Do you believe in God and why

[yodsak]

On 8/28/2022 at 2:07 PM, AsianAtHeart said:

Can you tell me why "science" has not removed the fabricated and debunked notions of the peppered moth and Haeckel's embryos ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") from biology textbooks?  It would be one thing if they admitted to the actual missteps of history--but they still use these as examples of the supposed genetic process because they seem like such great supports to their pet theory of origins (naturalistic evolution--usually all the way down from abiogenesis).  The peppered moth theory is still taught as fact, despite the fact it was debunked decades ago, and known to have been a fabrication (peppered moths land, not on the tree trunks, where they were glued for the photos, but up in the foliage).  The nonsense about the tree trunks turning colors due to factory pollution having an effect on the darker versus lighter moths was a clever fraud perpetrated on the whole world.

Creationists have continued to use the peppered moth to further an antiscience agenda. I think it’s important to respond with additional layers of evidence. And so here we have in some sense the ultimate piece of evidence that’s now written in stone.” — Ilik Saccheri 

 

As always, a lot of research remains to pin down the precise molecular mechanism by which this genetic alteration causes the melanic morph during wing development, but this is yet another nail into the coffin of creationism, and in particular, their rabid abuse of the peppered moths example of natural selection in the wild. Will this now finally end the creationist obsession with spreading falsehoods about peppered moths? If history is any guide, the answer is a resounding no. But, like before, proponents of mainstream science will be there to counter them at every step. 

  — Debunkingdenialism.com.  Fighting pseudoscience with reason and evidence

 >the-triumph-of-the-peppered-moths-and-the-failure-of-creationism

  > debunking-creationism

 

The response of the creationist and “Intelligent Design” community provides a textbook example of a conspiracy theory in action, with cherry-picked quotations, allegations of collusion and fraud, and refusal to acknowledge new evidence.

 

"This is one of the most iconic examples of evolution, used in biology textbooks around the world, yet fiercely attacked by creationists seeking to discredit evolution,” —  Professor Martin Stevens

2018-08-truth-darwin-moth.html

creationism-as-conspiracy-theory-the-case-of-the-peppered-moth.html

[yodsak]

On 8/28/2022 at 2:07 PM, AsianAtHeart said:

Haeckel's embryos

 

Haeckel's embryo drawings are something of embarrassment for biology, but how they have been used to mislead their dupes should be an even bigger embarrassment for creationist pseudoscientists, if it were even remotely possible to embarrass them with evidence of false claims, that is. 

 

How hypocritical of creationists to try to use drawings that were shown to be enhanced and so discredited, not by creationists but by scientists, and which were used in biology books for longer than they should have been not because they were important but because they weren't, as some sort of evidence that evolutionary biology is based on a forgery and that science is a dogmatic argument from authority. 

 

haeckels-embryos-and-creationist.html

But these scientists were blindsided by other actors who were glad of the opportunity to remind people of Haeckel’s ‘fraudulent’ images, notably Young Earth Creationists and their cultural allies in the American Intelligent Design movement.

what-do-you-mean-by-a-lie

 

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is fact, not theory.”— Richard Lewontin

 

 

 

 

[yodsak]

On 8/28/2022 at 2:07 PM, AsianAtHeart said:

It wasn't the first, and won't be the last.  Remember "Nebraska Man"?  That was an even more egregious case (and at least that one is now absent from the supposed history of Homo sapiens).

The role of ‘’Nebraska Man’’ in the Creation-Evolution debate

Although Nebraska Man did not survive long enough to become widely accepted by the scientific community and was quickly forgotten when its true identity was recognized, Hesperopithecus is again being trotted out in the current recrudescence of creationist attacks on evolution. The creationists who belittle mistakes by scientists cannot admit that science advances, in part, by correcting error.  role-nebraska-man-creation-evolution-debate

 

Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach).   a_nebraska.html  

 

Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can only be doubted by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or plain bigotry —   Theodosius Dobzhansky.   

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Lol, you know very well that I'm not a religious fanatic, nor I'm going around trying to push my opinions down people's throat, so, what are you talking about?

