Suppose someone at NASA, or the medical profession, took exception to the statement In science, there is no truth. Suppose they cited some accomplishments in their field, built on truths that were learned in science. Would they be wrong?
"Truth" is subjective. It belongs in philosophy. Science is OBJECTIVE. It deals with facts.
There are not "truths" learned in science, only facts. An individual can hold the facts to be true or untrue. It doesn't change the facts.
Teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth? Really? Students are supposed to understand that as they’re taught math, history etc, that it may not actually be true, but they have to learn it anyway? That’s what education is — to learn things that may be false?
What does a discussion about these things have to do with evolution?
Again, truth is subjective. You can't really "teach" truth. You can teach ABOUT "truth", but each student will ultimately decide their own truth.
This makes truth a fairly useless subject for education.
The reason this all relates to evolution is the following: Creationists are upset because their TRUTH disagrees with the facts. They want to replace the facts with their truth.
Creationists don't understand that their truth is irrelevant and that the facts are all education cares about.
1. Pls tell us the first recording of life form groupings by category?
You KEEP coming back to this as though it were a convincing argument.
You claim that the Bible is the first recording of this stuff because you claim that the Bible predates everything else.
Cave painting CLEARLY demonstrate different animal groups and predate the Bible (and in fact the ENTIRE UNIVERSE according to your 6,000 yr calendar) but tens of thousands of years.
You need to pick an argument which hasn't been so completely destroyed so many times.
We're starting to think you might be mentally disabled in your ability to retain other people's arguments. It's almost like you don't understand that once you say something and it's shown to be wrong, it stays wrong no matter how many times you bring it up.
Your out done. You cannot admit absolute hard copy proof of the first recording of life form groups, while you leap elsewhere with similar nonsense. The French 30K year claims have been blasted as a forgery. It has red color - a dead giveaway since even te Egyptians never had red dye 5000 years ago - the colors which were on the pyramids were got it from India.
This argument that the world was in black and white prior to the Great Flood is beyond retarded.
Red ocher is and has been a staple for tribal groups going back well before the dawn of time.
The leaps and bounds you would have to go through to disprove the cave paints are so absurdly ridiculous, it is beyond even your extreme capacity for fantasy.
Seriously, you are mentally disturbed. You need PROFESSIONAL help. You are a danger to yourself and others.
Let someone answer which is the first record of medicine, separating this faculty from the occult, and also introducing the concept of infectious virus, contagious bacteria, quarantine, treatment and ID of malignancies. This will show how ignorant creationists are, right? Have a go!
This claim has already been utterly destroyed by simply directly quoting the Bible's "cures" for disease.
What do you get when you raise wrong to the 3rd power?
A rational mind would ask rational questions
How would you know?
. If a human 'painted' a ddrawing of what appears a man made item 30,000 years ago, the following rational factors apply:
1. That humans had previous to this time developed speech, language, agriculture and technical know how of color usage [remember the painting has a red domesticated bison]. Maybe 20K years previously. We have no imprints of any of those factors throughout that period of 20K years.
Wrong on so many levels. #1) NOT a bison. AND, ABSOLUTELY not a "domesticated" bison. #2) No you do not need to develop agriculture to paint a picture of an animal #3) We have PLENTY of evidence for speech prior to cave paintings, both implied through cultural context and physical remains which include the necessarily biological components. #4) People have know how to "use color" FOREVER. #5) Where are you getting the number "20k"? Why would someone have to have developed any one, let alone ALL, of these things 20k years prior to painting a picture of a bison.
2. The same issue as above is also seen from the 30K point upto the present time: no graduated or any other kind of imprints in 30K years [discounting the last 6000 years which are recorded as history].
Also extremely wrong. We have painting WORLDWIDE demonstrating a wide range of dates.
Hell, the French caves span 10,000+ years of artwork in and of themselves.
3. The last 6000 years says imprints are continuous of a graduating humanity in advancement and population. But we find a great anomoly with a painting falsely promoted as 30K years old - without a shred of rational surrounding evidence.
Except for "reality", but yes, if you reject reality, it's easy to dismiss evidence.
This is a myth. Australia is surrounded by H20 and has more water than the middle-east, which is also half desert. Sparse population still cannot justify no evidences at all for 60K years.
Surrounded by _salt water_ which clearly you have been drinking.
AND, you are desperately trying to change topics. "evidences at all for 60k years"??! WTF does that have to do with your claim that there should be 5 trillion Australians.
Could 5 trillion people living in Australia TODAY? Right now? Even with worldwide food production? We wouldn't have enough people over the entire rest of the world to produce and transport enough food fast enough to support that many people in Australia. And we have PLANES.
Clearly population size is limited by resources.
Until you admit that, there's really no reason for you to type anything.