Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ben Masada

The Myth of the Big Bang

292 posts in this topic

Why is the sky blue, where do babies come from, where did the moon come from, why does light striking a plate emit a current, how was the sun formed, how was the grand canyon made, what are comets made of, etc etc etc

See what I did there? If not here is a hint in spoilers for you;

Where do the laws of physics come from.......

That's another intangible response. All the things you mentioned are answerable so I ask you why does the universe exist all? According to physics it did not have to exist and it surely could have very easily not existed.

So your line answering was very immature and unrelated, I on one hand asked why there existence at all, you replied with where do babies, blue skies, comets, etc etc come from? See how ridiculous your line of thinking is, I did not ask where did the universe come from? I asked why does it exist all? Now apply that to the many things you mentioned then apply to the whole existence. At least it will be a start for you ;)

It much more profound a question for a limited materialistic empiricist! As shown by your reply!

A famous eastern philosopher once said, in the east and west they ask does god exist? I ask them, does man exist?

Yeah I know a little beyond your limited scope of thinking.....ie devoid of critical thinking!

;)

Edited by Lion6969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's another intangible response. All the things you mentioned are answerable so I ask you why does the universe exist all? According to physics it did not have to exist and it surely could have very easily not existed.

So your line answering was very immature and unrelated, I on one hand asked why there existence at all, you replied with where do babies, blue skies, comets, etc etc come from? See how ridiculous your line of thinking is, I did not ask where did the universe come from? I asked why does it exist all? Now apply that to the many things you mentioned then apply to the whole existence. At least it will be a start for you ;)

It much more profound a question for a limited materialistic empiricist! As shown by your reply!

A famous eastern philosopher once said, in the east and west they ask does god exist? I ask them, does man exist?

Yeah I know a little beyond your limited scope of thinking.....ie devoid of critical thinking!

;)

Clearly, you didn't get it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, you didn't get it.....

Clearly I did, I just did not entertain your shallow response as you would have wished or thought I would, psychic abilities failing you ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Example please! The god of the gaps argument is dead and so are the counter arguments. There are much stronger arguments in philosophy combined with science. There are many facets to intelligent design, I don't even go there I always start with a cause you cant define it as god or anything else until you apply a strong form of conceptual analysis, the same process we use to create numbers!

Here is the Intelligent Design argument...

The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as:

1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.

2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the universe, everything) necessitates a designer.

This is an argument by William Paley that dates to the 1700s. Intelligent Design is not new. This is what every argument in ID is based on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly I did, I just did not entertain your shallow response as you would have wished or thought I would, psychic abilities failing you ;)

Please keep your comments civil and constructive, responding like this isn't going to achieve anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no, MW. You are confusing colloquial usage again. When we say evolution the theory, we don't mean its 'theoretical' (well mostly, though you could build phylogenetic trees which are theoretical--which normally here 'theoretical' refers to a model), what we mean is that it is an explanation for a "fact" or phenomena.

Laws in science are different than theories. They serve different purposes. A law in science, like your link says, is a generalized statement about the behavior of a phenomena or system--It simply iterates how that system behaves under certain circumstances. It does not explain the how and why of a system or phenomena.

Like your link points out, theories do explain the how and why. That is why a theory in science, is much, much more powerful than a law.

To continue your link's example. Newton's laws explain how say, a ball behaves when you drop it from a building--But why does the ball fall? To explain that you need theory in science which is done through relativity.

Let's do another example to make sure were on the same page--One with biology. Are you familiar with Mendel and his laws? His second law for instance says that separate genes for distinct traits assort independently of one another during replication. It worked well in predicting behavior of a system (Mendel's pea plants) and determining the probabilities of offspring generations--But what did it actually explain? Nothing. It is a robust and statistically true observation, it doesn't actually let you understand the biology you intend to understand (after all that is why we do science--To understand). So how do you understand independent assortment? Through theory: specifically in this case through cell theory, which explains how and why the mitotic gets aligned the way it does and why distinct genes separate independently form one another.

Follow now?

Possibly, I don't know your specific circumstance nor the the prestige or standards of learning your institutions operated at. I can tell you though, these ideas we are discussion--For namesake, let us say Popperian science, was well established in the scientific world.