I'm not fond of movies, maybe I've seen less than 100 in my whole life, but i heard that Monty python was witty and funny. 

Monty Python mocked everything and would be banned today because they were so un PC.

Come to it, most popular comedians from the 70s would be banned today because the woke have taken over.

 

The most referenced M P movie about religion is M P and the life of Brian, but it only mocks religion and was respectful to the Christ, who is in the movie in a very short scene.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, yodsak said:

The role of ‘’Nebraska Man’’ in the Creation-Evolution debate

Although Nebraska Man did not survive long enough to become widely accepted by the scientific community and was quickly forgotten when its true identity was recognized, Hesperopithecus is again being trotted out in the current recrudescence of creationist attacks on evolution. The creationists who belittle mistakes by scientists cannot admit that science advances, in part, by correcting error.  role-nebraska-man-creation-evolution-debate

 

Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach).   a_nebraska.html  

 

Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can only be doubted by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or plain bigotry —   Theodosius Dobzhansky.   

 

 

 

God, science and evolution are a part of a whole.

God created everything, ergo God created science and evolution.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, yodsak said:

Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can only be doubted by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or plain bigotry —   Theodosius Dobzhansky.   

 

 

 

So now, just because the theory of evolution got something right here and there, i guess we are supposed to believe every single idiocy which comes from the anti-creationists..

Well, sorry, it doesn't work that way.

[mauGR1]

8 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Here's an interesting quote from that famous Physicist, Richard Feynman, which also describes my situation quite well.

 

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong.” —Richard Feynman (1981) 
 

Nice one, so can i assume that the fantastic tale about the big bang, the little ball of compressed energy and the pool of mud could be in fact just a load of fertilizer, ????

 

... and that we can't possibly prove anything about the origin of life.

Because we were not there.

[Tippaporn]

On 9/1/2022 at 2:51 PM, Sunmaster said:

Yes, I see it the same way.
Change comes from an internal need when we're unsatisfied with the status quo. It can't be imposed from the outside...that would in fact make us even more reluctant to change.

 

Even when we see people suffering due to "wrong thinking" (for example, having thoughts of unworthiness leading to depression), all we can do is to plant some seeds and hope they will fall on fertile ground. When the time is right, hopefully they will grow...or maybe they won't. 

The best seeds in my opinion are not lectures that have to be understood logically on an intellectual level, but lived examples. So, for the example mentioned before, leading by example would mean to show the real life manifestation of the "right thinking" (the belief that we deserve to be loved and have love to give).
This would ignite the desire for change and spurn curiosity on how to do it. Hopefully.
Telling a depressed person "Hey, your way of thinking is wrong. Just replace it with this and you will feel better." simply doesn't work.

Now, I took a rather extreme case of "wrong thinking", but there are a lot more subtle ones that ought to be rectified....we all have them.

Though you didn't invoke my user name, Sunmaster, I believe your post is directed specifically at me.  So I'm moved to come back to comment.

First of all I'll rehash my views on convincing others of anything.  I've stated again and again that that is not my aim for I know better.  Is this thread intended to be a dialogue to discuss ideas and beliefs between those interested who then freely engage.  And if so, to what end?

 

Is this thread for every participant to merely declare their beliefs and then take up defensive positions with no intention of changing any of them whatsoever and so for the purpose of endless arguments which are doomed to go nowhere, albeit in perpetual circular fashion?  Is it to demean others whose views are opposing or different?  Is it for entertainment?  To alleviate boredom?

 

Or is the purpose of this thread to exchange ideas in order to expand one's thinking in beneficial ways?  To expand one's consciousness?  For growth?  To uncover and then dispel faulty beliefs, many of which work to one's detriment?  To become familiar with the contents of one's mind and reexamine ideas held . . . again in an effort to discover which beliefs are beneficial and which are not?  To identify which beliefs and ideas are a true reflection of actual reality and which are not?  To discover new ideas?  New ideas which hold greater promise to individual fulfillment however that fulfillment becomes individually expressed?

The latter is the reason I made the decision to engage here.  I cannot speak to the reasons of others.

