---

Quote: from Charolastra at 5:46 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:56 pm on June 28, 2009

---

But it is open to being modified and falsified. I simply accept it because it fits what we now know.

---

All scientific theories should be falsifiable. I have no personal attachment to the theory, if it fits it fits, if it doesn't discard. But based on what we know now, there's more than a wealth of evidence in it's favor. It's just good science.

---

My objection is to the "I know" statement. You can "believe" and/or "accept" that it's correct or that it's true, but "know" it is? I'm not sure you can go that far.

---

I dunno, I just don't like saying knowledge changes to fit our view of the world. It really doesn't, we just make mistakes when trying to understand it.

-------
Admiration is the furthest thing from comprehension.

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 5:55 pm on June 28, 2009

---

My objection is to the "I know" statement. You can "believe" and/or "accept" that it's correct or that it's true, but "know" it is? I'm not sure you can go that far.

---

"But based on what we know now, there's more than a wealth of evidence in it's favor."

If you know enough about something and have evidence that are pieced together in the most honest way possible, then isn't it safe to conclude that you know something based on the wealth of evidence behind it?

I thought it was, I could be wrong.

---

Just because it is 'honest'? Just because there is an abundance of evidence? There have been many innocent people sentenced to prison based on those criteria.

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Bohica

---

Tell me how you personally "know" that evolution is the complete and only truth as it is explained in the ToE.

---

It's an explanation obviously but any more data we can gather only seems to strengthen these explanations for the amount of diversity we see today.

-------
y'all nukhuhs that be aight wit dat bullshiiit, just hit us up mang

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 5:55 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Charolastra at 5:46 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:56 pm on June 28, 2009

---

But it is open to being modified and falsified. I simply accept it because it fits what we now know.

---

All scientific theories should be falsifiable. I have no personal attachment to the theory, if it fits it fits, if it doesn't discard. But based on what we know now, there's more than a wealth of evidence in it's favor. It's just good science.

---

My objection is to the "I know" statement. You can "believe" and/or "accept" that it's correct or that it's true, but "know" it is? I'm not sure you can go that far.

---

 
What we 'know' doesn't change, for you cannot know something unless it is true, and if it is not then someone is mistaken. The universe doesn't change depending on what we believe, what we believe changes as we discover more about the universe. What we discover we can safely say we understand, and occasionally know, misread evidence occurs a bit, I'd imagine.

I dunno, I just don't like saying knowledge changes to fit our view of the world. It really doesn't, we just make mistakes when trying to understand it.

---

If you rely on "knowing" only what is true, I would submit we "know" nothing.

Post edited at 7:53 pm on June 28, 2009 by Forever Angel

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Bohica

---

Quote: from Aimforthehead at 9:39 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 5:55 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Charolastra at 5:46 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:56 pm on June 28, 2009

---

But it is open to being modified and falsified. I simply accept it because it fits what we now know.

---

All scientific theories should be falsifiable. I have no personal attachment to the theory, if it fits it fits, if it doesn't discard. But based on what we know now, there's more than a wealth of evidence in it's favor. It's just good science.

---

My objection is to the "I know" statement. You can "believe" and/or "accept" that it's correct or that it's true, but "know" it is? I'm not sure you can go that far.

---

What we 'know' doesn't change, for you cannot know something unless it is true, and if it is not then someone is mistaken. The universe doesn't change depending on what we believe, what we believe changes as we discover more about the universe. What we discover we can safely say we understand, and occasionally know, misread evidence occurs a bit, I'd imagine.  

I dunno, I just don't like saying knowledge changes to fit our view of the world. It really doesn't, we just make mistakes when trying to understand it.

---

Of course what we "know" changes. And it changes to fit, not our view of the world, but, what we learn that changes our knowledge. We learned that earth revolved around the sun. We learned that the earth isn't the only satellite that the sun has. Every time we increase our knowledge, we change what we know. Every time we reinterpret that knowledge, we change what we know.

If you rely on "knowing" only what is true, I would submit we "know" nothing.

---

---

I don't debate semantics.  
If that were true technology would not exist. Unless every time a car is built we some how coincidentally and accidentally get all of the physics and parts in the right order, nothing to do with science or anything.

---

---

Are we really supposed to interpret anything though? Or infer.

---

Post edited at 8:19 pm on June 28, 2009 by Forever Angel

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Bohica

---

Quote: from Charolastra at 9:53 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Are we really supposed to interpret anything though? Or infer.

---

Do you believe scientists never interpret their findings? Or infer anything from those findings?

---

There's a certain threshold that you seemingly can't cross in scientific inquiry or it becomes pseudo-science.

-------
y'all nukhuhs that be aight wit dat bullshiiit, just hit us up mang

---

Quote: from Aimforthehead at 9:55 pm on June 28, 2009

---

I don't debate semantics.
 If that were true technology would not exist. Unless every time a car is built we some how coincidentally and accidentally get all of the physics and parts in the right order, nothing to do with science or anything.

---

What I said there has nothing to do with semantics. Is a Model T a car? Is a Lamborghini a car? Are they the same thing? What makes them different? Why are they different?

---

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:15 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Charolastra at 9:53 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Are we really supposed to interpret anything though? Or infer.

---

Do you believe scientists never interpret their findings? Or infer anything from those findings?

---

Scientists definitely do interpret. Often times interpretations can be used as models to explain an observed phenomenon.

There's a certain threshold that you seemingly can't cross in scientific inquiry or it becomes pseudo-science.

---

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:13 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Aimforthehead at 9:55 pm on June 28, 2009

---

I don't debate semantics.    
  If that were true technology would not exist. Unless every time a car is built we some how coincidentally and accidentally get all of the physics and parts in the right order, nothing to do with science or anything.

---

What I said there has nothing to do with semantics. Is a Model T a car? Is a Lamborghini a car? Are they the same thing? What makes them different? Why are they different?

---

They follow the same concept and understandings, it's not as if anything actually changes, we just learn more and can improve more.

---

---

i count 8 fails and 3 epic fails.

---