First we need to separate something. There is the biological fact or phenomena of evolution, if you will. This is a fact of life on earth--It can't be disproven, its the way our world works.

The modern synthesis is the combined theories of how and why that fact of evolution happens. Yes, the theories which explain biological evolution (the fact) are falsifiable. They could be disproven. All scientific theories must be falsifiable.

Theories in science aren't proven true, ever. They can only be proven false (again must be falsifiable). Why do we accept them then? Because while you cannot prove a theory true, you can support it with evidence--Either indirect evidence or direct evidence. Further, a scientific theory like a law, makes generalized statements about the behavior of a system or phenomena--What you would call a prediction, these predictions mean a theory is powerful in its explanatory ability.

Like i said, sheer stupidity. To create a definition which is totally opposite to correct common language, is both pointless and dangerous. Its not that I dont understand what you are saying. Just that i could not believe anyone would be so dumb, or at best precocious/naive. And scientists wonder why lay people are confused and argumentative with them.

They think you mean that evolution is a theory, ie as yet unproven, and thus debatable. Because in all usage outside of science, that is what a theory is . So they debate it. Just tell that evolution is a proven fact, beyond any scientific doubt, and let them get over it.

But if its not proven fact beyond any doubt, then you give them a wedge to argue with and jam into any rational debate.

So the earth is not proven to be an oblate spherioid, as proposed in theory, by Isaac Newton? This remains only a scientific theory? Because once upon a time there were two theories (or more) about the shape of the earth One has proven true, the others false, yet the shape of the earth remains only theoretical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one question? Where did the chemical laws come from and what are they? A bit like where did the laws of physics come from?

The Laws of Chemistry devolve from those worthy people who studied, observed, experimented, and discovered the nature of the elements. However, I suspect that will not be the answer you want to hear, based on how you put your question. You see the Laws of Chemistry as 'real entities', having an existence separate from those who propose them, yes?

Well, because they are not 'real entities', but are the conceptualised description of how atoms share electrons and are thus entirely a product of human ingenuity, there is no answer to the question you asked.

The same applies to the Laws of Physics.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans are such a conceited lot. They love to feel self important and find a reason for the universe to exist(which really amounts to the old question "why are we here". The planetoid Pluto certainly wasn't upset to be downgraded, that would be a human ideal. People need to stop looking for a purpose, and make their own. Afterall, in the span of the universe, all humans aren't even an infintesimal speck. Finding out how the universe was created is one thing, worrying about why is pointless.

Personally, I think this universe is a bubble floating among a field of chaos where other bubbles of reality float around. And considering science seems to coincide with the squashed spherical universe, my thoughts tends to seem a bit more creditable. Looking for a purpose, nay not for me. :tu:

Edited by Meiliken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Save me from your and Beckys mom laziness story.

Regardless of it being a forum where questions can be asked.. But in reality people have to be educated in these things, IF they are keen to learn... Emma Acid or anyone else is not here to do the work for you........ We all had to learn through reading books and other methods ... So why can't you?

Looking for quick answers will never teach you a thing.....My motto is - Never dispute any subject you have no clue about UNLESS you are willing to at least do a little research yourself.. Otherwise entering a debate like this to ague and ask for evidence is pointless ..And I mean that about any topic and aim it at everyone and anyone...So do not take any of that personal...

I would say this to anyone who was looking a quick and easy way out... The only time I ever ask questions is if the question is about the person posting.. OR they have posted info that I have read or heard about before and find it either strange OR more interesting ...Other than that I cannot see any logic in asking for evidence like this for example - The Big Bang.. That is a question that can make people feel they hay no idea what a scientific theory is..and they do not care..They just want to argue it regardless.. And lets face it, any Tom Dick Or harry can blast out random questions to jump into an argument...just to argue back..But what is the point in that if you show no evidence of understanding? <-- I mean that about any topic and anyone... I have seen so many do just that .

Ask yourself ...Where do you suppose people like Emma Acid.. Copa.. Or anyone else here got to learn? Turn on a forum? Books? schooling? you decide.................We can never learn much by the odd post we read...

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all out there. Countless articles, papers and books about the origin of the universe, its evidence, the predictions made (and met!) and the ongoing work. Its not as easy as Wishing Something To Be True, so I don't expect much of a response.

