Why Darwinism isn't true.
-
Originally posted by Deadstroke:
No, "1+1 = 2" is true regardless of the physical universe. Mathematics is an inpendent and separate entity from existance. Aliens will know "1+1 = 2", other universes (if there are parallel universes) can develop mathematics that is exactly the same as what man has done.
Its a difficult concept to understand, so I will try to make an example, but not a very good one.
In mathematics, we can theoretically calculate the value of pi without any physical measurements. However, this value of pi is only true if the geometry of the space is 'flat' (ie, parallel lines never meet and etc.) Yet, this universe of ours might be not perfectly flat (parallel lines can diverge or intersect). Consequently, the real value of the ratio of the circumference to diameter is slightly. Thus, you can see that this value of pi is independent of physical existance. It does not need to be created.
I am not trying to argue with you the mathematical entity of its truth. I am not disputing that point. I am not here trying me to dispute. U want example, i am showing it in this context what it means.I am trying to aim for a different truth. Mathematically 1 + 1 = 2 is a true and a truth. But, there are other types of 1 + 1 like 1 apple + 1 orange = No 2 Apples. But maybe 2 fruits.
What i am trying to do now is to show u the meaning of truth in my context, from such a lot of possibilities what the truth can mean. I am showing u the meaning of the truth. U can just concentrate on that meaning of the truth. We are just dealing with this meaning of the truth in this context.
I am not starting an argument with other truths. Are u all here bored, sitting on ass, finding an argument ? DId i not agree and accept your definition of the truth ? Why cant u do the same for me ?
I guess, once again, i was right. Some of you guys are small minded and narrow minded. U guys are just pathetic. Here i am , accepting one of the possible meanings of the truth. All i am asking is you accept my meaning of the word truth, as listed in Dictionary.com
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
And another thing is, if u look at gravity, it is true, and truth tat things fall down to the ground and it is define as gravity. No matter wat happens in the future, tat statement is always true because things realy felt to the gound now. SO how could u say tat is not the truth ?
NO no no no no no... sigh....Do you guys comprehend what i am trying to tell u guys ? Gravity is just a word to represent the forces that pull whatever goes up, down. Before science came up with the word gravity or understood the existence of gravity, it has already existed. It is the TRUTH that what goes up must come down. Think 5 , 6 thousand years ago, they do not understand the phenomenon of what goes up must come down. They did no say gravity is true because the word gravity did not exist that time.
What i am saying is, truth is absolute actual existence of reality. Just because you cannot comprehend certain things does not mean its not the truth.
U guys have a problem now. U are stuck in the present, in this time and this moment. U have to open up your mind, like those guys, 2 , 3 thousand years ago. They could not understand the mechanics, but they knew, something exist. Something is pulling whatever they throw up, down.
o.k.. i will put it in simplest term. Is there a possiblity that there are multitudes of truths out there, that we human beings cannot comprehend. What limited information we have now, we can consider certain things to be true, whether these are truth.
-
if u look at dictionary.com, for the word true, "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions", isn't tat the same as the meaning of your meaning of truth which is "actual existence" ? So how could true not equal to truth ?
Lets see the bottom line. Science states the truth. Gravity is stated by science. He states things fall to the ground is because of gravity. The word is defined as such. So is tat the truth or not ? So does science states the truth ?
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
so to the basic statement, 1+1=2 or gravity makes things fall to the ground or earth the truth or not ? U can't win in tis u see. The word is defined as such. U r not fighting about the facts of the world here but the definition of the word "2" and "gravity"
I can't help laughing when I hear someone say tat 1+1=2 is not the truth. How do u define the word "2" ?
Once again.. u guys are stuck, in whatever information or limited understanding have. YOU MUST OPEN YOUR MIND ,1 + 1 in a mathematical term is true.. is the truth. I agree. Now this is one of the meaning of truth.
Now, my meaning of the truth.. i am trying to tell u guys.. ALL THIS WHILE.
IS.. Actual Existence!
Imagine.. 1 ovum + 1 sperm = 1 fertilised egg. See it does not equal 2.
Once again, i am using THIS meaning of truth, in MY context. MY posts .
I accept your meaning of the truth, i got nothing against your truth. Is it so hard, for you guys to understand my meaning of the truth in this context ? <please refer to dictionary.com AGAIN.. incase u .. forget.
