Athiest bus campaign

[kleinboet]

Corydorus and Kenl - you have just hoisted yourseves with your own p0etards!!!

The THEORY of the big bang - Where is the "well documented" readings - it is as much a guess for non-believers as it is with Christians!!

The THEORY that they are desperately trying to prove MAY never be!!!

Cory, with your education - what do you write to get your doctorate - A THEOREM!!!!!

This is something that you have looked at in a way no-one else has, and usually has no way of proving whether what you have written will ever be provable.

Your opinion on my qualifications will in no way change them!

[corydoras]

Corydorus and Kenl - you have just hoisted yourseves with your own p0etards!!!

The THEORY of the big bang - Where is the "well documented" readings - it is as much a guess for non-believers as it is with Christians!!

The THEORY that they are desperately trying to prove MAY never be!!!

Cory, with your education - what do you write to get your doctorate - A THEOREM!!!!!

This is something that you have looked at in a way no-one else has, and usually has no way of proving whether what you have written will ever be provable.

Your opinion on my qualifications will in no way change them!

I don't have a doctorate KB, I don't even have a degree. I do have a huge thirst for knowledge and I read and study astrophysics and evolutionary biology, the same way that posters on these forums read angling books. I do count a few astro-physicists as my personal friends, For example I visited this lady for coffee and a natter about cataclysmic variable stars on Friday night Sofia Araujo-Betancor. The difference between you and I KB is that if I am wrong about something I'll have the good grace to accept that I am wrong. If something that I believe is shown conclusively to be wrong then I'll happily change my belief. I'd even go as far as to say I have no beliefs, just things I accept as factual, and other things that I reject as false.

 

It's true my opinions on your qualifications (opinions which I don't hold since I know not what your qualifications are) would not change them. But I did hold you in some esteem as a scientist of some kind or another.

 

Please read these links, then there will be no ambiguities when I use the word "Theory"

 

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

Half assed guesses don't come into it.

[Vagabond]

what do you write to get your doctorate - A THEOREM!!!!!

 

 

Errrr, not quite. You write a THESIS.

[barry luxton]

The difference between you and I KB is that if I am wrong about something I'll have the good grace to accept that I am wrong.

 

 

Errr,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vista is better

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know, i know,

[snakey1]

Wrong, wrong and thrice wrong. Your right to call yourself any kind of scientist has been lost as far as I am concerned. You walked straight into my trap.

 

1) The closest thing in science to an 'educated guess' is what we call a hypothesis, a theory in science is something totally different.

 

Taken from your own link on wikipedia - According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a consequence of the necessity of using inductive logic.

 

 

 

 

 

2) This is what scientists mean when the use the word "Theory". A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

 

Got that! Evolution is a FACT, get over it. Just because you cannot or will not understand the facts makes them no less factual KB. That is what's known as arguing from ignorance and it\'s a Logical Fallacy. Another misconception that you are labouring under is this notion that science does 'PROOFS'. It doesn't, it never has. The only scientists who are really interested in absolute PROOF are mathematicians.

 

Taken from your other link - Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

 

 

 

 

Gravity is 'only' a theory, when will you expect the next thing you drop will fall up? The Germ Theory of diseases is ONLY a theory. Electricity is only a THEORY, neither of them are about to be disproved real soon now though.

 

What ever happened to the phlogiston theory and the miasma theory of disease I wonder

Edited January 12, 2009 by snakey1

[Ken L]

What ever happened to the phlogiston theory and the miasma theory of disease I wonder

 

Neither was well suported by evidence and both were dismissed as a result of being surplanted by alternate explainations that more acuratly modeled the world about us. It's a great shame that the god theory hasn't gone the same way.

[corydoras]

Sorry folks, double post

Edited January 13, 2009 by corydoras

[snakey1]

Neither was well suported by evidence and both were dismissed as a result of being surplanted by alternate explainations that more accurately modeled the world about us. It's a great shame that the god theory hasn't gone the same way.

Considering the phlogiston theory lasted close on 100 years (1667 - 1778 approx) it must have been supported by some evidence at the time & the miasma theory lasted even longer from ancient times(one supporter being Abaris the Hyperborean, who famously cleaned Sparta under Mount Taygetus from miasmata coming downhill)although it really became popular in the middle ages up to the mid 1800's (supporters being Dr William Farr and Florence Nightingale). But it just goes to show even popular theories can to be proven wrong.

Edited January 13, 2009 by snakey1

[Newt]

However something far more important...I am viewing all posts as one liners, that happens sometimes and I have forgotten the fix...help please.

Page top-right , options, display mode and switch back to Standard.

[Ken L]

But it just goes to show even popular theories can to be proven wrong.

 

That's the whole point. Ptolomy's ideas were accepted for more than a thousand years but when the hard evidence turned up to contradict them, they were thrown out and replaced with an alternate world view that fitted the new observations. Our understanding of the movements of stars and planets has since been superceeded by the work of Newton and Einstien and the reason why the old ideas have been updated is because they no longer explained the observations and viable alternatives were proposed that did. There may be peer review but there is no dogma and nobody ever got murdered by the scientific establishment for successfully overturning a previously accepted theory.