ancient religious agenda makes your argument meaningless and toothless.
Meaningless based on your present argument based an ancient religious agenda. Your posts do not show a very basic knowledge of science.I think it's important to say that (1) I was an honor student, (2) accepted and had NO DOUBT about the truthfulness of the theory of evolution, I did not question it, but later on realized from study that (3) the much of the theory is based on speculation that has no real verification except by consent of many scientists, often publishing thereof. If you care to go into more detail about why you believe what you believe, go for it, the board is yours, no one is stopping you. But please explain in your own words, not a link to someone else's thoughts and statements without verification of their conclusions in real life, thanks.
Lack of understanding of the definitions of hypothesis and theory. You not only lack the basic knowledge of English, but science also.
Then you were either getting a very poor education in science, or you weren't listening in class. My guess is that you were an ideologue then, as you are now, and so you simply ignored all admonishments for the need of skepticism.
That is antithetical to the practice and purpose of science.
Yes. See the problem here is that you were looking for "the truth" in an area of human endeavor that neither seeks not claims to have found any truth. Science an area of human endeavor that simply imagines and then explores possibilities. That's it. There is no seeking of any truth in science, nor even seeking the evidence for truth, which is why you're looking for it there came up empty. What YOU were engaged in was philosophy, not science. Which is why you were not finding what you were seeking in the area of science.
I am not in the habit of believing things when I can't know them to be so. So I believe very little. Science is not about what any of us believe. It's simply about testing possibilities to see if they are indeed, possible. So far the theory of evolution remains a viable possibility after having been tested in a lot of different ways. And that stands as it stands. I have no need to believe nor disbelieve in it.
Well, mutations do happen, as we can see them happening, occasionally, for ourselves. And it stands to reason that if a particular genetic mutation gives the recipient a survival or mating advantage, and it is the kind of mutation that can be passed on genetically, that it would likely be passed on. And over time, it would spread throughout the species' population.
That's not true. Mutations occur all the time. We just don't notice most of them, or we write them off as unique individual effects. But they do still often provide advantages and disadvantages to those who receive them, and they do sometimes get passed on through the general population over time. Humans get taller, less hairy, smarter, and so on, because these traits prove more effective at surviving and mating. And the same is true of all species. We/they are all constantly changing, almost imperceptibly, over time, thanks to these small genetic imperfections that cause mutations to keep occurring. And thanks to circumstances giving advantage to some of them, and disadvantage to others of them.
You can disagree all you want. But it is what it is. And it's not what it's not. The pursuit of truth is philosophy, not science. Science is the pursuit of physical functionality. In science, data is just data. In philosophy, data becomes evidence for or against a proposed truth.
Your view of science is Bizzaro and confusing beyond belief. Your the Scarecrow on the yellow brick road.
This is science in India: NCERT Syllabus for Class 8 Science - NCERT Solutions for Class 8 Science PDF Download
Learn to differentiate between science and philosophy and you won't be so frightened.
You are the one that brought up 'Scientism' which is a philosophy not related to the concepts of data and evidence in science. By the way, Methodological Naturalism is also a philosophy initially proposed and developed by Popper.
Oh my. As long as you are making false accusations that you can't support you will never learn. It is not as if you lack intelligence. I have had enough conversations with you to know that this is not the case. But for some reason this one topic makes it look as if you do.
Science not about right or wrong. The Oxford definition is good because it avoids those terms entirely. Science is about collecting data from observations and experiments and simultaneously trying to explain this data and predict what future data would be like through development of theoretical models about various working aspects of nature or human society. A theoretical model is only as good as it's capability in fitting current data and predicting future data. If and when it fails, we get busy creating newer models. We Hope that current models fails because then we have a chance to gain a Nobel by making a new and better model.
One concept that creationists and other science deniers can not seem to grasp is that of falsifiability and the benefits of trying to refute one's own beliefs. Scientists know that it is far less embarrassing to find one's own mistakes and to correct them rather than having the rest of the world do that for you.Science not about right or wrong. The Oxford definition is good because it avoids those terms entirely. Science is about collecting data from observations and experiments and simultaneously trying to explain this data and predict what future data would be like through development of theoretical models about various working aspects of nature or human society. A theoretical model is only as good as it's capability in fitting current data and predicting future data. If and when it fails, we get busy creating newer models. We Hope that current models fails because then we have a chance to gain a Nobel by making a new and better model.
When I was in school i did not question the theory of evolution because I thought what they were teaching me was the truth. I had no reason to doubt what I was being taught. The point is that I believed I was being taught the truth. It was later that I realized the gaps in the theory which are covered over by conjecturing what may have happened, in other words.. guessing according to the established theoretical framework.