And look under Truth -
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth. 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement. 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths. 4. the state or character of being true. 5. actuality or actual existence. <---------------------------------------------------- 6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude. 7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness. 8. (often initial capital letter 
) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life. 9. agreement with a standard or original. 10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
—Idiom11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy. 12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay hastened the decline of the Roman Empire. -
I'm too lazy to read the rest of the posts so I shall post a very general reply to what I've read so far.
1. Do not attempt to place scientific theory in the same category as religion. As much as both of these satisfy the wikipedia definition, there is quite a big difference. It is akin to saying that we should for all purposes consider dental braces and an egg sandwich food because we put them in our mouth. Science is based on evidence and accepts the possibility that at times it may be wrong. Religion is based on blind faith of the ignorant who are threatened with a burning hell if they DARE to even consider for a moment aloud in their minds that religion may be wrong.
2. Why you should NOT be afraid to question your religion: your god would want your faith in him to be unshakeable and unwaverable, and therefore to fufil said requirement you should to the best of your ability use your god-given brain to prove to yourself that your god is real. Which involves giving yourself a satisfactory answer to all the questions that create doubt about the existence of your god.
3. Wake up. There is ZERO concrete proof of the existence of any god. While we do not 100% exclude the possibility of the existence of said god(s), there is ABSOLUTELY no indication of ANY sort that indicates even the slightest likelihood that whatever is written in the bible is a factual account. It is akin to saying that a secret magical eggplant exists in a supersecret place on earth than cannot be found by humans. It is unfalsifiable. It is possibly true, indeed, but very unlikely. Just because I say it is so, does not mean I can't be lying. Just because your priest says it is so, doesn't mean that it is the truth.
4. Finally, most importantly, just because your are a Christian does not mean that you must flatly deny, purely out of loyalty, anything about science. Understand that being a Christian does not mean you have to literally believe that Jesus walked on water. Christianity, any religion, for that matter, is meant to be taken figuratively. It is teaching you to be a good person. What is actually important about Christianity is the lessons that you learn about life. What is righteous and good. What is respectable. Do you honestly think that God would bother about inconsequential details such as whether we believed the sun revolved around us or not? No, I would be inclined to believe that God is a lot less petty than that and would care more about whether you started up a scam cheating elderly people of large sums of money, or if you helped someone today who really needed it.
-
Gravity is just a word to represent the forces that pull whatever goes up, down. Before science came up with the word gravity or understood the existence of gravity, it has already existed.
Science states tat things fall to the ground because of gravity. Whether it exist before or not doesn't matter. Why care if gravity exist before or not or the word exist or not ? As long as it stands true now, it is a statement tat is true. U cannot refute tis because it is how the word is defined.
U guys have a problem now. U are stuck in the present, in this time and this moment. U have to open up your mind, like those guys, 2 , 3 thousand years ago. They could not understand the mechanics, but they knew, something exist. Something is pulling whatever they throw up, down.
2-3 thousands later, we will add more information to our knowledge pool. But the fact still stands tat gravity pull things to earth. 2000 years ago force could move object. 2000 years later force could still move object. 10000000 years later force could move object. Tis is again how the word is defined again.
o.k.. i will put it in simplest term. Is there a possiblity that there are multitudes of truths out there, that we human beings cannot comprehend. What limited information we have now, we can consider certain things to be true, whether these are truth.
Lets put it tis way, even if we r jars in a matrix and everything we see is just electrical signals, the 1+1=2 still stands because the word 2 is still defined as 1+1 in our world. and 1+1 are elements in our world. Tat is always the truth because the word is defined as such.
-
I know, but u say true not equal to truth. The meaning of true is "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions". From an english perspective, it is equal to "actual existence". So how could truth not equal to true ? U want me to paste the definition os true to u ?
true
AC_FL_RunContent = 0; var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<a href=\"http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/T05/T0538400\" target=\"_blank\"><img src=\"http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" /></a>", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.ask.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FT05%2FT0538400.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=d218d5ca&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write(); <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/T05/T0538400" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" /></a> [troo]
Show IPA adjective, tru⋅er, tru⋅est, noun, adverb, verb, trued, tru⋅ing or true⋅ing.–adjective
1. being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
if u look at dictionary.com, for the word true, "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions", isn't tat the same as the meaning of your meaning of truth which is "actual existence" ? So how could true not equal to truth ?
