Paul E. Michael is correct.No, that's only important when he's not already receiving notifications for the thread. The point of tagging is to make sure he'll see it. He will see my post.
You must ALWAYS tag another member when speaking of them.
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
Paul E. Michael is correct.No, that's only important when he's not already receiving notifications for the thread. The point of tagging is to make sure he'll see it. He will see my post.
I don't believe Barbarian is a "professional Darwinist" as I have posted with many.As you also learned, we directly observe your frantic meltdown constantly, as you keep exhibiting it by writing things like what you have written, here, because you can't deal rationally with any of my criticism and questions about your war against truth and logic. What a tangled web you weave, Barbarian, when first you practice to try to create and/or maintain the illusion of prestige you wish to project on behalf of your sorry racket as a professional Darwinist.
Yeah.Since I retired, I'm not even a professional scientist. But I like to read the literature and talk about it.
I'm talking about logical certainty. Truth is stronger than provability.It's a Yes/No question, Barbarian. By your word, "provability," either you are referring to a property of truth, or you are not.
I mean, so far, demonstrated to accurately predict the phenomena it describes. Hence Newton's theory remains true for almost everything but relativistic effects. We still teach it. It's still useful for almost every application.So, by "only provisionally true," you mean considered true, rather than true.
It's been around in Western science since Bacon. Nothing else we do works as well for understanding the physical universe. That's why we use it.The rank subjectivism you're trying to hand us is self-destroying.
Since it makes accurate predictions and has so far been verified by the evidence every time we do test it, yeah. It's considered to be true. Maybe someday, it will be like Newton's theory of gravitation and turn out to be only true in most cases. That's how it works in science.But, at least you are admitting that the non-theory you call "the theory of evolution" is not true, but is only considered true.......by Darwinists. LOLOL
Paul E. Michael said:
By your phrase, "provisionally true," do you mean untrue?
Those guys are both YE creationists and scientists. They know what you don't. About science and about creationism.I don't consider clowns that write stuff like what you (at least purportedly) quoted to be YE creationists. Duh. Like you, either they are speaking out of shameful ignorance and dismal confusion, or they are lying through their teeth.
Mrs. Barbarian gets a little upset with me many times when she says "we need to replace this; it's broken." Apparently, she can see me thinking and says "no, you won't fix it." The family refers to it as "fix-it mode." Can't help it. It comes with the job.Yeah.
You're still a scientist.
You just don't get paid.
LOL
Blessings.
That's what Wallace (co-discoverer of evolution via natural selection) thought. He felt that humans were somehow elevated by God apart from other animals. That's what the Bible says.As a comprehensive explanation for the existence of modern homo sapiens, however, I believe (along with many experts across many scientific disciplines) that current evolutionary theory is deeply flawed and almost certainly false.
This is evolutionary theory, as proposed by Darwin:If evolutionary theory had been established to the same level of scientific certainty as the age of the universe and the earth, I would have no theological objection.
I'm not going down the road of a debate regarding evolutionary theory because I'm not into pretending to have expertise I don't have, but the undeniable fact is that evolutionary theory "as proposed by Darwin" has had to be revised and revised and revised to keep pace with the evidence (or lack thereof), be it the New Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, Evo Devo or Whatever. I'm satisfied that the holes are gaping enough that a wholesale revision will eventually be required as the Guardians of the Paradigm die off as Thomas Kuhn described. What that wholesale revision may look like I have no idea, but there are serious issues with fundamental matters such as the origin of life ("chemical evolution"), whether the available time frame is even close to adequate for evolution as currently posited to have occurred, irreducible complexity, the fossil record, yada yada.This is evolutionary theory, as proposed by Darwin:
The basic four points of Darwinism remain exactly as they were proposed. The theory itself continues to be verified every time we check. Punctuated equilibrium is merely a refinement about the pace of evolution. Fact is, most evolution operates in a relatively short period of time, followed by a long period of stasis. Why?I'm not going down the road of a debate regarding evolutionary theory because I'm not into pretending to have expertise I don't have, but the undeniable fact is that evolutionary theory "as proposed by Darwin" has had to be revised and revised and revised to keep pace with the evidence (or lack thereof), be it the New Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, Evo Devo or Whatever.