We all have to learn the proper way.. Like you say, it is ongoing...So it is always wise to keep tabs on it IF you are that interested ..If someone is not the slightest bit interested.. then I could never see the logic in jumping on to debate the topic they really couldn't care less about .. I mean that in general. about any topic and anyone

I have a 6 year old girl who has her books on the universe and planets... She can tell you how many planets have their moons... how long it takes each one to orbit the sun...What the brightest star is...The big bang theory in a easy to understand stage ( for children ) and she loves it... I couldn't go on to a forum and chant out - Give me evidence... I would look silly I only ask questions if it is about someone or I read up a little on something else and feel a post is contradicting it and so on... But never would expect people to research things for me all because I cannot be bothered...I just want to win some argument..

My little girl has been to a planetarium three times already... This summer hopes to get over to Kennedy space centre, all being well she just might....She has 3 books to read over to help herself.. She is only 6 and loves to do this.. When she asks questions..I direct her to the book to help her out... It in my opinion is the only sure way for her to learn ...

Speaking of laziness... My daughter says - Pluto.. is the laziest of them all..!... ( which is no longer considered a planet )

I asked why is that? ....She answers - Because it takes Pluto 248 years to go around the sun ...!!........ She was joking in a sense, because she knows it is the furtherest away lol But I thought it was funny that she would come out with such a thing..... When I was just 6 years old like she is now.. I had not got a clue about all that stuff...So reading her books seriously helps... She loves it

Get this... She caught her her grandad out - She asked him - Granda, how many rings does the planet Jupiter have?

He answers - None..why?

She says - That's wrong granda, because Jupiter has 3 rings.. You won't be able to see them while on earth.. but a spacecraft Voyager went up and spotted them.. They are very thin ..So there ya go granda now you know ..My book tells me everything !!! grin2.gif

I love to see her get into her books.. Don't matter what they are about.. Many of her books are just kids stories.. a few of Elvis ( don't ask ) and the planets ...

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all have to learn the proper way.. Like you say, it is ongoing...So it is always wise to keep tabs on it IF you are that interested ..If someone is not the slightest bit interested.. then I could never see the logic in jumping on to debate the topic they really couldn't care less about .. I mean that in general. about any topic and anyone

I have a 6 year old girl who has her books on the universe and planets... She can tell you how many planets have their moons... how long it takes each one to orbit the sun...What the brightest star is...The big bang theory in a easy to understand stage ( for children ) and she loves it... I couldn't go on to a forum and chant out - Give me evidence... I would look silly I only ask questions if it is about someone or I read up a little on something else and feel a post is contradicting it and so on... But never would expect people to research things for me all because I cannot be bothered...I just want to win some argument..

My little girl has been to a planetarium three times already... This summer hopes to get over to Kennedy space centre, all being well she just might....She has 3 books to read over to help herself.. She is only 6 and loves to do this.. When she asks questions..I direct her to the book to help her out... It in my opinion is the only sure way for her to learn ...

Speaking of laziness... My daughter says - Pluto.. is the laziest of them all..!... ( which is no longer considered a planet )

I asked why is that? ....She answers - Because it takes Pluto 248 years to go around the sun ...!!........ She was joking in a sense, because she knows it is the furtherest away lol But I thought it was funny that she would come out with such a thing..... When I was just 6 years old like she is now.. I had not got a clue about all that stuff...So reading her books seriously helps... She loves it

Get this... She caught her her grandad out - She asked him - Granda, how many rings does the planet Jupiter have?

He answers - None..why?

She says - That's wrong granda, because Jupiter has 3 rings.. You won't be able to see them while on earth.. but a spacecraft Voyager went up and spotted them.. They are very thin ..So there ya go granda now you know ..My book tells me everything !!! grin2.gif

I love to see her get into her books.. Don't matter what they are about.. Many of her books are just kids stories.. a few of Elvis ( don't ask ) and the planets ...

I think I'm loving your daughter. Keep teaching her critical thinking Geri, you're a diamond. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example I can appreciate that certian elements of evolution remain theoretical. But evolution itself, as a process, is no longer a theory but an established fact. Calling it a theory is both disengenous and misleading. I appreciate scientists might do this. That is my point It leads to a failure to be able to communivcate.