Lets see the bottom line. Science states the truth. Gravity is stated by science. He states things fall to the ground is because of gravity. The word is defined as such. So is tat the truth or not ? So does science states the truth ?
No. it is not the same. Actual state and Actual Existence is different. U have to grasp that... GRAAAAASSSSSPPP.Science SEEK to UNDERSTAND the mysteries of the universe. Thats why it is called THEORIES. All science did was find the existence of gravity. Thats it, to help explain the truth of what goes up must come down. Because of that, they call the phenomenon gravity, and hence its the truth. Define that phenomenon as gravity.
Hence in this context, yes, science helped to explain what gravity is. Explain that phenomenon. = Gravity Yes it is the truth. I never dispute that truth.
The word Theory as defined by Kopper and Hawkings "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
-
Hmm, after skimming through the posts I think point number 3 in my previous post is of relevance.
Basically science does not deny the possibility of existence of god, nor the possibility of existence of the tower of babel, nor the possibility of ANYTHING at all. It does not even deny that creationism is impossible. It just states that these are unlikely. It's like saying we could all be dreaming now, sitting inside a computer contraption that causes us to imagine all these things on and on and on... We cannot DENY the possibility of it, but it is just something that seems unlikely.
I think both larry and maro should read this.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
I'm too lazy to read the rest of the posts so I shall post a very general reply to what I've read so far.
1. Do not attempt to place scientific theory in the same category as religion. As much as both of these satisfy the wikipedia definition, there is quite a big difference. It is akin to saying that we should for all purposes consider dental braces and an egg sandwich food because we put them in our mouth. Science is based on evidence and accepts the possibility that at times it may be wrong. Religion is based on blind faith of the ignorant who are threatened with a burning hell if they DARE to even consider for a moment aloud in their minds that religion may be wrong.
2. Why you should NOT be afraid to question your religion: your god would want your faith in him to be unshakeable and unwaverable, and therefore to fufil said requirement you should to the best of your ability use your god-given brain to prove to yourself that your god is real. Which involves giving yourself a satisfactory answer to all the questions that create doubt about the existence of your god.
3. Wake up. There is ZERO concrete proof of the existence of any god. While we do not 100% exclude the possibility of the existence of said god(s), there is ABSOLUTELY no indication of ANY sort that indicates even the slightest likelihood that whatever is written in the bible is a factual account. It is akin to saying that a secret magical eggplant exists in a supersecret place on earth than cannot be found by humans. It is unfalsifiable. It is possibly true, indeed, but very unlikely. Just because I say it is so, does not mean I can't be lying. Just because your priest says it is so, doesn't mean that it is the truth.
4. Finally, most importantly, just because your are a Christian does not mean that you must flatly deny, purely out of loyalty, anything about science. Understand that being a Christian does not mean you have to literally believe that Jesus walked on water. Christianity, any religion, for that matter, is meant to be taken figuratively. It is teaching you to be a good person. What is actually important about Christianity is the lessons that you learn about life. What is righteous and good. What is respectable. Do you honestly think that God would bother about inconsequential details such as whether we believed the sun revolved around us or not? No, I would be inclined to believe that God is a lot less petty than that and would care more about whether you started up a scam cheating elderly people of large sums of money, or if you helped someone today who really needed it.
Since u already lazy to read all the post. Why bother replying ?
Maybe it is meant for others, or me, but read the posts and u will know where i actually stand.
-
Actual state and Actual Existence is different.
tat is interesting. Why is "actual state" different from "actual existence" ?
The word Theory as defined by Kopper and Hawkings "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
Tat is true. And tat is why theory is so powerful because it is never proven to be wrong. There is no single observation tat disagree with the prediction of the theory.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Science states tat things fall to the ground because of gravity. Whether it exist before or not doesn't matter. Why care if gravity exist before or not or the word exist or not ? As long as it stands true now, it is a statement tat is true. U cannot refute tis because it is how the word is defined.
