"whenever theories go beyond what is testable, there is no difference between such theories and supernatural explanations."
Allow me to look at this statement a minute.
What if that statement is true?
To determine the origin of the earth is not testable.
Therefore, any theories concerning the Origin of the Earth have equal standing as any supernatural explanation.
If this is true, then Theories of the Origin of the Earth and Intelligent Creationism should be taught side by side.
Are you really sure this is the outcome you want?
If you analyze the situation you are now in then you must come to the conclusion that BEING ABLE TO TEST SOMETHING IS NOT A GOOD FOUNDATION ON WHICH TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE MANY MYSTERIES OF LIFE ON EARTH.
The mere act of TESTING is actually a comparison of one thing to another. There is no way for a human to KNOW the entirety of anything by measuring or testing.
Them's my sentiments.
Perhaps this post is a little more testing than you want.
Could that mean you are supernatual?
This is all in fun. No offense intended.
What is your Theory of Love? Is it possible to test Love and yet it remains and you must go beyond testing and then again we come head on into the Supernatural.
Funny, We think the Supernatural is not testable.
Can you tell me the intrinsic and full value of a one dollar bill? You will not come to a conclusion using testing. Is the dollar Supernatural?
These are not frivoulous questions. They are unusual admittedly.
I have heard it called the "almighty dollar". My kid can find out its worth and value at the store down the street.
The canned answer is "survival value" but it's kinda short on specifics. (Why DO gentlemen prefer blondes? Has anyone really tested the idea of greater hardihood or healthier young or whatnot?)
Please ping whoever I missed ;-)
Cheers!
Excellent point, Slingshot! Well said.
on "the origins of the Earth" - if by "the Earth" you refer to the universe in toto, you are correct to assert that there is no testably hypothesis concerning its ultimate origin.
if, otoh, you refer to the planet and its system, you err - hypotheses dealing with formation of heavy elements in stellar explosions and with accretion due to gravity and current predate direct observation of the formation of other stars and planets. these hypotheses made predictions of what shall be observed when direct observation of such formations occur. Such predictions have been largely borne out thus far.
while such evidence do not directly prove the origins of Sol and its satellites, they do *support* the theory that they formed likewise.
other independent sets of evidence also support this theory of formation through accretion. None of this *proves* the theory, but does render the theory exceedingly well supported and left with no current competitor models.