Like i said, sheer stupidity. To create a definition which is totally opposite to correct common language, is both pointless and dangerous. Its not that I dont understand what you are saying. Just that i could not believe anyone would be so dumb, or at best precocious/naive. And scientists wonder why lay people are confused and argumentative with them.

Mr Walker you are very wrong about that...

Yes Evolution is fact but it is still a theory ......... We know that theory is an scientific explanation of natural phenomena, well then there would be no part of that definition that would remove theory... Theory is still part of definition...it has to be in science I see no reason as to why theory needs to be removed the moment something is observed as fact ..

Example - Gravity... We can feel it,, we can test it, we know it is fact.....But it is still classed as the theory of gravity....WHY? Because it still needs to be explained, meaning the phenomenon of gravity...People still need to hold the understanding as to why it is fact .. To know through observation...tests...experiments and so on.. Newton first brought gravity to our attention... Einstein came along later and replaced it with a mathematical explanation... It all helps...But STILL a theory..

Back to Evolution.... It will always be theory but also fact... It is ongoing... It has not stopped... There is no limit to how far living things can actually change, it would be unfair to say it stops and that's it.. Given enough time anything can happen, as we know it already has before and still ongoing..

To sum this up and not waffle on - Evolution will always be fact and theory.

. Fact because of what has been observed and proven ( so far ) .......... Theory because it still is ongoing, has not stopped and needs to be explained to gain the understanding, to interpret these facts we have come to observe....

I only hope you now see what and why it will always be called - Fact and theory... Theory is greatly needed ...

Look at that, I have just explained all of that to a school teacher lol tongue.gif

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm loving your daughter. Keep teaching her critical thinking Geri, you're a diamond. :wub:

I only will teach her subjects when shows interest in...And the fact she attends a Christian primary school that I doubt would be keen on teaching her the big bang and science lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Walker you are very wrong about that...

Yes Evolution is fact but it is still a theory ......... We know that theory is an scientific explanation of natural phenomena, well then there would be no part of that definition that would remove theory... Theory is still part of definition...it has to be in science I see no reason as to why theory needs to be removed the moment something is observed as fact ..

Example - Gravity... We can feel it,, we can test it, we know it is fact.....But it is still classed as the theory of gravity....WHY? Because it still needs to be explained, meaning the phenomenon of gravity...People still need to hold the understanding as to why it is fact .. To know through observation...tests...experiments and so on.. Newton first brought gravity to our attention... Einstein came along later and replaced it with a mathematical explanation... It all helps...But STILL a theory..

Back to Evolution.... It will always be theory but also fact... It is ongoing... It has not stopped... There is no limit to how far living things can actually change, it would be unfair to say it stops and that's it.. Given enough time anything can happen, as we know it already has before and still ongoing..

To sum this up and not waffle on - Evolution will always be fact and theory.

. Fact because of what has been observed and proven ( so far ) .......... Theory because it still is ongoing, has not stopped and needs to be explained to gain the understanding, to interpret these facts we have come to observe....

I only hope you now see what and why it will always be called - Fact and theory... Theory is greatly needed ...

Look at that, I have just explained all of that to a school teacher lol tongue.gif

Ok so you accept scientist's right to redefine the english language. I dont, but i know there is nothing i can do about it.

Nonetheless it is dangerous and misleading, even if that was not the intent.

Back in the first half of the 1800s, Charles Darwin had a number of theories about animals. One he developed into his theory on Natural Selection; in his own words "by which to work" (Ie as a hypothesis) as a hobby. In other words this was a theory, and it required a lot of work and testing. At that time the definition of a theory was," A doctrine which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice ; speculation; an exposition of the general principles of any science" The word speculate comes through in the definition very strongly.

Since then, the concept of evolution has been proved as a scientific fact. But, at the same time, science has redefined the term theory to include "proven" theories, so in scientific terms they still feel justified calling Darwin's hypothesis or theory, a theory.

In their terminology they are right. In Darwin's terminology, or in non scientific English, even today, they are wrong. That discrepancy leads to serious misunderstandings and conflicts, which are unnnecesary and would be avoided if science used the same terminolgy as everyone else (which is also the historical meaning of a theory, even in science.)