 

You state, Sunmaster, that change cannot come from the outside.  Is this true?  Is this absolute?  Has no one ever taken the good advice of another via dialogue?  Have you?  Why have Seth, Abraham and the like inserted themselves into our world to dialogue with us?  Is our reality not an interactive one?  In which we first create it and then also respond to and within it?

I agree with you, Sunmaster, that teaching is done best by becoming an example to the world of your lived beliefs so that others can see the wonderful fruits of your manifestations.  And if they like what they see then they, too, can aspire to same.  This works fine but it is the most direct fashion of teaching which requires personal contact.  Yet this is an impractical method when personal contact is not feasible.  What then?  When others cannot witness firsthand your experience then how else might you convey the ideas which bring about your enormous fulfillment?

Does providing explanations equate to lecturing simply because many explanations necessarily are lengthy?  Or would profuse explanations equating to lecturing merely be an interpretation, a perception based on one's own beliefs?  Isn't all understanding based on logic?  Heaven forbid, should any system of thought be illogical?  Isn't the intellect one of our aspects which can be used for understanding?  What about emotional understanding?  Does the information resonate?  How else does one come to understanding?

 

It's obvious as well that exposing the truth in blunt fashion is not always an approach which works.  But again, just like with most everything, there are no absolutes.  Bluntness can be and has at times been effective.  You've heard it said by Seth that a teacher must importantly take into consideration the level of understanding of a student.  Teaching, or conveying new knowledge, is truly an art form.

I hope you don't take this post as lecturing, Sunmaster. 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

11 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Here's an interesting quote from that famous Physicist, Richard Feynman, which also describes my situation quite well.

 

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong.” —Richard Feynman (1981)

Does that quote not describe an impossible approach?  For how would one know with absolute certainty which answers are wrong and which are not?  Are there no answers which appear to be true and are then accepted only to be found wrong at a later date?  It's a nice sounding quote but in my opinion the author did not think it through.

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Though you didn't invoke my user name, Sunmaster, I believe your post is directed specifically at me.  So I'm moved to come back to comment.

First of all I'll rehash my views on convincing others of anything.  I've stated again and again that that is not my aim for I know better.  Is this thread intended to be a dialogue to discuss ideas and beliefs between those interested who then freely engage.  And if so, to what end?

 

Is this thread for every participant to merely declare their beliefs and then take up defensive positions with no intention of changing any of them whatsoever and so for the purpose of endless arguments which are doomed to go nowhere, albeit in perpetual circular fashion?  Is it to demean others whose views are opposing or different?  Is it for entertainment?  To alleviate boredom?

 

Or is the purpose of this thread to exchange ideas in order to expand one's thinking in beneficial ways?  To expand one's consciousness?  For growth?  To uncover and then dispel faulty beliefs, many of which work to one's detriment?  To become familiar with the contents of one's mind and reexamine ideas held . . . again in an effort to discover which beliefs are beneficial and which are not?  To identify which beliefs and ideas are a true reflection of actual reality and which are not?  To discover new ideas?  New ideas which hold greater promise to individual fulfillment however that fulfillment becomes individually expressed?

The latter is the reason I made the decision to engage here.  I cannot speak to the reasons of others.

 

You state, Sunmaster, that change cannot come from the outside.  Is this true?  Is this absolute?  Has no one ever taken the good advice of another via dialogue?  Have you?  Why have Seth, Abraham and the like inserted themselves into our world to dialogue with us?  Is our reality not an interactive one?  In which we first create it and then also respond to and within it?

I agree with you, Sunmaster, that teaching is done best by becoming an example to the world of your lived beliefs so that others can see the wonderful fruits of your manifestations.  And if they like what they see then they, too, can aspire to same.  This works fine but it is the most direct fashion of teaching which requires personal contact.  Yet this is an impractical method when personal contact is not feasible.  What then?  When others cannot witness firsthand your experience then how else might you convey the ideas which bring about your enormous fulfillment?