2-3 thousands later, we will add more information to our knowledge pool. But the fact still stands tat gravity pull things to earth. 2000 years ago force could move object. 2000 years later force could still move object. 10000000 years later force could move object. Tis is again how the word is defined again.
Lets put it tis way, even if we r jars in a matrix and everything we see is just electrical signals, the 1+1=2 still stands because the word 2 is still defined as 1+1 in our world. and 1+1 are elements in our world. Tat is always the truth because the word is defined as such.
I am NOT REFUTING ANYTHING. I am just saying the word gravity never existed that time. Can u understand such a simple concept ? It is a truth of gravity that it existed even tho they did not comprehend . It is a truth! An actuality, an existence! Since WHEN did i refute it ?And as your 1+1 its correct in mathematical terms. Please read the Ovum + Sperm = Fertilised egg explaination. It could equal 1 , 2 , 3 or 5 or 10. It depends on alot of other factors . That is also reality, is it not ?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Since u already lazy to read all the post. Why bother replying ?
Maybe it is meant for others, or me, but read the posts and u will know where i actually stand.
Erm read the next post LOL.
Anyway, I think basically what Maro is trying to say is (correct me if I'm wrong):
Science is ever-changing and just because science says something is true now, does not mean that in a few years someone won't discover that it was actually false. Basically science attempts to pinpoint with as much accuracy as possible what is LIKELY, but it cannot say with absolutely certainty that anything at all is 100% true, and it is merely an opinion based on evidence of what is likely to be true, and what is unlikely to be true.
I hope that this simplification (if I understood your original point correctly) will help others to understand too.
@Maro: You should know that the post that you quoted from me was not intended to be taken as a reply to your current argument because at the point I posted it I had only read the posts until page 2 or 3. Also I posted because I hoped based on what I read on the first few pages I would be able to accurately gauge to some extent what the following discussion would be about, and therefore post something of relevance to the discussion... (Point number 3 turned out to be relevant, for example.)
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
tat is interesting. Why is "actual state" different from "actual existence" ?
Tat is true. And tat is why theory is so powerful because it is never proven to be wrong. There is no single observation tat disagree with the prediction of the theory.
Because one is STATE one is EXISTENCE. U tell me what it means to confirm that in the dictionary.All i am saying is.. can u.. guys, accept what i am trying to tell u, in this meaning in this context. WHY , are u nit picking these small points, i accept and did not refute your statements , why , cant u accept my point ? I am not here to argue the existence of God or not. Simple. Everything is possible. Its that possibility that is the driving force to seek .. the answers.
Theory is so powerful yes, BUT it has been proven to be wrong. U see now ? There is a possibility to be wrong! Like the Theory that the Earth is the centre of the universe.
"There is no single observation tat disagree with the prediction of the theory."
What theory ? My greatness ? What theory u referring to ?
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Erm read the next post LOL.
Anyway, I think basically what Maro is trying to say is (correct me if I'm wrong):
Science is ever-changing and just because science says something is true now, does not mean that in a few years someone won't discover that it was actually false. Basically science attempts to pinpoint with as much accuracy as possible what is LIKELY, but it cannot say with absolutely certainty that anything at all is 100% true, and it is merely an opinion based on evidence of what is likely to be true, and what is unlikely to be true.
I hope that this simplification (if I understood your original point correctly) will help others to understand too.
@Maro: You should know that the post that you quoted from me was not intended to be taken as a reply to your current argument because at the point I posted it I had only read the posts until page 2 or 3.
FINALLY Someone could understand by just reading a few pages. ! ! OH MY GOD !WE HAVE A WINNER !For that .... u will get FREE P-Membership!
And its alrite.. i assumed, and i assumed wrong about ur intended post. I am sorry.
-
Gosh ! I guess, i am just too deep. Maybe i should explain it more simple like Mr Sean there. I thought u guys here posting, using big words and quotes left right and centre, we would be able to understand the message i was hammering through.
I guess.... i was wrong. I guess now, i should entertain the possibilities, that some people in this forum, can be pretty dumb sometimes.
Oh wait.. i have always realised this, but i have always been giving the benefit of the doubt.
-
Theory is so powerful yes, BUT it has been proven to be wrong. U see now ? There is a possibility to be wrong! Like the Theory that the Earth is the centre of the universe
The point I want to say before is tat u claim tat science cannot issue a statement of truth. U r proven wrong because the word such as two or gravity, as defined as such, cannot be proven wrong. So your very early statement saying tat science only explain why and how, and not truth, is wrong.