In non scientific terms evolution is no longer theoretical, or a theory, or speculation, or contemplation. It is demonstrably proven fact. To call it a theory still, just confuses almost every non scientist (except of course those who have spent years on UM, being brainwashed into the point of view of the scientific community :devil: )

And certainly today there remains a vast differnce between the engish(laymans) definition and understanding of theory and the scientists. Why was tha t necessary?

A couple of modern definitions of the non scientific definition of theory are included here.

http://thinking-critically.com/2010/07/08/theory-scientific-vs-laymans-definition/

A

theory as defined by Websters is:

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b: an unproved assumption : conjecture

c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

synonyms see hypothesis

Of these definitions, the typical layman’s concept of a theory is closest to #2 (speculation) or #6b (an unproved assumption or conjecture).

Admittedly it is not always 100% reliable, but Wikipedia’s definition of theory states (at least it says so for today, who knows when somebody will change the entry to suit their own needs):

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement “It’s not a fact, it’s only a theory.” True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

When you actually check the scientific definitions/ understanding of a theory, there are a lot more variations than have been suggested in this debate, and some are very close to the laymans understanding.

However much more accurate definitions of the scientific definition of a theory can be found at dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

7. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

8. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

9. a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”

10. a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”

11. A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.

12. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

13. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena

14. a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so you accept scientist's right to redefine the english language. I dont, but i know there is nothing i can do about it.

Nonetheless it is dangerous and misleading, even if that was not the intent.

In their terminology they are right. In Darwin's terminology, or in non scientific English, even today, they are wrong. That discrepancy leads to serious misunderstandings and conflicts, which are unnnecesary and would be avoided if science used the same terminolgy as everyone else (which is also the historical meaning of a theory, even in science.)

In non scientific terms evolution is no longer theoretical, or a theory, or speculation, or contemplation. It is demonstrably proven fact. To call it a theory still, just confuses almost every non scientist (except of course those who have spent years on UM, being brainwashed into the point of view of the scientific community

And certainly today there remains a vast differnce between the engish(laymans) definition and understanding of theory and the scientists. Why was that necessary?

It is not dangerous, nor can it ever be misleading to anyone that understands the differences and meanings

You are very much confused over this entire meaning of the term - THEORY

Lets try this again...( crosses fingers )

Just to lay on the emphasis - Everything in science is a theory ...It has nothing to do with being proven fact

Take scientists for example - They will talk about - EVIDENCE but not PROOF ...Why is this? ...... Answer is - > Because an explanation of something relies on the understanding of the most updated evidence available, so that an explanation can therefore be updated.

Most confusion arises from the terms - Hypothesis and Theory .......

**A theory is - an explanation for something and has has the evidence to back it up

**A hypothesis is - a suggested explanation or idea that does not YET have enough evidence to back it up ..

Mathematics has facts / laws which we know cannot be changed - Where as science has evidence that can be updated ..

Like for example - Newtons law of gravity was updated with Einstein's theory of relativity ...It's an ongoing process that can always be updated ..It is NEVER fully proven to be absolute ....

.So this leads us to - Darwinian, this too has been updated with what we call - Neo Darwinism ..Which takes the original ideas of Darwin and updates them with our understanding of genetics to describe variations with mutations

So to sum up most of what I have been saying - - Everything in science is always going to be called theory because theory is used to give you the definition of something and the evidence to back up, this also can always be updated .

No scientist will ever put their neck on the line and claim -"WE KNOW EVERYTHING AND ITS A PROVEN FACT" !! ..Because something new can always be discovered that explains it better

This Mr Walker is why theory is always needed and not dangerous or misleading like you somehow as a school teacher seem to think..... I am sorry but anyone that says this simply cannot hold real understanding of science

I am sorry to make it sound like that but I can't think of any other way to word it.......And no I am not in any way brain washed like you seem to think .......I am someone who takes a little time to try and understand many things in life...