Does providing explanations equate to lecturing simply because many explanations necessarily are lengthy?  Or would profuse explanations equating to lecturing merely be an interpretation, a perception based on one's own beliefs?  Isn't all understanding based on logic?  Heaven forbid, should any system of thought be illogical?  Isn't the intellect one of our aspects which can be used for understanding?  What about emotional understanding?  Does the information resonate?  How else does one come to understanding?

 

It's obvious as well that exposing the truth in blunt fashion is not always an approach which works.  But again, just like with most everything, there are no absolutes.  Bluntness can be and has at times been effective.  You've heard it said by Seth that a teacher must importantly take into consideration the level of understanding of a student.  Teaching, or conveying new knowledge, is truly an art form.

 

Welcome back, even if your post is for sunmaster, it's a very  well thought post, and it resonates as intellectually honest.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Welcome back, even if your post is for sunmaster, it's a very  well thought post, and it resonates as intellectually honest.

Thanks, mauGR1.    But I'm not so sure I'm back up on the fence. 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Thanks, mauGR1.    But I'm not so sure I'm back up on the fence. 

God knows that I've tried to stop posting on this forum, but something about it keeps sucking me back in, just when I thought I'd escaped.

[AsianAtHeart]

3 hours ago, yodsak said:

Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can only be doubted by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or plain bigotry —   Theodosius Dobzhansky.   

I'm not ignorant of the evidence, neither am I "resistant to evidence"--for any reason.  Theodosius appears to be the bigoted one here.  The fact is, the evidence does not support the theory of naturalistic evolution.  There is zero evidence of animals evolving from one class into another class; e.g. canine to feline, bovine, serpentine, porcine, equine, etc.  Within one of these "kinds" there is speciation that occurs, and one could argue as to whether or not the speciation is a true, environmental-influence type evolution or whether it is just a loss/shift in genetic information in the process of haploid meiosis (gametogenesis) and sexual reproduction.  But there has never been any evidence of speciation that added new genetic information to the genome that gave rise to a new organ, trait, or function.

 

3 hours ago, yodsak said:

Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best.

Nebraska Man was very definitely "an embarrassment to science."  I'm quite surprised that anyone should even try to defend it.  Perhaps you do not know what occurred.  You had best educate yourself on this case before attempting to defend it.

 

"Experts" and "scientists" managed to fabricate an entire drawing of a cave-man-style hominid based on a single tooth found in a farmer's field in Nebraska.  It should be embarrassing enough to have presumed to know the entire musculoskeletal frame of a man (or woman) from a single tooth, without any DNA evidence extracted, even.  But the most embarrassing part of the "king has no clothes" charade was that this tooth was later proven to have come, not from a human, but from a peccary.  From that swine's tooth, they had purported to know even the facial features of this "Nebraska Man" and had a full-fledged drawing of his entire physique.

 

Not embarrassing?!  If this does not embarrass you, I doubt we have much common ground upon which to continue this discussion.

[mauGR1]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Thanks, mauGR1.    But I'm not so sure I'm back up on the fence. 

Lol, it's ok, I've nothing better to do today, (and many other days) than thinking about the mysteries of existence.

An internet chat is not the same as a real conversation in real life, but something is better than nothing, so anything which challenges a dull view of reality is worth some attention. 

[rwill]

Humans create a being to explain where everything came from.  But it does not answer that question.  It just pushes out a level.   Where did god come from?  How did he come into exsistence?

 

I guess it easier to believe some imaginary creature just always existed than to believe what we know exists just always existed.

 

When I was a little boy, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised, the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.

 

Emo Philips

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, rwill said:

Humans create a being to explain where everything came from.  But it does not answer that question.  It just pushes out a level.   Where did god come from?  How did he come into exsistence?

 

I guess it easier to believe some imaginary creature just always existed than to believe what we know exists just always existed.

 

When I was a little boy, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised, the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.

 

Emo Philips

Fair enough, but has consciousness its origin in life, or it's life which originated from consciousness?

Or are "life" and "consciousness " 2 names for the same thing, which existence is eternal and infinite?

It's quite possible that the answer is yes to all 3 questions, so God exists ????

