So why should I believe a claim that has no supporting evidence?
So you won't stereotype science.
And there goes the irony metre for the thread.
My standards:
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.
Academia's standards:
1. Ancient text says x, current science says x = go with x
2. Ancient text says x, current science says y = go with y
3. Ancient text says x, current science says ø = go with ø
4. Ancient text says ø, current science says x = go with x
5. Ancient text says ø, current science says ø = who cares?
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Scientific Method to be contradicted.
The second part is counterfactual. Academia's standard would rather beMy standards:
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.
Academia's standards:
1. Ancient text says x, current science says x = go with x
2. Ancient text says x, current science says y = go with y
3. Ancient text says x, current science says ø = go with ø
4. Ancient text says ø, current science says x = go with x
5. Ancient text says ø, current science says ø = who cares?
Prime directive: don't accept truth on authority or tradition. Try to study and evaluate the supporting evidence.Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Scientific Method to be contradicted.
The second part is counterfactual. Academia's standard would rather be
1. Ancient text says x, current science says x = study and evaluate x
2. Ancient text says x, current science says y = study and evaluate y
3. Ancient text says x, current science says ø = start a research project
4. Ancient text says ø, current science says x = study and evaluate x
5. Ancient text says ø, current science says ø = start a research project
Prime directive: don't accept truth on authority or tradition. Try to study and evaluate the supporting evidence.
Nope. Scientists evaluate their data during their research and before submission. The it is reevaluated during the peer review before publication. After publication readers will evaluaye and comment, during presentations at congresses debates will follow.So science first says y, THEN they study and evaluate y?
And also how we got rid of it. You just don't seem to get over it. That science admits and corrects it mistakes displays it's grandeur, and not it's weakness.Isn't that how we got Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii?
And also how we got rid of it. You just don't seem to get over it. That science admits and corrects it mistakes displays it's grandeur, and not it's weakness.
Your request makes no sense. A result, data point or conclusion can be contradicted. A method can be used or discarded.So go ahead and contradict the Scientific Method?
Nope, that's the christian god's way: first cursing humanity, and then offering "salvation" or "redemption" through the sacrifice of his son.Lights fires, then puts them out.
Go ahead. People then would mock you , say you're wrong, ignore you, and maybe stone you?
It is good to pray, but realize they ALREADY go THAT far!