informal survey

[Lew]

...
Joe Baker, who thinks it more appropriate to speak of that which is DISPROVEN as myth, than that which is merely NOT PROVEN.
...

I agree with the basic premise of this statement, but in true scientific reasoning, nothing can be "proven." There are theories that merely have not yet been disproven, and are therefore the best explanation for a particular phenomena, but we can never really "prove" a theory to be true. The best criteria I have seen for a theory to be scientific is:

1. It must be able to be proven false (falsifiable).
2. It must have survived attempts to falisify it.
3. It must be logically consistent.
4. It must provide better explanatory value than alternate theories.

We think of "laws" of science as being true in some absolute sense. In reality, they are merely the best explanations that we have developed yet, and have been accepted in practice and theory by so many so as to be universally agreed upon.

Of course this also means that explanations that include some "supernatural" component cannot be scientific because they don't satisfy condition 1. There is no way to try to prove them false.

[windshieldbug]

Today, in the age of Google, we can quickly find out that "Piltdown Man" was revealed to be a hoax in 1953. It was a total fabrication. Yet, my textbooks still made mention of it. I even recall it being a test question. None of my teachers ever said it was a hoax.

So, here's my question. We have clearly seen that at least some evolutionists have been found guilty of fabricating their evidence, and that these myths can subside long after they are determined to be myths. Darwinian evolution has had a greater impact on the course of modern society than anything. That being the case, should we instead be talking about Darwinian mythology?

Piltdown Tuba

[Kevin Hendrick]

Piltdown Tuba

Verdi nice!

[Joe Baker]

...
Joe Baker, who thinks it more appropriate to speak of that which is DISPROVEN as myth, than that which is merely NOT PROVEN.
...

I agree with the basic premise of this statement, but in true scientific reasoning, nothing can be "proven." There are theories that merely have not yet been disproven, and are therefore the best explanation for a particular phenomena, but we can never really "prove" a theory to be true. The best criteria I have seen for a theory to be scientific is:

1. It must be able to be proven false (falsifiable).
2. It must have survived attempts to falisify it.
3. It must be logically consistent.
4. It must provide better explanatory value than alternate theories.

We think of "laws" of science as being true in some absolute sense. In reality, they are merely the best explanations that we have developed yet, and have been accepted in practice and theory by so many so as to be universally agreed upon.

Of course this also means that explanations that include some "supernatural" component cannot be scientific because they don't satisfy condition 1. There is no way to try to prove them false.

While I'm sure you and I disagree about much, we don't disagree about anything you've stated here. I didn't speak of anything being provable, only disprovable; but even there I was using "disprove" in the more general sense, not in the scientific sense.

My faith does not rely on "provability"; if it did, it (a) wouldn't be faith, and (b) wouldn't be held by me. Faith is "evidence of things not seen" -- it relies on the heart (again, as used in the general rather than scientific sense ), and defies scientific proof. Only a fool would claim otherwise. Lack of proof doesn't mean lack of evidence, nor lack of accuracy.

As a more universally understandable example, I can't "prove" that I love my children -- after all, my kindness to them COULD be only to garner approval from the neighbors, or to win romantic favor with their mother (indeed, plenty of behavioral scientists would make exactly this claim ). But the fact that I can't prove my love for them doesn't make my love a myth! Nor does the fact that I can show evidence of that love (my behavior toward them) make the behavioral scientists' theories a myth. It is factual that I love them (my claim), and I have evidence, but I lack proof.

Many things are "true" (factual, to you scientific types) but not provable. We should be slow to call that which we do not believe in a "myth". That's the point I was trying to make.
_________________________________
Joe Baker, who has learned not to try to talk about "truth" or "proof" to scientists.

[Joe Baker]

[Is] new age "life force" [in direct opposition to] satanic cults[...??]

bloke "who will not enter into longwinded discussions with affirmed west coast ophobes, but knows when something does or does not point towards 'light' or 'darkness' "...

...' anyone interested in seeing this on eBay - "local pick up only"?

Bloke, I think you and I are in violent agreement. Let me elaborate on my position.

Jesus said, "I am the way". (Give me a second to brace for the onslaught by offended others...okay) Unless Jesus was a liar, there is no difference in the eternal destiny of any who do not place their trust in Christ. Each must decide for himself whether Jesus' words as recorded in scripture are trustworthy. "Choose ye this day whom you will serve; as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." [/sermon]

But I'm sure you agree that there are some folks who overtly wish to harm others and be evil. In that light, I draw a distinction between some kook burning incense and placing crystals under pyramids and chanting for world peace on the one hand, and someone mutilating cats and calling down curses (without regard to the effectiveness of the curse or lack thereof). If I were to address a practitioner of either of these, and attempt to explain my beliefs with a hope to persuade ("witness", in our Christian vernacular), I would have to start by understanding where their hearts and minds are to begin with. If you refer to a new-ager as a "witch" or "satanist", the conversation will be over before it begins. That doesn't mean that you have to respect their belief itself, but we do need to respect people's feelings -- both as a moral and as a practical matter -- and their right by free will to make their own spiritual choices on this earth.

But on this I'm certain we agree: as a Christian, I understand that deception comes from only one source, the father of lies.
__________________________
Joe Baker, who figures that this thread was safe as long as it was about a bunch of other religious beliefs, but now that Christianity is being discussed it's history .

[Daryl Fletcher]

...' anyone interested in seeing this on eBay - "local pick up only"?

Could you put one of these on eBay instead?

[windshieldbug]

Could you put one of these on eBay instead?

Piltdown Tuba MUST L@@K!

Found on a buying trip way up into the mountains of WV in an old logging town. Hidden away for years! Normal wear! In good condition for it's age! Silver color, great patina! We do our best to describe items as correctly as possible in the auction, so all items sold on an as-is basis; we no longer accept returns! Bid with confidence! Cashier's check or Money order, please! No Paypal!

[tubatooter1940]

Not knowing enough about mythology or religion, one can correctly assume that there are people on this earth that simply love butt-ugly statues.