[Tippaporn]

I like engineering.  I'm a tooling engineer by trade.  The definition of that is someone who is tasked with creating, at least in my specialised field, a metal part made from a flat sheet of steel and produced in a stamping press.  Look at any metal component in any consumer product.  If it is a stamped part then it was produced using a metal stamping tool run in a stamping press.

 

There are only two operations which can be performed on a piece of metal; cutting and forming.  The process is first considered.  Of those two sole actions which can be performed on a piece of steel some operations must come before and some after.  This is a general overview and I needn't bore anyone with further details.

Now I determine the process and design the hard tooling which ultimately creates the desired finished part per the dimensions specified on a customer's 2-dimensional print.  I have to take into consideration all of the physical laws which must be adhered to.  Once finished with my design it then goes through a design review process.  Those involved in the review are, at minimum, the builder of the tool and the metal stamper.

 

So here is the point of the above.  The entire exercise of a design review is for one purpose; to ensure that the design is indeed functional, practical, and delivers the desired result.  In other words, the design must work.  Period.  In a nutshell.

People in the review can throw out any idea they want.  Many ideas - on their surface, at first glance - can appear to be good ideas.  What happens next in this meeting of minds is the idea is then thoroughly delved into and examined in great detail to see whether it would work or not.  And trust me when I say that there are a great number of ideas offered which, upon deeper examination, are found to not work.  And once an idea is found not to work there are none in the meeting who are foolish enough to argue for a bad idea without any legs to stand on.

I say I like engineering because it is rich with ideas of a practical nature, bound only by one' own creativity and knowledge, and the only question on everyone's mind is: does it work.  New ideas, ideas of how to accomplish a desired end, are not laughed at but rather sought and appreciated.  I've had more than my share.

Now I contrast the design review process and the introduction of ideas, which at it's base is a search for ideas that work, with the process of what goes on in this thread.  Just as in a design review folks here throw out ideas as well.  But here the aim not to delve into the details of any given idea, nor is it to show the workings or the functionality of an idea.

 

With a design review there's a great deal at stake; monetarily and otherwise.  Which is why the focus is on ensuring that a given idea is indeed workable.  For the most part and in my opinion, here there is little such consideration given to offered ideas.  When asked to show how a given idea actually works in all of it's practical detail, following not only physical laws but other laws as well, too often the only thing forthcoming is silence.  Too often there is even an immense resistance to delve into an idea; to imaginatively follow it and see what it really produces.  A resistance to admit that upon further examination an idea doesn't work at all.  Here we find many who attempt to defend ideas which flat out don't work.

The physical universe as idea construction.  Ideas are like children's building blocks.  They are playthings and children are very good at playing with them.  They constructively build them up and just as easily tear them down if not satisfied with their results.  Adults . . . not so much.  Adults, unfortunately, have taken the game much too seriously.  They, as with children, use ideas as building blocks to construct what they will.  But once built up are loathe to tear their constructs down, even when found to be detrimental in the results their constructs produce.  Rather than adopting a playful attitude in this endeavour, which it is meant to be, by the way, adults tend towards an unhealthy approach of deathly seriousness and if one dares to attempt to tumble their constructions they will defend them to the death.

Just my observations.

[Tippaporn]

You create your own reality.  In every last detail.  That's an idea that works.  It follows all of the laws of creation.  But no one will ever know whether it's valid or not unless it is examined and played with.

You do not create your own reality.  Perhaps in some ways.  That's an idea that doesn't work.  It does not follow all of the laws of creation.  But no one will ever know whether it's valid or not unless it is examined and played with.

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Tippaporn

[mauGR1]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Rather than adopting a playful attitude in this endeavour, which it is meant to be, by the way, adults tend towards an unhealthy approach of deathly seriousness and if one dares to attempt to tumble their constructions they will defend them to the death

I would say that both seriousness and playfulness are important. 

The choice between the 2,  or a clever mix of the 2, depends on the time, the place, and the personal feelings and thoughts. 

One can decide to be more or less serious or playful for personal gain, to please someone, or because of what the whole world needs.

