Points Of View

Hello b0ilingfrog, and welcome to the fray. In science the first basic common interpretation is that there is a single objective reality.The alternative is to suppose that there is no single objective reality, that nothing is real -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class?In science second basic common interpretation is that the objective evidence we observe\experience\witness truly represents that reality.The alternative is to suppose that evidence is false -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class?In science third basic common interpretation is that we need to test our concepts against the evidence of reality to weed out falsehood and fantasy.The alternative is to suppose that we don't need to test concepts to weed out falsehood and fantasy -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school?In science the final common interpretation is that any invalidated theories are false and no longer relevant to understanding reality.The alternative is to suppose that we need to consider every theory that has ever been proposed as still possibly as true as any other -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school? Perhaps what you have trouble with is understanding how things can be acknowledged as valid information without a belief system, with tentativity and the open-minded skepticism that allows for concepts to, not only be falsified, but to actively seek such falsification, and to discard all falsified information as invalid. Perhaps you would like to start a thread of just what this "careful scutuiny" involved.Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.Hint: you will need to form a coherent and readable post. One with line breaks between paragraphs is a usual minimum for readability.Seeing as you use "evilution" you are obviously not a "noble objective seeker of truth," so I wonder how you, from your dirty tower of obvious bias, can know objective truth and how it is arrived at? What do you use to test concepts for validity?Do you, for instance, really know what evolution is? Do you know what the theory of evolution is?Sure, it's ALL point-of-view -- but in order to communicate one point-of-view to another you need to work with the same definitions as a starting point. Otherwise we are talking about two entirely different concepts while using the same words: confusion is bound to occur, wouldn't you agree?For instance, if your interpretation is that evolution is something different from what evolutionary biologist are talking about you will not be talking about the same evolution that evolutionary biologists are talking about. Rather you will be talking about something that is in your imagination.See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for more on this common problem with creationist propoganda.
EvC Forum: Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.Enjoy.

---

ps - as you are new here, some posting tips:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.For other formating tips see Posting TipsIf you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds
clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Here is another one, but not as well organized: Arguments we think creationists should NOT useEnjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This is a forum with threads, you are posting on a thread, so all responses are posted to that thread in chronological order.However, if you look at the top right you will see a message that says that this is a reply to messsage 20 by bOilingfrom.You will also see this at the bottom left of a message, as well as a listing of what messages by whom are replies to your messageTake some time and try to post a message that is more than an off the cuff reply, but one with supporting information.Try NOT to use videos or websites as arguments, they can be your substantiation, but we like YOU to summarize what you think is so compelling about them.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks b0iingfrog, Of course, to do otherwise would be special pleading, and yes the appeal to popularity is another fallacy. Curiously science does change with new evidence and increased awareness of the truth. Along that lines are concepts that are invalidated: the concept that the universe behaves in a uniform and steady state way has been invalidated. The concept that the universe behaves in a manner consistent with the known laws of physics etc has not.If uniformitarianism did start with both steady state uniformity and according to all known laws of the behavior of things, and has been revised to eliminate the invalidated steady state uniformity, then that is just science doing science.It also still means that to discuss uniformitarianism TODAY that you use the definition used in science TODAY.See and Note: you can't have it both ways, dogmatic adherence to old concepts AND constantly redefining itself. Consider steady state uniformity tossed. Whether you think it was the original theory or I think the current theory doesn't include it, is really irrelevant when we look at the modern science of geology. A lot has been learned in the last 100 plus years.Now can we agree that there is good reason to consider uniform behavior according to the laws of physics etc? We do have evidence for this, from radioactive decay on earth to radioactive decay in stars. As a Deist I see science as a way of understanding the work of god/s, but not able to confirm/invalidate spiritual existence (outside the realm of objective evidence). As a Deist I see no problem in teaching kids to understand American history and the beliefs that inspired people like Thomas Jefferson to chart a new course in human events, and to apply that belief to the formation of a rational form of government based on the sound judgment of educated people (yes he was an elitist in that regard). Thanks, I appreciate that.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •