PROVE IT!

[Mattshark]

That was not a scientific answer, and again you avoided the point. "If something as relatively insane as the chaos theory is SCIENCE, how is anything else impossible?". And again with you labeling it as applied mathematics, its again not, its advanced physics, and the factors related to chaos theory are so large and complex, that to even be able to prove it you would have to know everything about how anything could effect the ending variable.

No it is. It is APPLIED, meaning it has practical use. It is not an abstract idea. It is accepted because it works.

??? Was that not just an idium ??? "About communication, well that is learnt," - "I don't think there is any reason to suggest that facial expression is anything to do with love at first sight". So your saying that we can decipher feelings, thoughts, emotions, upbrining, social beliefs, etc, etc... Through hormones and pheromones, but even though you can't "smell" those untill you LOOK at the person??? I don't get your logic, where something more complex such as "smelling" something could do all this, and seeing a series of reactions in a persons face would be, harder? easier? I don't get your point...

Facial expressions are learnt and they are not universal.

Hormones and pheromones affect your perception of people when you look at them.

There is no reason to suggest that facial expression is associated with love full stop, never mind love at first sight, if it even exists.

Also with this point you put forward you are again limiting us as a species to our own bodies, in that I can't show to you untill we meet on chat so I can OBE to you and tell you what is what, and show you this is no joke. Time and a place my friend...

I'm not limiting us, that is basic biology.

First off, I'm asking why you think you know every energy in this universe... And no we don't know every energy inside our body, or every energy outside surrounding our body, or the mixture of both, which create another energy... Again your giving answers to what you don't know, do you know what energy makes up our natural kinetic barrier? It is not one, but many different forces and variables, such as kinetic motion, the waves of energy that comes from us through heat, latent static electricity, vibrations, sound vibrations from the pulsing of our heart and blood... I'm not even going to bother to continue as the list goes on... but the fact is, you, nor I, nor anyone in this world knows everything about how our bodies, minds, and spirits work (energy)...

I don't think I know it at all about energy in the universe. I know a great deal about how energy works in biology though and that includes the minuscule amount of electrical energy that human body can produce (at most about 0.5v). However, blind conjecture does nothing.

That is evidence to you right, and evidence I shall provide once we meet on chat, but I still gave evidence enough by getting people I talked with to tell about things that happened. As for you mentioning about the mind leaving the body, that is physicaly impossibable to do without dieing (to my knowledge) and OBE is not projecting your mind, if that were the case it would be guessing... OBE, Astral Projection... Is your spirit, your energy, the frequency that you run at... Talking about a brain dead person, has no stake at all here, as I just said it has nothing to do with your mind, or brain.

That isn't evidence, that is claims, that has no value in science.

I see nothing to suggest there is such thing as a spirit. Who you are, is a product of your brain primarily (obviously affected by experience).

True, but still, if the person says "Thank you, you've helped me so much" it must not have helped them at all right... Also I have more experience helping others, that I know more than you will ever know about other people. One, I'm a people person. two, people like me naturaly. three, people confide in me like a priest. Four, I'm also very approachable. Five, the shear practice I've had throughout my life with helping the living and the dead, you will never understand.

And that is fine, it doesn't prove anything or provide any evidence.

The act of not knowing, being blind and oblivious to what you don't believe in are all factors REAL scientists try to avoid, not knowing because obviously they are scientists so they want all the knowledge they can get, not being blind because that keeps them from their goal, and otherwise clouds thier hypothesis and creates black spots in their theory.

Well plenty of science went in thinks like what you are claiming from the 60's till the early 80's and produced no results. There is nothing to suggest anything along these lines is real and that means there is no reason to study it.

This, Mattshark is probably the best and most relavent answer you've given, and I agree with you. But this was pertaining to people I gave in evidence, I mean if someones words and testimonie were not subject to truth, why do we use witnesses in courts, or any other "hearsay" in legal or scientific studies???

You cannot use a witness in science, ever, it will be rejected outright. It is considered limited in law and witness need corroborating evidence. A witness alone is not enough to even get to trial.

No doubt it is not hearsay, but I'm pointing out again, how something some person could make up, start making theories, and are credable it is all of a sudden REAL or could be REAL. Now unless you have a masters in advanced physics you should realy just stop there, my point was made, and any "workaround" will not matter unless you show me your masters degree...

Theories are the result of a lot of previous work and are tested constantly. Theories are not just idea's people come up with. That is a common misconception. I do not need a masters in advanced physics to tell you that. I am just finishing my masters degree in Animal behaviour. Quite pertinent when you are talking about how the brain and mind works.

THIS = NOT science, if this was able to be measured in scientific terms we would have already found it, but we one don't have the technology to do it, and two don't have the compasity to do it. When I give evidence do you think that I'm going to be the holy grail, and be the answer to all things paranormal??? Even if someone was to successfully show true evidence do you think that the scientific community will change their views? NO, the majority will entirly deny it, why? Because they don't know the variables, if they can't calculate the variables they can't find the answer...

Yes of course they will, don't be silly.

LMFAO!! Now offence intended but do you know how stupid you just sounded?? "Skepticism is an open mind" ... Here a lil C/P for you just so you don't have to work your brain to smoke... Wait, wait, maybe I did not make myself clear enough, the best thing to label you is a PYRRHONIST lol...

"In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]

In religion, skepticism refers to 'doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation).' (Merriam–Webster)

The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set and an approach to accepting or rejecting new information. Individuals who proclaim to have a skeptical outlook are frequently called skeptics, often without regard to whether it is philosophical skepticism or empirical skepticism that they profess."

That is the origin not what it is now, Science is sceptical enquiry, blind belief is close minded, it takes no heed of evidence. scepticism will accept what produces the best evidence. It is perfectly open minded.

Oh, and before YOU continue, I suggest that you learn about everything but whatever your in school right now for, because obviously it is limiting your mental compacity, maybe you have more exams than me (1 every friday)... But realy, I know enough about how the scientific method works what you need to learn is how to denote, understand, react, and defer ideas, and understandings before you note something. So far your in a losing battle, your points have nothing behind it other than personal thought.

Well I can't wait to see your response I'm sure you will have some... good answers...

Done my exams, writing my thesis at the moment.

Really you have provide no evidence, which all I have asked for and claimed that science accepts witnesses and shown a lack of understand of how theories are formulated. You really don't understand scientific method.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Mattshark

[sayonara]

The way natural science works is by creating theories and applying the concept of Occam's Razor when doing so (simplest explanation is the true one). Empiricism is mostly used when falsifying theories. So for psychic abilities to be "proven" in this context, they need to have extraordinary burden of proof as they contradict the trend of natural science since about Newton and Galileo. So even if against odds some unbiased researcher somewhere accomplished some results, it would sooner or later be demonstrated as non-reproducible elsewhere and dropped from the discourse (the researcher maybe also ostracized). The hysterical reaction to "cold fusion" also demonstrates this mechanism in action.

Edited September 19, 2009 by sayonara

[Eyereader]

Ive known Ive had a "gift"of psychic powers since i was about 10, along with some other stronger "traits".Ill try my best to explain... I can do it with plants and animals and sometimes human too = like I can feel the life inside of them and all the energy flowing through there body and some other stuff. with animals, when i concentrait looking in their eyes, I can sorta "become them" like im not sure how to explain it, but my mind sorta fuses with theirs. I can then live "as" them basicly for periods of time... it just depends on how hard im focused. with humans I can feel the pain that they have, and i can see emotion, and somtimes (this is rare) I can see somthing that would happen soon. and with plants... this is very wierd for me but when im toutching them, i can feel their "spirit" flowing and i can even take it to gain energy when im tired... and i can give them some too. I have no clue what to make of this, do u have any idea what this all could be? If u need exsamples just tell me. thanks

[kayyoss]

This is just sad, this was supposed to be a "prove it" thread! 6 pages worth of post's and not 1 single video that proves anything. Countless numbers of "CLAIMS", but again. no PROOF! Biggest fail thread ever!

[CheetoMan2009]

This is just sad, this was supposed to be a "prove it" thread! 6 pages worth of post's and not 1 single video that proves anything. Countless numbers of "CLAIMS", but again. no PROOF! Biggest fail thread ever!

One big problem i see with proof is most of the science community is not skeptical, they just don't think its possible. Allowing the to dissmiss real evidence when even when seen. Science can be wrong, notice how everything is backed by the word theory, which means at some latter point it can be found to be wrong. But there have been casses where creditable scientists have seen and recorded proof only to be denied by the Non-Possibilty scientists, as they simple say, "we do not believe your results are creditable". Truly in science you should be aware that you know nothing, you can only theorise on evidence you've seen. But back to my major point, CRV, refinned by the CIA and still used yet rejected by the majority of the science community. Originally researched by Stanford Research Institute, and after all the hard work they put in, the Non-Possibilty scientists just say, aww, you just manipulated your results is all, with no evidence of it. Thats not science, thats denial! Thats why nothing paranormal can be proved, because most scientists(Not All) will deni others proof simply because they don't THINK its possible, so results have to be manipulated.

O yea, CRV stands for Coordinate remote viewing

Edited October 16, 2009 by CheetoMan2009

[Agent. Mulder]

Ive known Ive had a "gift"of psychic powers since i was about 10, along with some other stronger "traits".Ill try my best to explain... I can do it with plants and animals and sometimes human too = like I can feel the life inside of them and all the energy flowing through there body and some other stuff. with animals, when i concentrait looking in their eyes, I can sorta "become them" like im not sure how to explain it, but my mind sorta fuses with theirs. I can then live "as" them basicly for periods of time... it just depends on how hard im focused. with humans I can feel the pain that they have, and i can see emotion, and somtimes (this is rare) I can see somthing that would happen soon. and with plants... this is very wierd for me but when im toutching them, i can feel their "spirit" flowing and i can even take it to gain energy when im tired... and i can give them some too. I have no clue what to make of this, do u have any idea what this all could be? If u need exsamples just tell me. thanks

so what youre saying is, you can use your imagination to feel things and what certain things would be like.

and as for feeling peoples emotions, almost everyone has that. you can tell a persons mood sometimes just by looking at them, or just getting one word from them.

sorry, but you have no gift.

[Agent. Mulder]

One big problem i see with proof is most of the science community is not skeptical, they just don't think its possible. Allowing the to dissmiss real evidence when even when seen. Science can be wrong, notice how everything is backed by the word theory, which means at some latter point it can be found to be wrong.

no, not at all. you dont know what scientific theory is. its the cream of the crop, as high as you can go. its backed by theory because its backed by facts. some scientists dont even wanna call it fact, because then they think theres nothing more to ever learn. so by your logic, you probably think gravity is wrong, because science only called it 'the Theory of gravity'. go read up on scientific theories. theyre based in fact. and your idea of a theory is not a scientific one.

But there have been casses where creditable scientists have seen and recorded proof only to be denied by the Non-Possibilty scientists, as they simple say, "we do not believe your results are creditable". Truly in science you should be aware that you know nothing, you can only theorise on evidence you've seen.

umm, no. you know nothing.

there theories are backed by evidence, and things that can be obsevred, especially more than once. so they know its fact. you dont just theorize on the evidence. the evidence backs up your hypothesis, and experiments, and these become observable Facts.

But back to my major point, CRV, refinned by the CIA and still used yet rejected by the majority of the science community. Originally researched by Stanford Research Institute, and after all the hard work they put in, the Non-Possibilty scientists just say, aww, you just manipulated your results is all, with no evidence of it. Thats not science, thats denial! Thats why nothing paranormal can be proved, because most scientists(Not All) will deni others proof simply because they don't THINK its possible, so results have to be manipulated.

no, theres just no proof for it really. if it was Fact, it would happen every single time, the person would get it right Every Single Time. this has been shown so often, that the repetition does Not happen. science works on things we can observe, as stated before, observations that continue to produce the same results each time, they become fact. theres no fact with remote viewing. they would draw random ****, sometimes more than one for a single location, as try to work the picture into the place. if it was fact, theyd get the damn thing right every time. thats what science wants.

go read up on science, and how it works.

[CheetoMan2009]

no, not at all. you dont know what scientific theory is. its the cream of the crop, as high as you can go. its backed by theory because its backed by facts. some scientists dont even wanna call it fact, because then they think theres nothing more to ever learn. so by your logic, you probably think gravity is wrong, because science only called it 'the Theory of gravity'. go read up on scientific theories. theyre based in fact. and your idea of a theory is not a scientific one.

umm, no. you know nothing.

there theories are backed by evidence, and things that can be obsevred, especially more than once. so they know its fact. you dont just theorize on the evidence. the evidence backs up your hypothesis, and experiments, and these become observable Facts.

no, theres just no proof for it really. if it was Fact, it would happen every single time, the person would get it right Every Single Time. this has been shown so often, that the repetition does Not happen. science works on things we can observe, as stated before, observations that continue to produce the same results each time, they become fact. theres no fact with remote viewing. they would draw random ****, sometimes more than one for a single location, as try to work the picture into the place. if it was fact, theyd get the damn thing right every time. thats what science wants.

go read up on science, and how it works.

Ha, you obviously don't understand what theory means, as you say i don't. A theory is based on fact, but is not called fact because it is not known that it is fact, it is a good guess based on discovered facts. Also, gravity is not a theory, you seem to be the one who knows nothing, how gravity operates is theory, gravity is very well observed as fact. Every time you jump your pulled back down by gravity, Fact. What your suggesting by your comments is the string theory is a fact right? See, things that can't be proved but are the best possible answer bassed on facts known is what a theory is, go back to school! And you really sound like you know more about conducting experiments than stanford research institute, thats a joke by the way. How about you doing some reading instead of guessing, the route in which they conducted there experiments was never in question, they called result manipulation on them because the results suggested remote viewing was real. And it was 90% accurate, not random results.

[Agent. Mulder]

Ha, you obviously don't understand what theory means, as you say i don't. A theory is based on fact, but is not called fact because it is not known that it is fact, it is a good guess based on discovered facts. Also, gravity is not a theory, you seem to be the one who knows nothing, how gravity operates is theory, gravity is very well observed as fact. Every time you jump your pulled back down by gravity, Fact. What your suggesting by your comments is the string theory is a fact right? See, things that can't be proved but are the best possible answer bassed on facts known is what a theory is, go back to school! And you really sound like you know more about conducting experiments than stanford research institute, thats a joke by the way. How about you doing some reading instead of guessing, the route in which they conducted there experiments was never in question, they called result manipulation on them because the results suggested remote viewing was real. And it was 90% accurate, not random results.

oh good god.

a theory is based on fact, after a hypothesis is given, and after repeated experiments are done, displaying the same information.

a scientific theory is fact. you have the Law of gravity, stating if i let go of this object, it falls. then you have the Theory of gravity, stating Why it falls.

do you know what string theory is? its related to gravity anyways.

you still do not know how science works, and thus are still confused as to why remote viewing fails in terms of science.

however i would like to see your results about the 90% accuracy. thats not perfect, and thus not fact. you dont understand this for some reason.

science would not say its manipulated if it worked, and was shown to work repeatedly after many experiements were done.

please have some knowledge on the subject, before you come here and whine.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Agent. Mulder

[Mattshark]

oh good god.

a theory is based on fact, after a hypothesis is given, and after repeated experiments are done, displaying the same information.

a scientific theory is fact. you have the Law of gravity, stating if i let go of this object, it falls. then you have the Theory of gravity, stating Why it falls.

do you know what string theory is? its related to gravity anyways.

you still do not know how science works, and thus are still confused as to why remote viewing fails in terms of science.

however i would like to see your results about the 90% accuracy. thats not perfect, and thus not fact. you dont understand this for some reason.

science would not say its manipulated if it worked, and was shown to work repeatedly after many experiements were done.

please have some knowledge on the subject, before you come here and whine.

Well said mate, one day people will get over the theory fallacies.

[Paranormalcy]

I am curious though, something like, say, a basketball player - no matter how good, he isn't going to hit a basket every time, yet what he does is unmistakably real and accepted and valid under the gaze of science - just because people don't get 100% "hits" on their remote viewing shouldn't preclude them from consideration as examples of newly discovered scientific principles - I'm sure there are other more telling things to preclude them, but not the lack of perfection.

[CheetoMan2009]

oh good god.

a theory is based on fact, after a hypothesis is given, and after repeated experiments are done, displaying the same information.

a scientific theory is fact. you have the Law of gravity, stating if i let go of this object, it falls. then you have the Theory of gravity, stating Why it falls.

do you know what string theory is? its related to gravity anyways.

you still do not know how science works, and thus are still confused as to why remote viewing fails in terms of science.

however i would like to see your results about the 90% accuracy. thats not perfect, and thus not fact. you dont understand this for some reason.

science would not say its manipulated if it worked, and was shown to work repeatedly after many experiements were done.

please have some knowledge on the subject, before you come here and whine.

dude, i'm not whining, i just trying to break down what the word theory means to you, which you still don't seem to grasp. Your not that bright at all if you actually think the word theory is the same as fact. I may not be clear in how i word it, but atleast i understand it. Maybe you should try asking someone else what theory means, or perhaps look the word up. And the string theory is a theory that tries to bring everything together for a theory to explain everything, as there are a few other theories that try to do the same. So again, your suggeting all the theories are facts, grow up, your just trying to win a debate with ilogical since.

[CheetoMan2009]

dude, i'm not whining, i just trying to break down what the word theory means to you, which you still don't seem to grasp. Your not that bright at all if you actually think the word theory is the same as fact. I may not be clear in how i word it, but atleast i understand it. Maybe you should try asking someone else what theory means, or perhaps look the word up. And the string theory is a theory that tries to bring everything together for a theory to explain everything, as there are a few other theories that try to do the same. So again, your suggeting all the theories are facts, grow up, your just trying to win a debate with ilogical since.

Here, i'll help you out, try to understand what its saying, if you can't, god help you!

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

[CheetoMan2009]

A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and confirmed. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation.

[Agent. Mulder]

dude, i'm not whining, i just trying to break down what the word theory means to you, which you still don't seem to grasp. Your not that bright at all if you actually think the word theory is the same as fact. I may not be clear in how i word it, but atleast i understand it. Maybe you should try asking someone else what theory means, or perhaps look the word up. And the string theory is a theory that tries to bring everything together for a theory to explain everything, as there are a few other theories that try to do the same. So again, your suggeting all the theories are facts, grow up, your just trying to win a debate with ilogical since.

im not sure you still fully understand what a Scientific Theory is. and i dont know how much clearer to make it to you.

i hope you soon understand. maybe go back and re-read what i wrote? thats all i can suggest in hopes you understand it.

[Agent. Mulder]

A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and confirmed. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation.

odd. by this statement here, youd think someone would know why CRV wasnt accepted as a Scientific Theory.

i dont know why youre contradicting yourself.

[CheetoMan2009]

im not sure you still fully understand what a Scientific Theory is. and i dont know how much clearer to make it to you.

i hope you soon understand. maybe go back and re-read what i wrote? thats all i can suggest in hopes you understand it.

You have to be kidding me, can you not read the deffinitions? Or just don't understand them, this is your last chance, i'll point it out for you. A Theory can only be assumed, as in not confirmed. As a fact can be confirmed, do you get now? I'm guessing no.

[CheetoMan2009]

odd. by this statement here, youd think someone would know why CRV wasnt accepted as a Scientific Theory.

i dont know why youre contradicting yourself.

Yet your missunderstanding dosen't surprise me.