Now come to your point about 'theory" of center of the universe is wrong. However the center of the universe is not a 'scientific" theory at all. It is not even science from the modern definition of it. They did not use the so called scientific method to derive tat fact. U r using the word theory in a wrong context
If u talk about theory of evolution, do u know tat all the living things tat were observed never contradict evolution ? All the micro organism, the birds, the bees, the vegetation, human genetic, fossils, reptiles and millions of millions of living species never contradict the theory of evolution. Not even one. Wat is the probability of theory of evolution being refuted ? 0+. Practically impossible. Why is it not zero is because science is open minded and can accept tat anything can happen in future. If u discoever pheonixes, or dragons, or fire elementals, or rock golems, or treant, or talking pizza boxes, or spongebob, then u can prove evolution to be wrong. Wat is the probability of such being discovered ? As high as finding pendorum, or superman, spiderman, invisible unicorn, flying pizza monster etc. Practically impossible.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
The point I want to say before is tat u claim tat science cannot issue a statement of truth. U r proven wrong because the word such as two or gravity, as defined as such, cannot be proven wrong. So your very early statement saying tat science only explain why and how, and not truth, is wrong.
Now come to your point about 'theory" of center of the universe is wrong. However the center of the universe is not a 'scientific" theory at all. It is not even science from the modern definition of it. They did not use the so called scientific method to derive tat fact. U r using the word theory in a wrong context
If u talk about theory of evolution, do u know tat all the living things tat were observed never contradict evolution ? All the micro organism, the birds, the bees, the vegetation, human genetic, fossils, reptiles and millions of millions of living species never contradict the theory of evolution. Not even one. Wat is the probability of theory of evolution being refuted ? 0+. Practically impossible. Why is it not zero is because science is open minded and can accept tat anything can happen in future. If u discoever pheonixes, or dragons, or fire elementals, or rock golems, or treant, or talking pizza boxes, or spongebob, then u can prove evolution to be wrong. Wat is the probability of such being discovered ? As high as finding pendorum, or superman, spiderman, invisible unicorn, flying pizza monster etc. Practically impossible.
NO.. i never said, science cannot issue a statemet of truth. I just said, science is not the search for truth. Science explain Why and How to reinforce what is true or what is the truth. Like how it works.. the mechanics of it. What are u talking about ? I never said science cannot issue a statement of truth! All i am saying is, science, is not a search of truth. Not a discipline to search of truth. Its to unravel the mysteries of the unvierse ! The How and Why!
What the.... u said about the Theory of Evolution, highly unlikely, impossible, NO. Once again, u have shown ur narrow-mindedness ! Like MR SEAN said.. why cant u just understand ? Even the Theory of Evolution is by observation. Wtf are u talking about ?The point i am saying is u said using scientific method , and cant it cant be postulated. Do u know how many theories are actually postulated ?
What does Phoenix has to do with anything ? What if the Phoenix evolved into something else ?Do you even know? Are u certain ? So 100% sure ? One day if there is really a flying superman.. will u cut ur kukujiao ? Maybe u understand the simple course language i am saying.
You yourself said science is open-minded, then why cant u be open minded on the possibilities. What are u even trying to say ? Are u stupid ? because.. Stupid IS NOT SMART. Unless you are trying to convey a different meaning to ur meaning of stupid and smart in your own context of something else.
-
PLEASE... For the love of God and Jesus Christ, look up the definition of THEORY. Thanks. It will save me a heaps load of time, trying to explain it to rocks.
Theory of Gravity. Science explains with theories that can be proven wrong! Please.. CLICK HERE<------------- Yes.. its WIKI.. something simple for you, even tho i hardly trust wiki because it can be changed, but hopefully, u get it. Like.. finally.. READ.. and GRAAAAAASP... the concept.
-
NO.. i never said, science cannot issue a statemet of truth. I just said, science is not the search for truth. Science explain Why and How to reinforce what is true or what is the truth. Like how it works.. the mechanics of it.