They aren't theological, and they are reasonable concerns worth discussing. See above. There is also the issue of neutralist theories like those of Kimura. We can discuss how they affected Darwinism also, if you'd like.I don't believe my concerns are even slightly theological. They are based on evidence and what I at least believe to be rational inference and intuition.
Yeah.
You're still a scientist.
You just don't get paid.
LOL
Blessings.
Mrs. Barbarian gets a little upset with me many times when she says "we need to replace this; it's broken." Apparently, she can see me thinking and says "no, you won't fix it." The family refers to it as "fix-it mode." Can't help it. It comes with the job.
Every theory is either true or false.
Some theories are neither true nor false, then?
So, humans aren't descended from non-humans; rather, humans are only provisionally descended from non-humans?Every theory is only provisionally true.
Oh, OK. So, humans aren't descended from non-humans; rather, humans are (by Darwinists) considered descended from non-humans, subject to future evidence?I mean considered true, subject to future evidence.
So, something is not a fact unless/until it is "directly observed"? Was it never a fact that the earth is a globe until only some point in time after humans began to live on earth?Evolution is a fact, because it is directly observed.
What do you mean if you say that something "turns out to be true"? And, would you say that no thing is true unless/until it "turns out to be true"? Was it not true that the earth is a globe until it "turned out to be true" that the earth is a globe?If one of the ideas turns out to be true
Yep. A fact is something in evidence.So, something is not a fact unless/until it is "directly observed"?
The spherical Earth was not directly observed until we had space craft to get far enough out to see the entire Earth. However, a number of facts allowed the ancients to infer that the Earth was round. Eratosthenes was able to measure it with surprising accuracy by using trigonometry. But his measurement was an inference based on the evidence.Was it never a fact that the earth is a globe until only some point in time after humans began to live on earth?
It means that we are able to infer what it is from the evidence, or maybe directly observe it. Like the round Earth.What do you mean if you say that something "turns out to be true"?
Lots of things are true that we don't know to be true. Do you see why?And, would you say that no thing is true unless/until it "turns out to be true"?
Well, technically, it's an oblate spheroid, not a globe. But it's very close to being a globe; for most practical purposes, we can assume it is.Was it not true that the earth is a globe until it "turned out to be true" that the earth is a globe?
There's no way to prove that Douglas Adams is wrong in his suggestion that we are actually the result of an alien race deporting all their schmendricks to Earth. But given the evidence, it seems pretty unlikely.So, humans aren't descended from non-humans; rather, humans are only provisionally descended from non-humans?
There's never a zero likelihood of that. But since even informed YE creationists admit that there is "very good evidence" for the evolution of humans from non-human hominins, we'll probably never see it overturned.Oh, OK. So, humans aren't descended from non-humans; rather, humans are (by Darwinists) considered descended from non-humans, subject to future evidence?
Was it never a fact that the earth is a globe until only some point in time after humans began to live on earth? [Yes or No?]
Was it not true that the earth is a globe until it "turned out to be true" that the earth is a globe? [Yes or No?]
Another juvenile attempt by you to shift attention away from your failure to answer the questions I've asked you. And what a stupid thing to say: "Well, technically, it's....not a globe". Wrong again, professor. According to your enemy, the dictionary, a globe is "a spherical or rounded object." So, you've just told me that, "Well, technically, [the earth]'s....not a [rounded object]." Bravo, Barbarian! Sorry, Barbarian, but, contrary to the silliness you've just handed us, technically, the earth is a globe, because the earth is an oblate spheroid, and a spheroid is a rounded object.Well, technically, it's an oblate spheroid, not a globe.
Darwinist assertion #1: "Humans are descended from non-humans."there is "very good evidence" for the evolution of humans from non-human hominins, we'll probably never see it overturned.
The spherical Earth was not directly observed until we had space craft to get far enough out to see the entire Earth. However, a number of facts allowed the ancients to infer that the Earth was round. Eratosthenes was able to measure it with surprising accuracy by using trigonometry. But his measurement was an inference based on the evidence. Now remember what a fact is?Before any humans ever lived on earth, was it a fact that the earth is a globe? Yes or No?
Another juvenile attempt by you to shift attention away from your failure to answer the questions I've asked you.
And what a stupid thing to say: "Well, technically, it's....not a globe". Wrong again, professor. According to your enemy, the dictionary, a globe is "a spherical or rounded object."