There's a reason why Buddha suggested a middle way approach, because from a middle point of view, one has a good view of both sides/polarities. 

 

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You create your own reality.  In every last detail.  

That's a principle i agree with, but it's hard to explain it clearly to people who refuse to listen. 

Also, and probably you'll find this inconvenient, one has to be careful about what realities he creates, as one is going to pay for every mistake, in every finest detail.

And here comes the great philosophical question, are "doers" right,  and " non- doers" wrong ? Or the opposite?

The answer is blowing in the wind.

 

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I would say that both seriousness and playfulness are important. 

The choice between the 2,  or a clever mix of the 2, depends on the time, the place, and the personal feelings and thoughts. 

One can decide to be more or less serious or playful for personal gain, to please someone, or because of what the whole world needs.

There's a reason why Buddha suggested a middle way approach, because from a middle point of view, one has a good view of both sides/polarities.

Playful seriousness.

[Tippaporn]

26 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's a principle i agree with, but it's hard to explain it clearly to people who refuse to listen. 

Also, and probably you'll find this inconvenient, one has to be careful about what realities he creates, as one is going to pay for every mistake, in every finest detail.

And here comes the great philosophical question, are "doers" right,  and " non- doers" wrong ? Or the opposite?

The answer is blowing in the wind.

Life is at the least a creative learning endeavour.  Few kick a goal their first time out on the pitch.  "Mistakes" are merely part of the process of learning.  Physical reality is a practical mirror in which we can see and experience the results of our thoughts or ideas.  Anyone who understands this then becomes very discriminating in the choosing of their thoughts.  And is quick to discard the ones found to produce ill effects.

You'll have to define "doers" and "non- doers" as those terms don't suggest specific meaning for me.

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

Who creates your experience if not you?  Can you name the agency?  Can you validate that agency's existence?  In my humble opinion, I think not.

Again, who creates your experience?

[Hummin]

6 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

So now, just because the theory of evolution got something right here and there, i guess we are supposed to believe every single idiocy which comes from the anti-creationists..

Well, sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Most of the time in discussions and arguments about science and science proofs, we are often met  with arguments «Its just a Theory», and therefor not proved! 
 

Difference between science hypothesis and Theory is quite clear.

 

A hypothesis is an idea or proposition that can be tested by observations or experiments, about the natural world. In order to be considered scientific, hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation and must be falsifiable, which means that they are worded in such a way that they can be proven to be incorrect.

 

A scientific theory is a well-tested, broad explanation of a natural phenomenon. In everyday life, we often use the word theory to mean a hypothesis or educated guess, A hypothesis is an idea or proposition that can be tested by observations or experiments, about the natural world. In order to be considered scientific, hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation and must be falsifiable, which means that they are worded in such a way that they can be proven to be incorrect.—it is an explanation based on extensive and repeated experimentation.

 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory

Edited September 6, 2022 by Hummin

[rumak]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Just my observations.

Just curious , and not sarcastically so............  if your post was written "freestyle", so to speak.  I think it was.

this from one : "adults tend towards an unhealthy approach of deathly seriousness and if one dares to attempt to tumble their constructions they will defend them to the death.

I read two of your posts from today and found them to be quite above the norm .

thanks   

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by rumak

[mauGR1]

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Life is at the least a creative learning endeavour.  Few kick a goal their first time out on the pitch.  "Mistakes" are merely part of the process of learning.  Physical reality is a practical mirror in which we can see and experience the results of our thoughts or ideas.  Anyone who understands this then becomes very discriminating in the choosing of their thoughts.  And is quick to discard the ones found to produce ill effects.

You'll have to define "doers" and "non- doers" as those terms don't suggest specific meaning for me.

 

Well, there have been a few famous dictators just in the last 100 years, their life shows that, while they were liked by the majority of their people, the mistakes committed were calamitous, and affected millions of people, including their followers. 

That's just to show that, while it's true that everyone is a creator of realities, one has to pay attention to what realities he's creating. 

 

I tend to be a non-doer, as i came to think that there are too many doers in this world. 