Why is science not the search for truth ? Isn't discovering mechanics and how it works the truth ? Isn't discovering gravity and giving values again the search for truth ? Isn't discovering how the earth comes about or how life comes about a search for truth ? Isn't discovering how land eroded, how trees are thicker in the equator or why there r seasons all the search for truth ? Science searches for truth and discer wat is true or false.
Science is not there to PROVE, it is to find out WHY, to EXPLAIN. They are not to discern what is true and false. Its not even thier doman. It is the Theologists. You chuck an apple and it falls to the gound, scientist dont ask whether it is true or false, they Try to FIND out WHY.. to EXPLAIN.
Tis is wat u had stated on 15 Jan 1108pm,
Wat do u mean by science cannot discern wat is true and false ? Isn't tat saying sceince cannot issue a statement of truth ? Why is discerning true and false only for theologists ? For your apple example, hasn't science said tat the reason why apple fall to ground is due to gravity ? Why is there not able to discern wat is true or false or wat is the truth behind apple falling to the ground ?
Even the Theory of Evolution is by observation. Wtf are u talking about ?The point i am saying is u said using scientific method , and cant it cant be postulated. Do u know how many theories are actually postulated ?
And as I said, no living organism ever disobey the theory of evolution. All the while I told u tat the possibility of evolution being wrong is damn low, 0+ percent. The only way to prove evolution wrong is probably things like discovering completely new beings such as pheonixes (beings tat are able to stand fire and rejuvenate in it), or dragons (able to spit out fire and fly with impossible size), or fire elementals (not organic living beings), or rock golems (non organic living beings), or treant (photosynthesis being with intelligence and motion of animals), or talking pizza boxes (something totally created, no precedence), or spongebob (no precedence, some new being created not evolved). They r colorful examples but why I use tis examples is to show tat unless u discover some completely new beings tat does not resembles any old living beings, then u cannot prove theory of evolution to be wrong. And the reason why it allow disproving is simply because science allow correction to be made in order to become mroe accurate. Even though the possibility is low, it is being open minded. If u have evidence and a better theory, u can prove newton law wrong as well.
And for flyign superman, it is to say tat the probability of proving evolution to be wrong is as high as finding a superman (as depicted in the comic). If u can find superman from kryptonite and have super natural strength and go around saving the world, I will cut off my kuku. Go and find la !
Gravity is both fact and a theory. Science explains with theories that can be proven wrong!
But the probability of it being proven wrong is as low as 0+ percent ! It is almost impossible for it to be wrong now. In fact nothing it tis world has is absolutely 100% unless it is about definition of words.
-
After reading everyone's arguments here, I can deduce that the universe doesn't exist.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Why is science not the search for truth ? Isn't discovering mechanics and how it works the truth ? Isn't discovering gravity and giving values again the search for truth ? Isn't discovering how the earth comes about or how life comes about a search for truth ? Isn't discovering how land eroded, how trees are thicker in the equator or why there r seasons all the search for truth ? Science searches for truth and discer wat is true or false.
Tis is wat u had stated on 15 Jan 1108pm,
Wat do u mean by science cannot discern wat is true and false ? Isn't tat saying sceince cannot issue a statement of truth ? Why is discerning true and false only for theologists ? For your apple example, hasn't science said tat the reason why apple fall to ground is due to gravity ? Why is there not able to discern wat is true or false or wat is the truth behind apple falling to the ground ?
And as I said, no living organism ever disobey the theory of evolution. All the while I told u tat the possibility of evolution being wrong is damn low, 0+ percent. The only way to prove evolution wrong is probably things like discovering completely new beings such as pheonixes (beings tat are able to stand fire and rejuvenate in it), or dragons (able to spit out fire and fly with impossible size), or fire elementals (not organic living beings), or rock golems (non organic living beings), or treant (photosynthesis being with intelligence and motion of animals), or talking pizza boxes (something totally created, no precedence), or spongebob (no precedence, some new being created not evolved). They r colorful examples but why I use tis examples is to show tat unless u discover some completely new beings tat does not resembles any old living beings, then u cannot prove theory of evolution to be wrong. And the reason why it allow disproving is simply because science allow correction to be made in order to become mroe accurate. Even though the possibility is low, it is being open minded. If u have evidence and a better theory, u can prove newton law wrong as well.
