Jump to content


Photo

Faith Vs Blind Faith


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 December 2010 - 05:48 AM

In regards to point 1, i find no problem with this. Given the fact that:
a ). Humans make mistakes
B ). Humans dont know everything in the universe
c ). Humans are constantly learning new things and receiving new evidence

View Post


A through C are all correct. They are “absolutely true” statements.

we have to create a process that fixes itself. There is no such thing as an "Absolute" Truth in science, and it depends on the new evidence, but the fact that the old evidence used to support this theory, is true, and that the new evidence disproves that theory, is also true.

View Post


What??? :)

there is no such thing as truth in science

View Post


Is that true? :lol:


That is absolutely incorrect! There are many absolute truths in science! In fact, science is all about proving something to be “True” via validating experiments using the inductive scientific method, or rendering said hypothesis/model invalid via the same method.

There are MANY “absolute truths” in science. Whether or not you accept these "absolute truths" or not, has absolutely no bearing on their validity!

In regards to point 2, i completely agree. If we are talking about actual, formal definitions, and not simple colloquial usages, there is no such thing as truth in science, because truth has more to do with philosophy than science. If I had to use the word "Truth" in the sentence that explains what science does, id have to say, that science is trying to get as close to the truth as humanly possible.

View Post


What??? :huh:

there is no such thing as truth in science

View Post


Is that true? :lol:

I think you are missing Ikesters point here Tkubok: The reason today's evolutionary scientists “cannot come up with a scientific definition for the word truth”, is because they don’t want to be proven WRONG, therefore they will not "commit" to absolutes (which, by the way, are absolute)! If you keep moving the goal post, you don’t have to worry about it. And in doing so, they can keep calling the model of macro-evolution a “theory”.


In regards to point 3, id have to disagree. But i pretty much wrote my response to this on another thread and so im not gonna retype what i already wrote, here.

View Post

You may have written a response, but it didn’t rebut (in any meaningful way) Ikesters point. As we’ll soon see.

#22 Tkubok

Tkubok

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Canada

Posted 17 December 2010 - 01:40 PM

A through C are all correct. They are “absolutely true” statements.

In terms of philosophy and logic, yes.

What???  :lol:


This is because we are talking about science, and not philosophy or logic. Philosophy is set up in a way that we can identify what philosophy would consider "Absolute truths". However, in science, this could not possibly fly. As long as humans dont know everything in the universe, they cannot claim that something is absolutely true.

Is that true?  :lol:
That is absolutely incorrect! There are many absolute truths in science! In fact, science is all about proving something to be “True” via validating experiments using the inductive scientific method, or rendering said hypothesis/model invalid via the same method.
There are MANY “absolute truths” in science.  Whether or not you accept these "absolute truths" or not, has absolutely no bearing on their validity! 
What???  :)

No, youre confusing facts, with truth. And thats why i think you should read my entire sentence, and not just clip out a single part and critisize that.

Just like how, colloquially, we say in science that we can "Prove" something, in an actual, formal definition, there is no such thing as "Proof" in science. Proof has to do with mathematics, and the closest that science can get, is to provide supporting evidence.

But i can easily demonstrate this to you. Give me an example of what you would consider in science to be "Absolutely true".

Is that true?  :lol:

I think you are missing Ikesters point here Tkubok: The reason today's evolutionary scientists “cannot come up with a scientific definition for the word truth”, is because they don’t want to be proven WRONG, therefore they will not "commit" to absolutes (which, by the way, are absolute)! If you keep moving the goal post, you don’t have to worry about it.  And in doing so, they can keep calling the model of macro-evolution a “theory”.

Actually, not at all. I addressed this by talking about the colloquial usage of the word, and the formal definition of the word. As i said above, its the same as the word "Proof". Proof in science doesnt actually exist, as proof is a term we use in mathematics, and not in science. We cannot actually "Prove" Anything in science, only in mathematics. Yet scientists say this all the time, because we are talking in a colloquial fashion.