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not dangerous, nor can it ever be misleading to anyone that understands the differences and meanings

You are very much confused over this entire meaning of the term - THEORY

Lets try this again...( crosses fingers )

Just to lay on the emphasis - Everything in science is a theory ...It has nothing to do with being proven fact

Take scientists for example - They will talk about - EVIDENCE but not PROOF ...Why is this? ...... Answer is - > Because an explanation of something relies on the understanding of the most updated evidence available, so that an explanation can therefore be updated.

Most confusion arises from the terms - Hypothesis and Theory .......

**A theory is - an explanation for something and has has the evidence to back it up

**A hypothesis is - a suggested explanation or idea that does not YET have enough evidence to back it up ..

Mathematics has facts / laws which we know cannot be changed - Where as science has evidence that can be updated ..

Like for example - Newtons law of gravity was updated with Einstein's theory of relativity ...It's an ongoing process that can always be updated ..It is NEVER fully proven to be absolute ....

.So this leads us to - Darwinian, this too has been updated with what we call - Neo Darwinism ..Which takes the original ideas of Darwin and updates them with our understanding of genetics to describe variations with mutations

So to sum up most of what I have been saying - - Everything in science is always going to be called theory because theory is used to give you the definition of something and the evidence to back up, this also can always be updated .

.No scientist will ever put their neck on the line and claim -"WE KNOW EVERYTHING AND ITS A PROVEN FACT" !! ..Because something new can always be discovered that explains it better

This Mr Walker is why theory is always needed and not dangerous or misleading like you somehow as a school teacher seems to think......... I am sorry but anyone that says this simply cannot hold real understanding of science

..I am sorry to make it sound like that but I can't think of any other way to word it..........And no I am not in any way brain washed like you seem to think ...........I am someone who takes a little time to try and understand many things in life...

No problem. They've got to you now, and its too late to stop the infection :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem. They've got to you now, and its too late to stop the infection :innocent:

LOL @ you thinking i am brainwashed by science on UM

Hey listen, I have tried to explain it...I am not Copa or a scientist.. I am just someone who likes to read a little here and there..

You should know me by now.. I can never get suckered in to being brainwashed like you seem to think... I am not that slow .

If I were so easy to brainwash..Mr Walker.. I would swallow every tale you ever told and then some laugh.gif

Well you walked into that one lol tongue.gif

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL @ you thinking i am brainwashed by science on UM

Hey listen, I have tried to explain it...I am not Copa or a scientist.. I am just someone who likes to read a little here and there..

You should know me by now.. I can never get suckered in to being brainwashed like you seem to think... I am not that slow .

If I were so easy to brainwash..Mr Walker.. I would swallow every tale you ever told and then some laugh.gif

Well you walked into that one lol tongue.gif

Why do you accept "sciences" right to redefine or even recreate the meanings of words and get away with it?

Why should science be allowed to simply redefine the meaning of the word "theory"?

I can't even find when they did so "officially" or any evidence of an official change in definition. Sources just say "Modern" scientific usage, in differentiating the scientific understanding of theory from everyone elses.

Most scientific references written before the 1950s use the old and common understanding of theory. I think it just crept into their disciplinary usages along the way. Like a lot of phraseology and terminolgy does.

Now they just blythely expect everyone to accept their "new" terminology and their right to create it. Its too late to go back and get it right, but that doesnt mean one has to accept it without complaint. I dont accept anyones right to redefine the english language without the common consent of all users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you accept "sciences" right to redefine or even recreate the meanings of words and get away with it?

Why should science be allowed to simply redefine the meaning of the word "theory"?

Again MW, since Popper wrote his works on falsifiability in 1934, theory in science has been used as it is today. You sure as hell weren't around to argue about this "redefinition" then. You're a little late to the party.....

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly I did, I just did not entertain your shallow response as you would have wished or thought I would, psychic abilities failing you ;)

You didn't entertain it, because you didn't understand it. Here's two questions; Please explain in your own words why the sky is blue. Please explain in your own words why electrons are disbursed the way they are in nitrobenzene and the orbital hybridization of carbon in that molecule.

Can you answer either of those? Which question is "deeper"?

And don't forget Lion you have two more requests;

That didn't answer the question. I said define complexity and specifically as it refers to biology. Now you want to introduce more words?

Okay fine, let's double up.

