[gallo]

Quote by: LOGAN What is nonsensical is to declare any theory as having validity in the physical world.

So the explanations of the causes of events that we observe in the physical world don't have any validity in the physical world, is that what you're saying. Well, at least they have a lot more validity than claiming that the mythology of bronze age nomads is somehow valid. That is more than nonsense. It is the deepest sort of ignorance. Not only doesn't it have any validity, it is a denial of the physical world.

An "IDEA" is still only and idea, paint it, white wash it, declare it truth, tell us that this idea was arrived at through the scientific method, still it is nothing but a speculation based upon a few known facts, nothing more, nothing less, and it certainly is not valid as the TRUTH.

Can you say, "Run-on sentence?" I knew you could! Good for you.

One does not arrive at ideas through the scientific method. In science, one arrives at an idea through observations of reality and a wild guess. That's known as forming an hypothesis in science. The scientific method is used to test that idea to see if does actually have validity "in the physical world." It is tested by making a prediction of another observation that must necessarily be true if the hypothesis is correct. That prediction is then tested. If it works out, then the hypothesis is supported. Scientific theories are accepted by scientists because they have been stringently tested and have passed. Scientific theories are predictive of real events in the physical world. And yet, if we decided to forgo thinking, we might claim that scientific theories have no validity in the physical world. We see an apple fall from a tree and offer an explanation, but of course, according to non-thinking creationists, there is no validity in the physical world.

If indeed it were "empirical", as was suggested....we would empirically have a physical law and not a speculation.

Since I already explained this to you once, you are now being intentionally ignorant. I even explained to you what empirical means. You have now gone from someone who has doubts about science because you don't understand, to someone who is forlornly clinging to magic as an explanation because you don't like reality. And while we are talking about clinging to nonsense as you are doing, what exactly do you mean by "in the physical world?" Obviously you don't mean things like light, heat, the biosphere, gravity, the sun or moon and so forth. And certainly you don't mean living organisms. One would have to be a complete fool to claim that explanations of the physical world lack validity in the physical world.

The semantics used to describe this theory is an indoctrination into secular humanism on a play of words to take advantage of the gullible.

What does science have to do with secular humanism or semantics? Why don't you tell us your version so we can judge who is really gullible. While there is a philosophy of science, science is not a philosophy. Humanism is, but not a philosophy of science. Humanism was the philosophy of many of the founders of my country. It would be nice if you actually tried to educate yourself before you spoke. Otherwise you just make yourself look foolish.

What we are lead to do is to accept this "idea" as truth until a better truth comes along.

To represent science as "truth" is just dishonest. Perhaps if you had the integrity to learn what science is and how it works before you speak. It's a lot better than representing mythology at truth.

The truth does not evolve, what was true yesterday is true today.

And what was mythology yesterday is still mythology today and will be tomorrow. The problem is that science isn't represented as truth, just the best explanations we can figure out from what we know. As we learn more, what is true doesn't change, only our ability to explain in more detail.

An example would be the speculated age of the universe, the "so called truth" has evolved from being declared as 4 billion years to 13.7 billion years in just one generation, showing the absurdity in accepting anyones idea as a truth.

But even you state that it was a speculated age. Why on earth would anyone but a nut case call it truth. Besides, it wasn't in a single generation. Moreover, there hasn't been any evolution involved.

Thus, the first theory/idea was proven to be a lie, why should we blindly accept this next theory/idea as truth, when the last has fallen as a scientific LIE.?

What are you talking about since it wasn't declared to be truth except by the ignorant. "Thus", there was no lie. Moreover, in science, no theory is ever accepted blindly, nor is it accepted as truth. Those particular faults happen to belong to the religious who blindly accept the mythology of an old book as truth.

Instead of declaring the real truth of "we have reached an impasse of human comprehension", we merely speculate as to what that truth "might" be, until science and technology advances to add more speculation on top of an already unfounded speculation of truth.

But there is no impasse in science. We are still learning and still adding to the body of knowledge of science. Speculation is only the first step in advancing science, and science isn't a search for truth.

It's a house of cards waiting to be toppled by the next best idea. Always learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. AND YES, THE "TRUTH" IS OFTEN FOUND TO BE "UNDEBATABLE", for the truth allows no room for human speculation.

Those who place mythology over reality have been saying that for 150 years. My whole career I've been told by religious nuts how creationism is on the verge of upsetting the whole of science. I haven't seen any signs of it yet.