Celtic_soulja Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 No, they're all theories. The amount of evidence directly supporting a theory may make it more credible than other theories, which is probably what you're talking about. Every theory is exactly one negative experiment away from becoming obsolete, which is what makes science more rational than anything faith-based. There have been many experiments supporting Relativity. How many nuclear bombs or reactors do you need to see before you're convinced? Why do we need to constantly account for Relativity to get accurate results from our GPS systems? I know you're not preaching against Relativity, but every scientific theory with a body of evidence like Relativity, Evolution or Gravity falls into the "weightier" category. Evolution in particular has been continually scrutinized by those who would like nothing better than to shoot it down, and that's actually a good thing. Strangely, it still stands. exactly...they will teach you that in science class heheheheheh Fact or truth is left up to the individual perceptions we hold based on evidence support theories through scientific research...they'll teach you that in critical thinking/philosophy class
DrFishfinder Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 No, they're all theories. The amount of evidence directly supporting a theory may make it more credible than other theories, which is probably what you're talking about. Every theory is exactly one negative experiment away from becoming obsolete, which is what makes science more rational than anything faith-based. There have been many experiments supporting Relativity. How many nuclear bombs or reactors do you need to see before you're convinced? Why do we need to constantly account for Relativity to get accurate results from our GPS systems? I know you're not preaching against Relativity, but every scientific theory with a body of evidence like Relativity, Evolution or Gravity falls into the "weightier" category. Evolution in particular has been continually scrutinized by those who would like nothing better than to shoot it down, and that's actually a good thing. Strangely, it still stands. So is there anything that can be accepted as fact? Or is everything a theory?
Alaska Darin Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 And you guys will just flame me for it. Because you'll totally deserve it. I'd venture to guess that your scientific background doesn't progress beyond high school.
LeviF Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 Because you'll totally deserve it. I'd venture to guess that your scientific background doesn't progress beyond high school. He was probably one of the kids in high school biology who either skipped the classes that evolution was covered in or just crossed his arms and shook his head vigorously while his teacher tried to tell them about it.
DC Tom Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 So is there anything that can be accepted as fact? Or is everything a theory? Everything is a theory. Nothing is fact. At least, in theory nothing is fact. He was probably one of the kids in high school biology who either skipped the classes that evolution was covered in or just crossed his arms and shook his head vigorously while his teacher tried to tell them about it. I doubt his parents would have allowed him to take such a subversive class as biology. And forget English class - can you imagine him being allowed to read such racially subversive literature as Huck Finn or Uncle Tom's Cabin? Dude must have been home schooled.
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Because you'll totally deserve it. I'd venture to guess that your scientific background doesn't progress beyond high school. Enough to know evolution is junk science and politics. What's your scientific background?
John Adams Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Enough to know evolution is junk science and politics. What's your scientific background? Evolution is science. Can it explain everything? No. Can it explain more about the progression of life than any other theory? Yes. And that's why it's the leading theory. ID is not science.
DrFishfinder Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Everything is a theory. Nothing is fact. At least, in theory nothing is fact. Well that does, it. I no longer accept anything as a fact, and that's a fact.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 So is there anything that can be accepted as fact? Or is everything a theory? Only the Bible is fact.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Well that does, it. I no longer accept anything as a fact, and that's a fact. Honestly though, that's the beauty of science. Nothing is set in stone and every theory must change based on observation. Nothing faith-based could ever survive under such scrutiny. So scrutiny is looked down upon in such organizations and scrutinizers are told they lack faith.
DC Tom Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Honestly though, that's the beauty of science. Nothing is set in stone and every theory must change based on observation. Nothing faith-based could ever survive under such scrutiny. So scrutiny is looked down upon in such organizations and scrutinizers are told they lack faith. That's also why intelligent design isn't science. Or global warming, for that matter.
DrFishfinder Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Honestly though, that's the beauty of science. Nothing is set in stone and every theory must change based on observation. Nothing faith-based could ever survive under such scrutiny. So scrutiny is looked down upon in such organizations and scrutinizers are told they lack faith. Observations must be challenged too. I therefore anoint myself "Theory Changing Observation Challenger" and hereby refuse to accept any observation as anything other than another theory. Thereby concluding that theories are based on nothing but other theories, none of which are factual and in fact, observed in theory only. I'm probably going to be branded a mewling idiot by both camps yet again, but I believe that science and faith are not mutually exclusive, either.
DC Tom Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Observations must be challenged too. I therefore anoint myself "Theory Changing Observation Challenger" and hereby refuse to accept any observation as anything other than another theory. Thereby concluding that theories are based on nothing but other theories, none of which are factual and in fact, observed in theory only. And Goedel smiles...
Wacka Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 I'm probably going to be branded a mewling idiot by both camps yet again, but I believe that science and faith are not mutually exclusive, either. I would pray all the time that my experiments worked. Francis Collins, who headed the Human Genome Project and is the Dirctor of the NIH is a very religious man.
DC Tom Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 smartass Well, yeah... But you've very clearly expressed my point w/r/t global warming: scrutiny is not allowed. Hence, it's not science, and won't be again untill the body of knowledge accepts the possibility of a negative test proving it wrong. Now I want to see you explain that to conner.
DrFishfinder Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 And Goedel smiles... Bah......Unprovable Observation!
DrFishfinder Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 I would pray all the time that my experiments worked. Francis Collins, who headed the Human Genome Project and is the Dirctor of the NIH is a very religious man. There are probably people who scrutinize their faith, too. I mean, both sides of the equation ought to hold up...... .....Theoretically.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Well, yeah... But you've very clearly expressed my point w/r/t global warming: scrutiny is not allowed. Hence, it's not science, and won't be again untill the body of knowledge accepts the possibility of a negative test proving it wrong. Now I want to see you explain that to conner. I have faith that the science will work itself out. Now see how easy that is?
Celtic_soulja Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Well, yeah... But you've very clearly expressed my point w/r/t global warming: scrutiny is not allowed. Hence, it's not science, and won't be again untill the body of knowledge accepts the possibility of a negative test proving it wrong. Now I want to see you explain that to conner. It is a generally accepted theory in science...for example...people aren't going around "scrutinizing" gravity...while the theory is pretty much widely accepted...it could be challenged...but if a scientist says I want to disprove gravity...do you think he'll get much funding for his ridiculous "scrutiny" of such a widely accepted theory? You are right in that if they fail to address negative test results then it fails to be adhering to the scientific method....the last step is to let an "away team" if you will, try to tare it apart...this can be seen in the Intelligent Design scientists as well...which seemingly is anti-evolution...meanwhile I think both theories can and are the truth...they'll figure it out someday lol
Recommended Posts