And, my explanation as to why scientists cannot come up with a definition of "Truth" in science, is because they are not willing to commit ANYTHING in science, as sacred and unchangable.

Its not that they dont want to be proven wrong, if that were the case, they would not have set up specific examples of evidences that would utterly disprove evolution. However, it does prevent them from being WRONG when something comes along that does disprove evolution.

You may have written a response, but it didn’t rebut (in any meaningful way) Ikesters point. As we’ll soon see.

View Post

Yes, we shall see. :D

#23 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 December 2010 - 04:59 AM

At on point I was going to respond to your entire post, but the more I read, the more of your religion of relativism seemed to have taken over your speech. I could point out many evidences (facts/truths) in that post alone, but I will leave it at the below example:

No, youre confusing facts, with truth. And thats why i think you should read my entire sentence, and not just clip out a single part and critisize that.

View Post


Confusing “facts” with “Truth”… Facts are verified as true! In FACT, the definition of FACT is something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened! Further, a fact is the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something! Also, a fact is known as a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth


**Mod Hat On** this is your first official warning: If you are going to continue to equivocate, and prevaricate on subjects, you will deal with the consequences of said actions.

#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 February 2011 - 07:31 PM

The entire post below is a self-contradiction of self-refuting statements.

In terms of philosophy and logic, yes.

View Post


Hmmmm, something can be absolutely true in logic and philosophy, but not in science? Again, this begs the question, since science is a derivative of Logic AND philosophy, how can Tkubok’s possibly be “true”? Lets look a little further:

This is because we are talking about science, and not philosophy or logic. Philosophy is set up in a way that we can identify what philosophy would consider "Absolute truths". However, in science, this could not possibly fly. As long as humans dont know everything in the universe, they cannot claim that something is absolutely true.

View Post


The entire statement above is fabricated from the whole cloth of self-defeat; and is easily refuted by the following:

First – It is a fallacy of the “Non Sequitur” type, in that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Why? Because someone doesn’t have to know “everything in the universe”, to know absolute truths! Why is this? Because we ALL know at least some “absolute truths”! For example; if I had two apples and two oranges, it would still be absolutely true, no matter where we were in the universe, I would still have two apples and two oranges! Or, another example, my name is Ron. It is therefore “absolutely true” that no matter where we are in the universe, my name would still be Ron. There are just two "absolute truth's" that totally refute Tkubok's assertions.

Second – Tkubok made an “absolute” statement that he thought was "true", when he said “As long as humans don’t know everything in the universe, they cannot claim that something is absolutely true.” He just defeated his own statement, by making his statement! If his “absolute” statement is true, then there IS “absolute truth” from his own mouth!

No, youre confusing facts, with truth. And thats why i think you should read my entire sentence, and not just clip out a single part and critisize that.

View Post


The above is the relativist’s conundrum; it is blatant, and it is obvious. Tkubok attempts to tell an out-and-out lie, then accuses me of not understanding his post, because I didn’t read it in its entirety. But, when the foundation of the building is weak, there is no reason to go into the attic and wait for it to cave in. So when we look at the basis of Tkubok’s assertion, we can easily expose its weaknesses by looking at the definitions of "truth" and "fact":

Fact – 1. Something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened. 2. Truth or reality of something; the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something (based on fact).

Truth – 1. Something factual; the thing that corresponds to fact or reality. 2. True Quality; correspondence to fact or reality. 3. True Statement; a statement that corresponds to fact or reality.

He accuses me of confusing “facts” with “Truth”; but Facts are(in fact, by definition) verified as true! In FACT, the definition of FACT is something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened! Further, a fact is the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something! Also, a fact is known as a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth

As I said in my previous post:

At one point I was going to respond to your entire post, but the more I read, the more of your religion of relativism seemed to have taken over your speech.

View Post


And I wasn’t going to go any further with it, but, I felt a little more expounding was needed as an example to others being bamboozled by the religiously relativistic.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users