michalchik
New Member
His main problem seems to be a deep misunderstanding of what science is. It
seems he confuses evidence based theory testing with logical proof. He is
essentially failing to understand the difference between positive proof and
falsifiability. Positive proof is only possible in math and logic given
accepted assumption.
If he wants to say that there are no 3 pieces of evidence that prove
evolution true, he is right, but it does not matter. There is no body of
evidence that prove any physical theory true, not atomic theory, universal
gravitation, conservation of energy, Newtonian mechanics, etc... Any piece
of evidence can be explained away with a post hoc rationalization.
I can cast doubt on anything outside my own existence and this is the basis
of sophomoric solipsism. Ask him for three solid pieces of evidence that
ANY idea about the physical world is true.
This is probably why he thinks he can dismiss relativity.
Tell him to go read some Karl Popper and get back to you when he
understands what constitutes evidence in science. He thinks like a natural
philosopher not a scientist. He is not a worthy creationist opponent he is
a sophist whelp.
seems he confuses evidence based theory testing with logical proof. He is
essentially failing to understand the difference between positive proof and
falsifiability. Positive proof is only possible in math and logic given
accepted assumption.
If he wants to say that there are no 3 pieces of evidence that prove
evolution true, he is right, but it does not matter. There is no body of
evidence that prove any physical theory true, not atomic theory, universal
gravitation, conservation of energy, Newtonian mechanics, etc... Any piece
of evidence can be explained away with a post hoc rationalization.
I can cast doubt on anything outside my own existence and this is the basis
of sophomoric solipsism. Ask him for three solid pieces of evidence that
ANY idea about the physical world is true.
This is probably why he thinks he can dismiss relativity.
Tell him to go read some Karl Popper and get back to you when he
understands what constitutes evidence in science. He thinks like a natural
philosopher not a scientist. He is not a worthy creationist opponent he is
a sophist whelp.