Please define; in your own words, biological information as well as biological complexity.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you accept "sciences" right to redefine or even recreate the meanings of words and get away with it?

In all of my natural life, there has never been a change in the terminology ..You have - THEORY.. and then SCIENTIFIC THEORY ... Since I was old enough to understand , this is how it has always been

Here is what Cambridge University dictionary used to describe the term - THEORY in a laymans tone

theory noun

Definition

a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation economic theory

scientific theory

Darwin's theory

of evolutionHe has a theory that the hole was caused by a meteorite.in theory

If something is possible in theory, it should be possible, but often it does not happen in that way In theory, the journey ought to take three hours, but in practice it usually takes four because of roadworks.

http://dictionary.ca...theory?q=Theory

Next dictionary will give you more about scientific theory with a little of layman's theory

the·o·ry

noun, plural the·o·ries.

1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonlyregarded as correct, that can be used as principles ofexplanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law,doctrine.

2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural andsubject to experimentation, in contrast to well-establishedpropositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actualfact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration,substantiation

3.Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like,belonging to one subject: number theory.

4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principlesor methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.5.a particular conception or view of something to be done orof the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:conflicting theories of how children best learn to read

Now it couldn't be more clearer than that.. UNLESS now you wish to say these on line dictionaries are all under some brainwashing experiment?

I dont accept anyones right to redefine the english language without the common consent of all users.

I have seen you do exactly this many times when linking words from the bible and religion to suit your own personal definitions..I have on a couple of occasions poked fun for laughs at your personal touches to the English words and their definitions .. Amazing how you can turn when it suits...

The trouble here is your own lack of understanding of the term Theory in science.. You prove this each time you post your replies... I thought you of al people would know this and not need it explained.. I guess I was wrong .

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Laws of Chemistry devolve from those worthy people who studied, observed, experimented, and discovered the nature of the elements. However, I suspect that will not be the answer you want to hear, based on how you put your question. You see the Laws of Chemistry as 'real entities', having an existence separate from those who propose them, yes?

Well, because they are not 'real entities', but are the conceptualised description of how atoms share electrons and are thus entirely a product of human ingenuity, there is no answer to the question you asked.

The same applies to the Laws of Physics.

You know what from you Leo I expected the correct answer. Your right they are conceptualised descriptions, however where your wrong is the notion they come from observers and those experimenting and studying them. All they do is observe the natural phenomena and conceptualise it, the laws of physics or chemistry did not originate with them did they and their not real entities are they? Like legal laws are not but are conceptualised in order to control society and the individual. Laws of physics govern the interactions on physical planes and from one physical plane to another, laws of chemistry are much the same. So they are not real entities as you said. So where did they come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the Intelligent Design argument...

The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as:

1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.

2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the universe, everything) necessitates a designer.

This is an argument by William Paley that dates to the 1700s. Intelligent Design is not new. This is what every argument in ID is based on.

I'm well aware of the argument and that's why I said contemporary arguments are much stronger!

As a matter of interest what do you have to counter the above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please keep your comments civil and constructive, responding like this isn't going to achieve anything.

Sorry saru i will, but I was wondering how you missed copa's snidey remarks related to his physcic powers and how he predicts my responses with a hint of ridicule, are you good mates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't entertain it, because you didn't understand it. Here's two questions; Please explain in your own words why the sky is blue. Please explain in your own words why electrons are disbursed the way they are in nitrobenzene and the orbital hybridization of carbon in that molecule.

I did not entertain it as you clearly can't distinguish the difference between a profound question and the irrelevant drivel you posted!

I don't need to explain why the sky is blue, we know why it's blue, we know about most of the things you asked! Now let's flip it, if you asked me why is the sky blue and I replied "it just is!", this is not a tangible response. Therefore as you know your basic science 101 why the sky is blue and that explanation suffices on basis logic, empirical evidence etc.

So when I ask why does the universe exist at all? It's much more profound than asking why the sky is blue, because in essence I am asking why we exist all? Science, physics, etc show that it could have easily not existed. So your response is irrelevant!

I don't need to give you a science lesson nor anyone else, but you definitely need to ponder on why the universe exists at all? You may have to go beyond your comfort zone!

As for the second request I did touch on it in a reply Emma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.