I've been indoctrinated to believe in hard work, but now i think that we would better have a break,  relax, and watch carefully where are we going with this hard work.

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Most of the time in discussions and arguments about science and science proofs, we are often met  with arguments «Its just a Theory», and therefor not proved! 
 

Difference between science hypothesis and Theory is quite clear.

 

A hypothesis is an idea or proposition that can be tested by observations or experiments, about the natural world. In order to be considered scientific, hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation and must be falsifiable, which means that they are worded in such a way that they can be proven to be incorrect.

 

A scientific theory is a well-tested, broad explanation of a natural phenomenon. In everyday life, we often use the word theory to mean a hypothesis or educated guess, A hypothesis is an idea or proposition that can be tested by observations or experiments, about the natural world. In order to be considered scientific, hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation and must be falsifiable, which means that they are worded in such a way that they can be proven to be incorrect.—it is an explanation based on extensive and repeated experimentation.

 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory

Yet, we had people here saying that evolution theory is settled, and therefore belief in intelligent design is wrong, but you didn't say a word. 

On the contrary, i get accused of dismissing science, when in fact I'm dismissing hypothesis presented as facts.

Perhaps it's you who has to understand the differences between hypothesis, theories and facts.????

[AsianAtHeart]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yet, we had people here saying that evolution theory is settled, and therefore belief in intelligent design is wrong, but you didn't say a word. 

On the contrary, i get accused of dismissing science, when in fact I'm dismissing hypothesis presented as facts.

Perhaps it's you who has to understand the differences between hypothesis, theories and facts.????

Evolutionists point to the fact that their "theory" is really "fact" because "the theory of gravity" is also a "fact."  The mathematics of gravity are well understood, and it is more "scientific" than the "theory" of abiogenesis and naturalistic evolution.  But gravity is still understood to be "theory" because we still do not know what causes it.  (This is actually a good evidence for the existence of God if ever there was one.)

 

With evolution, it is nowhere near the level of "fact" implied by the word "theory."  Even "hypothesis" is overestimating it.  "Myth" is more accurate, or perhaps "fable."  The evolutionists are forced to doctor their data to protect their theory, and they are often forced to make radical changes to what they had previously touted as "fact" in order to accommodate some new piece of evidence that has come to light.

 

There are zero transitional forms found in the fossil record to date.  There have been zero successes at creating life in a laboratory.  There has been no evidence of any major evolution of any animal from one class of animals (Biblical "kind") to another, e.g. horse to dog or vice versa, in recorded history.  Dogs breed and make dogs--even if they might have radically different features.  Horses breed and make horses, regardless of whether they might turn out to be 18 inches tall or 8 feet tall.  The sheer paucity of these evidences in the face of the tremendous volume of claims made in favor of them speaks for itself.

 

Of course, if you believe life came into existence by itself, I'm sure you can believe that these rocks stacked themselves, or that it happened in a dust devil.

 

That stack of rocks is far less complex than a single strand of DNA.

 

[Tippaporn]

37 minutes ago, rumak said:

Just curious , and not sarcastically so............  if your post was written "freestyle", so to speak.  I think it was.

this from one : "adults tend towards an unhealthy approach of deathly seriousness and if one dares to attempt to tumble their constructions they will defend them to the death.

I read two of your posts from today and found them to be quite above the norm .

thanks  

Free flowing from the heart.  Thanks.

[Hummin]

36 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, there have been a few famous dictators just in the last 100 years, their life shows that, while they were liked by the majority of their people, the mistakes committed were calamitous, and affected millions of people, including their followers. 

That's just to show that, while it's true that everyone is a creator of realities, one has to pay attention to what realities he's creating. 

 

I tend to be a non-doer, as i came to think that there are too many doers in this world. 

I've been indoctrinated to believe in hard work, but now i think that we would better have a break,  relax, and watch carefully where are we going with this hard work.

Often we humans is to serious about things that really do not matter. Things that can really harm our lives if we make the wrong choices, or choose not to do anything, or choose to take action on the wrong premisses. 

 

Complicated