Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That probably does not translate into Australian.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Irony of the evolutionary belief
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
Correct. I just thought it was the eccentric wabbit losing his mind again.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Two eggs, on toast, usually poached or fried with broken yolks. Alternatively scrambled eggs works too..
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I have heard of it but never seen it. I have made bangers and mash.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I have seen these on different menus.
Some places call them "eggs in a nest"
Other places call them "eggs in a basket"
Weird how the exact same dish has multiple names
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
When I looked up "toad in a hole" it involved sausages. It still looks tasty and it is breakfast time here. I don't have any chives.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Thank you. And agreed.
I have a feeling we're thinking of some of the same graphic examples.
Google lies, it's just a hollowed out slice of bread used as an egg ring. The sausage version must be from a different part of the world. I'd eat it if I didn't have a stupid egg intolerance.
gnostic
The Lost One
And that’s where you sticking your head in the sand…again.
In science, as well as in mathematics, proofs are logical statements or logical models, like mathematical equations. They are part of the explanation and part of prediction in a model. Proofs or equations are themselves “model” in a hypothesis or theory.
Mathematical equations are useful tools in science, but they don’t determine if any of the new hypotheses or existing scientific theories are PROBABLE or IMPROBABLE.
Only TESTS & OBSERVATIONS (eg EVIDENCE & EXPERIMENTS, plus DATA) can make that determination and resolution to the hypotheses or theories “status” as being “science” or being “scientific” PROBABLE.
Thar’s what Scientific Method (and, Methodological Naturalism) is all about. First, the first part of Scientific Method is TO FORMULATE THE MODEL on the basis of preliminary observations. The second part, is TO TEST THE MODEL.
The only way to test the model, is to show observations (eg evidence, experiments & data) that will verify the model being PROBABLE or to show observations that will REFUTE the model being IMPROBABLE.
The Scientific Method don’t rely on proofs TO TEST THE MODEL, they rely on the discoveries of evidence, or repeatable experiment, and the all-important data that you would obtain from evidence or experiments.
Scientific Method also don’t require to prove or disprove the model. You don’t even know what you mean by prove or disprove. It isn’t essential for any scientific theory, because it is what mathematicians and theoretical physicists do, they present solutions in the form of mathematical equations or formulas, and then they would prove or disprove by solving the equations. That’s what they mean by prove or disprove.
In mathematics and theoretical physics, PROOF is all about solving equations, and these abstract solutions are solved, by doing the following examples:
- using multiple small equations to create a single complex equation
- breaking down a large complex equation into multiple smaller equations
- breaking down a large complex equation by simplifying it, to create a less confusing equation
- using matrices or vectors as solutions
- using differential equations or integral equations (calculus) to find solutions
The equations in Ohm’s Law, in Newton’s law of motion & universal gravitation, in Maxwell’s equations, in Einstein’s Special Relativity (the mass-energy equivalence equation) or General Relativity (Einstein’s field equations), are all examples of proofs in science…
…but none of these equations are true, unless they have been rigorously tested by observations through evidence or through experiments. These solutions are only accepted if they are supported by physical evidence. These equations would be deemed unreliable & incorrect, should evidence refute the any of these equations.
That you keep insisting on proofs, but there are proofs in sciences - they are known as equations or formulas. But evidence is far more important than any proof, because evidence are observations of physical (and natural) reality, whereas proof are abstract.
what proofs aren’t - they are not the same thing as “evidence”.
You confuse the proof in movies and in legal process as one and the same as evidence…but in the world of science and math, they are not same things.
Your insistence on there being no proof only demonstrate your illiteracy in science, and the fact that you cannot learn from your mistakes, further show that you do not have wisdom.
Do you know what real wisdom is, YoursTrue?
Wisdom isn’t about knowing everything. True wisdom, is knowing when you are wrong, and your education is limited, then the wisdom is all about doing something about it, and that means asking for help or asking questions, to get the right information or the right education...
….in another word, to learn from your mistakes. That’s true wisdom.
But you continue to not learn from your mistakes. You just keep repeating them again, and again, and again.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I have questions, and perhaps one or two of you can answer some questions peacefully. I prefer a peaceful discussion without insults, perhaps. I am reading a book by Hawking and Mlodinow. There are statements there I have questions about. When I first got on these forums I was told outrightly that there is no proof in science.
I don't think anyone has to ponder on the subject too much come up with examples. In my zeal, I nearly forgot that detailed examples aren't necessary and sometimes worthy of being unwelcome. Occasionally I catch myself before the foot gets stuck in my teeth.
I appreciate it, but I think they were both good. My dessert joke may have had more calories is all.
Nice! I'll take two with lots of bacon.
Actually billions of years. We have incremental step by step evolution of the complex nervous system and parallel increase in the properties of consciousness that increases in complexity.If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?
True, there is no such thing as proof in science. By definition proof is a math concept, and used in logical arguments. It is important to get things straight in plain English language.
In math: https://web.mnstate.edu/jamesju/Fall2015/Content/M311ProofsIntro.pdf
Terminology • A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true (we usually reserve this term for “important” results) • Less important statements that can be shown to be true are often called propositions. • A proof is a valid argument that establishes the truth of a statement. • An axiom (or postulate) is a statement that we assume to be true. • The statements used in a proof can include axioms and previously proved theorems or propositions. • A lemma is a statement that, although it may not be important on its own, is helpful in proving other results. • A corollary is a theorem that can be established directly from a previous theorem. • A conjecture is a statement that is being proposed as possibly true based upon partial evidence.
In logic: Proof | Reasoning, Validity, Argumentation
Proof, in logic, an argument that establishes the validity of a proposition. Although proofs may be based on inductive logic, in general the term proof connotes a rigorous deduction. In formal axiomatic systems of logic and mathematics, a proof is a finite sequence of well-formed formulas (generated in accordance with accepted formation rules) in which: (1) each formula is either an axiom or is derived from some previous formula or formulas by a valid inference; and (2) the last formula is that which is to be proved.
The problem with logic is that arguments are based on assumptions, which are often linked to the conclusions or proofs, and often subjective. The acceptance of the proof of an argument is often dependent of accepting the assumptions. This is a significant problem with the apologetic arguments for the existence of God that most often circular. and dependent on subjective assumptions.
In science nothing is proved. Methodological Naturalism falsifies theories and hypotheses based on the predicable nature of our physical world using objectively verifiable evidence.
In this way nothing is ever final and proved in science. Science is based on the evolving nature of knowledge as new facts, information and discoveries become known concerning the nature of our physical existence.
Last edited:
The toad must habenn hit by a truck.
ChieftheCef
Active Member
What are you saying? What's human intelligence? I believe consciousness is prevelant in the full girth of the cosmos and is a something, like feature or whatnot, of nothing; god. But evolution is fact. We see it happen all the time, with fruit flies and other short living creatures and plants, with adaptation to the environment, with the similarness to your parents, with the fossil record. All kinds of things. There are even double helix nebulas that form in the sealike space. Dude, how can you not believe in god but realize science gets it right when it comes to things like geology and cosmology, and biology.? What causes you to be so stubborn in your, what amounts to, evil cause.If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?