I am back
What is your definition of fact then? Fact should be unchanging,
but theories are changing, subject to modification. How can they be
the same?
Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
Tis is the dictionary meaning I have given many replies before. I
do not see tis definition to have any problems. U keep saying tat
theories r changing. May i ask in the last 50 years, wat theories
had been changed ?
In history you have the historical method. In theology you have
hermeneutics. And so on
I am talking about facts about nature occurances. Why lump in a
apple to an orange ?
Have you heard of oral evidence?
It depends on who is the one giving the oral evidences. If it is
a person who has close relationship or benefits from the debate,
then obviously watever he say can only be used as a reference
i think you should be aware that your religion is called
atheism
Your definition of religion is wrong. Religion involves the
belief of supernatural phenomenon. Atheism is not a religion.
And I read somewhere most Scientists believe in God
u r wrong in tis area, most scientist now do not believe in a
christian god
You have eyes but you cannot see. I said science does not deal
in facts
U clearly stated tat u view some facts from science as a "fact".
Now u say it do not involves in facts. So science deals with wat
?
I wasn't even talking about flawed theories. I was saying
theories are subject to modification and discard.
Established theories r never discarded. Tis is true when science
itself had become established in recent century.
The basis of science is deduction, induction and inference to
best explanation, and to some extent, analogy. Technically
speaking, induction can be wrong, I'm sure you know that.
Moreover, science is still a human institution, as such is subject
to human flaws like subjectivity and the likes.
I ma pretty sure it beats blind faith as a source for finding
facts of nature. Science is the perhaps the best possible method
for human to establish the truth. If u don't choose science, u have
nothing left to choose from
Not really. As I've always emphasized, the literal understanding
of Genesis by certain Christian groups may not be correct. This
point is a can of worms. But please be more open minded and do not
think the young earth creationists have the perfect and correct
understanding of Scripture.
No one knows who is correct or wrong. They could be the ne who
is correct and not u. Talking about cans of worms, there r too many
cans of worms for christainity.
you read my post, you will realise what I was saying is that
there are hypothesis in this world that we can never prove its
validity or falsehood. IF we are to talk about the sciences,
mathematics has to be among the most logical since we accept the
validity of a theorem only if it is true for infinite cases or even
transfinite. A large number of data supporting a conjecture does
not imply that the conjecture is true. Rather, it just takes one
counter-example to disprove the conjecture. Perhaps you may like to
read up on the Mertens Conjecture or Euler's Conjecture.
Theories r upgrade from hypothesis. There r no evidence tat
proves evolution or other theories to be false.
However, even though mathematicis a subject built upon axioms,
we still find areas that we cannot prove or disprove. To Icemoon,
that is the Godel's Undecidability Theorem.
Despite all tis, it is still a fact tat science gives the best
theories and facts than other system. Thinking too much doesn't
make science any lesser than it is now. The Godel's undecidability
theorem can also run on religious belief as well. It is not
specially on science anyway so tat still make science more reliable
than religious. In fact it is so much more reliable tat some
religion compared their scripture with science development,
claiming tat their scripture already follow some scientific
theories.
And SIS, in my post I did not state that I disagree with either
the creationist or evolutionist. Rather, my stand is to have an
open mind and learn from the two theories. Time will tell which one
will stand.
My stand is, there is a need to justify why does creationism
have to be part of the picture. I do not see why should it be there
at tis moment in time. Time will tell, but according to evidence
time already told us evolution is true. It is just tat u cannot
accept it and intend to wait till.. I don't know... the cows to
come home ?
I can predict the world will end one day, or pigs can fly, or
unicorn will be discovered, or a creature with a pink dophin head
with lion mane, duck webbers, monkey body and wings tat look like
chicken be found in orchard rd. (u can put in any absurb thing in
here really) It is just tat u haven't seen it yet. Time will tell
if i am right.
