@kenmcelroy Deep recession is coming, resulting in deep house price reduction over the next three years. Liquidity will dry up to cover losses. Those with dry powder that invest to help solve major needs will reap wealth in the coming years.
@ScienceNews “May” is an interesting helping verb. It dramatically changes the veracity of the statement when used.
It’s interesting that the accidental exclusion of the word “may” has potentially serious consequences in the legal world, but apparently doesn’t matter on science headlines.
@ScienceMagazine The problem lies in those that misrepresent scientific research conclusions as factual when they are in fact based on assumptions.
It’s even more of a problem when those IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY do the same.
@ImSpeaking13 We advocate to preserve the life of humans, of which I am one.
That is why I have and will always have a seat at the table regarding the sanctity of human life.
@YoungAtheist0 So I presume you wouldn’t have a problem if God forced you to worship Him.
If one is ok with that, then they have the choice to do so, along with the resulting outcome.
If one is not ok with that, then that is also their choice, along with the resulting outcome.
@Ah_Science Speed of light is assumed to be constant, which factors into time calculation.
Just like God made Adam a mature being, the universe could have been made with the same maturity.
Be cautious using definitive terms when using assumptions.
@Paleoguy073 You either misstate or misunderstand the conclusions of scientific research/conclusions related to these theories.
There is a reason they use words like “supports”, “indicates”, implies”, “suggests” in their conclusions.
If they could prove it definitively, they would say so.
@SteveTiger999 Faulty logic that is easy to expose.
Based on this logic, you have a tough time also believing in natural origin theories such as big bang origin and abiogenesis.
Absence of proof doesn’t deny existence/occurrence.
@GasmaNZ The real problem is this…
People ignorantly misread the conclusions scientists reach. Scientists don’t (& can’t) claim definitive proof of their conclusion. They use works like “supports”, “indicates”, “implies”.
Don’t use words like “proof” when that is not being claimed.
@AndyBuzz72 Your “fact” is based on assumptions applied to observations.
The observation is not in question, but the conclusions (age, underlying abiogenesis, causal effect on humans, etc) are. You cannot prove these. They are what you want to believe happened.
@S1mpleS1mon It’s ok if you can’t show one statement I said that was wrong.
This in part is a part of science… making mistakes and learning from error.
@S1mpleS1mon Scientific method can only disprove a theory. It can’t prove it correct.
It is limited by the amount of info/data available. Assumptions fill in the rest.
Theories are often proven incorrect with new info.
Christians are reasonable to apply science within its limitations.