Well done, T. Now can you tell us all what you consider to be the difference between ‘considered to be true’ and ‘proved’? It appears to be zero. But I want to give you the opportunity to show that you know what you’re talking about.Wozza:
This theory is already considered to be true by the world.
Only a tiny few ever bring up the question of proof.Techno2000:
Well done, T. Now can you tell us all what you consider to be the difference between ‘considered to be true’ and ‘proved’? It appears to be zero. But I want to give you the opportunity to show that you know what you’re talking about.Wozza:
This theory is already considered to be true by the world.
What?Wozza:
Only a tiny few ever bring up the question of proof.Techno2000:
Well done, T. Now can you tell us all what you consider to be the difference between ‘considered to be true’ and ‘proved’? It appears to be zero. But I want to give you the opportunity to show that you know what you’re talking about.Wozza:
This theory is already considered to be true by the world.
Others have taken you to task on this and I agree with them
There’s nothing in the natural universe that can’t be tested, it’s just a matter of figuring a way to do it. Any theory that can be articulated in testable terms is open to falsification. Special creation can’t be falsified because it’s supernatural intervention. Everything in the universe has a natural cause, at least from our perspective. So there’s no way to detect supernatural intervention. It’s faith.
Yes. But I’m speaking within nature. I appreciate the supernatural creation of the human soul and accompanying aspects. But I’m wondering how this touches the natural. Are reason and self-awareness purely supernatural (drawing their qualities from outside of the universe) or do our advanced brains have something to do with it? If the former, we might as well be donkeys. If the later, we can expect other creatures are capable of evolving past where we are now.
When I read that excerpt I walked away the same understanding Wozza did. I don’t know how you can read it differently.
Did you look at post 9842 and 9843
Is the multiverse supernatural?
Sorry. I forgot you replied.
It seems the evolutionist Royal Society can’t come to grips with the evidence for design in biology.
No disagreement.
Common descent yes, universal common descent, no.
If it existed it would be natural, but it would it be this natural? I’m tempted to say yes, but my current beliefs about reality don’t include a MV. So I’ll pass.That’s not the fault of science.
That’s faith .