Kind of hard to do when truth is a wopd best avoided in science.
If you don't know what's true, you can't tell other people that they are wrong.
wopd=word
Kind of hard to do when truth is a wopd best avoided in science.
If you don't know what's true, you can't tell other people that they are wrong.
You are showing that you are either incapable of learning, or committed to deliberate distortion and misrepresentation. I suspect the latter. That's what creation "science" is all about anyway.
For the lurkers not following the discussion, I frequently post a definition from a CalTech physics website:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
This is deliberately and consistently misrepresented--until it amounts to a lie--to claim that science is untrue and that scientists don't know what is true (as in the above post) so that they can't say something is wrong.
Science is not about "truth," "Truth," "TRUTH," or "TRVTH" -- science is about increasingly accurate descriptions and explanations for natural phenomena. And science is exceedingly good at this.
To turn this around, as posters here frequently do, to imply that science is untrue etc. is both sophistry and outright lying. It also shows the abject dishonesty of their arguments that they can't argue the merits of a position but automatically seek to misrepresent and to distort. It makes one suspicious of pretty much everything they post.
Lets try again:
In schools students are expected to learn something about science before they start saying its all wrong.