And for flyign superman, it is to say tat the probability of proving evolution to be wrong is as high as finding a superman (as depicted in the comic). If u can find superman from kryptonite and have super natural strength and go around saving the world, I will cut off my kuku. Go and find la !
But the probability of it being proven wrong is as low as 0+ percent ! It is almost impossible for it to be wrong now. In fact nothing it tis world has is absolutely 100% unless it is about definition of words.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Why is science not the search for truth ?NO Isn't discovering mechanics and how it works the truth ?NO Isn't discovering gravity and giving values again the search for truth ? Isn't discovering how the earth comes about or how life comes about a search for truth ? Isn't discovering how land eroded, how trees are thicker in the equator or why there r seasons all the search for truth ? Science searches for truth and discer wat is true or false. NO
Ans: Because science is not to search for the TRUTH but to explain WHY and HOW.
Are u using a different meaning of the truth here or are we on the same page. As in Truth = Actuality
And yes,what i stated in on 15 Jan 1108pm, I did phrase TRUE and FALSE in that statement wrong. I admit, but i already corrected my statements after in subsequent posts and its obvious what i meant and its the TRUTH , not true and false, i just didnt go EDIT it. U are just nitpicking! But i am sure you know where my actual stance, reasoning and statement lies.Theologians determine true or false after, in thier domain and that is the religion of it.
And as for the Theory of Evolution, i never and did not say u are wrong or it is wrong., did i ? All i am saying that these are not TRUTHs. Thats all. Opinions and postulation, like the explaination in wiki of Theory. Ur idea of truth differs from mine by the looks of it. U regard Evolution as the TRUTH, i regard Evolution as TRUE for now but NOT the truth. I am more open-minded thats all.
Why cant u just accept that. I accepted yours. Why cant u accept mine ? Unless i am wrong, and false, and my interpretation of the meaning of truth even from the dictionary is wrong, and i applied it wrongly. Is that what u are saying ?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Why is science not the search for truth ?NO Isn't discovering mechanics and how it works the truth ?NO Isn't discovering gravity and giving values again the search for truth ? Isn't discovering how the earth comes about or how life comes about a search for truth ? Isn't discovering how land eroded, how trees are thicker in the equator or why there r seasons all the search for truth ? Science searches for truth and discer wat is true or false. NO
Ans: Because science is not to search for the TRUTH but to explain WHY and HOW.
Are u using a different meaning of the truth here or are we on the same page. As in Truth = Actuality
And yes,what i stated in on 15 Jan 1108pm, I did phrase TRUE and FALSE in that statement wrong. I admit, but i already corrected my statements after in subsequent posts and its obvious what i meant and its the TRUTH , not true and false, i just didnt go EDIT it. U are just nitpicking! But i am sure you know where my actual stance, reasoning and statement lies.Theologians determine true or false after, in thier domain and that is the religion of it.
And as for the Theory of Evolution, i never and did not say u are wrong or it is wrong., did i ? All i am saying that these are not TRUTHs. Thats all. Opinions and postulation, like the explaination in wiki of Theory. Ur idea of truth differs from mine by the looks of it. U regard Evolution as the TRUTH, i regard Evolution as TRUE for now but NOT the truth. I am more open-minded thats all.
Why cant u just accept that. I accepted yours. Why cant u accept mine ? Unless i am wrong, and false, and my interpretation of the meaning of truth even from the dictionary is wrong, and i applied it wrongly. Is that what u are saying ?
I nearly laughed when recently a forummer said that it is surprising that people still believe in religion even though Quakes are caused by tectonics. Hello? What kind of disproof is that? They do realise that to eat Sushi they must use their hands or either a pair of chopsticks right?
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
I nearly laughed when recently a forummer said that it is surprising that people still believe in religion even though Quakes are caused by tectonics. Hello? What kind of disproof is that? They do realise that to eat Sushi they must use their hands or either a pair of chopsticks right?
what is disproof?
it is surprising that people believe in religion though quakes are caused by tectonics
sounds reasonable
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
I nearly laughed when recently a forummer said that it is surprising that people still believe in religion even though Quakes are caused by tectonics. Hello? What kind of disproof is that? They do realise that to eat Sushi they must use their hands or either a pair of chopsticks right?
uh... what talk you?
Me no understand.