Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
A John? Huss? in the 15th century was burned to death for singing songs and reading the Bible not in Latin---tyranny is tryanny of any stripe/color--especially intellectual--govt. state sponsored--established--enforced!
Why do some people only--NOT think---two-dimensional in a multi-dimensional world--dynamics?
False. Science deals with methods, experiments, evidence, etc. There are too many truths.
Obviously.
False. Science deals with methods, experiments, evidence, etc. There are too many truths.
Sorry but you're wrong. Science = knowledge = truth. There aren't more than one truths. The scientific method is a system but it is not the definition of science.
It's likewise impossible to disprove that the Flute-Playing Locust didn't create you earlier today either. Neither of these possibilities helps you decide anything about scientific inquiry.
wrong
wrong
wrong
wrong
If you think we understand snow than that shows a lot about your knowledge of snow.
PS. I know a biker who considers himself "a true natures child". What a great theme for an evolutionist, "Born to be Wild".
I don't see the problem. Evolution predicts that anatomically modern humans have only existed for a few million years. Prior to that, they had not evolved. If a skeleton were unearthed tomorrow of an anatomically modern human, but which was dated by rigorous methods to be 100 million years old, that would tend to disprove evolution.
The fact that you find it so hard to beleive that a 100 million year old human fossil could exist is a testament to the explanatory power of evolution.
This is true of both. You are sadly in a state of denial. The only way to disprove creation is for it not to be true. I can't imagine how to disprove that 2+2=4 either. It is also impossible to disprove that God didn't just create me in the middle of typing this sentence. Science can only prove how things are now, not how they came to be.
2+2=4 is not science, it is math. (it's also not a theory, it's a definition) Falsifiability is not a good criteria of mathematical propositions because theories in mathematics are not the same as theories in physics or biology. Mathematics relies on proofs and lemmas; science relies on observation and hypothesis.
It would be more appropriate to suggest that you don't know how to disprove gravity, or the existence of the neutron. Of course, we can think of how to disprove gravity: if an object fell at a velocity that was constant (but not terminal wrt the atmosphere), then Newton and Einstein would be wrong. Falsifiability is a very good test of theories because it eliminates useless theories (i.e. those with no explanatory or predictive power). If there is no conceivable fact that could disprove a theory, then the theory explains nothing. (See, e.g., Karl Popper)
The only way to disprove creation is for it not to be true.
You hint at the real issue here: what observation, if it could be made and confirmed in the world today, would disprove creationism? I daresay you shoudl be able to come up with many such examples if creationism is falsifiable. In addition to the skeleton and DNA examples above, it is possible to think of millions of such observations which if made would damage or destroy the theory of evolution. The fact that those observations are NOT made (the dog does not bark), is itself strong evidence for evolution. Suffice it to say that creationism is unfalsifiable.
The Darwin Fish is a joke on creationists. Also, they're out there and have been out there.
Oldcats
Good question. As far as I know the best way to find out is to look up the word translated "spirit" and see how it is used in other writings. And then find out what that word meant in the culture and time it was written.
I've heard the idea described as we are the only creatures with the ability to commune with God. But, contrary to what some women have told me, I'm not really a pig, so I can't tell you if pigs can commune with God. Then again, this idea may be way off base.
Creationists only think everything's about religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.