[Agent. Mulder]

Here, i'll help you out, try to understand what its saying, if you can't, god help you!

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

yeop, ive read that on Wiki too (next time post where you quote from. its a forum rule)

so, what is your point?

other than the fact tests Must display the Same Results every single time, in order for it to be a scientific theory (say something like gravity). CRV does not display these results, Ever. thus, it will never be considered a scientific theory.

your idea of theory is Different. im really not sure why you brought up Theory, when were talking about Scientific Theory. theyre different.

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

if im going to fast, let me know and ill slow down for you.

[Agent. Mulder]

You have to be kidding me, can you not read the deffinitions? Or just don't understand them, this is your last chance, i'll point it out for you. A Theory can only be assumed, as in not confirmed. As a fact can be confirmed, do you get now? I'm guessing no.

what they call scientific theory, is fact.

youre under the impression, its just a theory like yours, and that the theory of gravity is only assumed, and not confirmed.

im sad i live in a world where people dont believe in gravity.

ouch.

Yet your missunderstanding dosen't surprise me.

i know it doesnt. because you seemed to have set it up, knowing youre going to contradict yourself.

but, why?

[CheetoMan2009]

what they call scientific theory, is fact.

youre under the impression, its just a theory like yours, and that the theory of gravity is only assumed, and not confirmed.

im sad i live in a world where people dont believe in gravity.

ouch.

i know it doesnt. because you seemed to have set it up, knowing youre going to contradict yourself.

but, why?

Yes your going to fast for me, please slow down and explain YOUR deffinition of theory, and wiki's deffinition i used so you wouldn't have to take my word for it, either way to end this on going debate about theory eplain to me how we have multiple Theories(Or as you say Facts) of how all nature comes together, and how they are all confirmed to be facts in your opinion.

Contradicting myself? Explain how i'm doing so.

Maybe you should try reading the deffinition again, because that is the deffinition reffering to the science term "Theory"

Edited October 17, 2009 by CheetoMan2009

[Agent. Mulder]

Yes your going to fast for me, please slow down and explain YOUR deffinition of theory, and wiki's deffinition i used so you wouldn't have to take my word for it, either way to end this on going debate about theory eplain to me how we have multiple Theories(Or as you say Facts) of how all nature comes together, and how they are all confirmed to be facts in your opinion.

Contradicting myself? Explain how i'm doing so.

Maybe you should try reading the deffinition again, because that is the deffinition reffering to the science term "Theory"

im not talking about theory. because this is what you think theory is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" mixed with "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural" from dictionary.com.

this is fine, because this is a laymans theory. an everyday theory.

sadly, were not talking about that. were talking scientific theory. so, if you go back and read the link i gave you, you should finally come to an understanding of it, and start making coherent remarks on the subject.

your quest begins now, good luck

[CheetoMan2009]

im not talking about theory. because this is what you think theory is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" mixed with "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural" from dictionary.com.

this is fine, because this is a laymans theory. an everyday theory.

sadly, were not talking about that. were talking scientific theory. so, if you go back and read the link i gave you, you should finally come to an understanding of it, and start making coherent remarks on the subject.

your quest begins now, good luck

Wow, i clicked your link and found out that this whole time, i actaully do understand what a scientific theory is, and you obiviusly don't understand most of the stuff you read. It wouldn't help to post it for you, you've read it. Maybe you could help yourself by starting a thread on what scientific theory is, maybe after many people explain it you'll get what it means.

[Mattshark]

Wow, i clicked your link and found out that this whole time, i actaully do understand what a scientific theory is, and you obiviusly don't understand most of the stuff you read. It wouldn't help to post it for you, you've read it. Maybe you could help yourself by starting a thread on what scientific theory is, maybe after many people explain it you'll get what it means.

No you don't know what a theory is. Theories in science are used as explanations for observable facts based on evidence. Theories never become anything else. They always remain theories.

Nicely explained he in a piece on evolution.

[Agent. Mulder]

Wow, i clicked your link and found out that this whole time, i actaully do understand what a scientific theory is, and you obiviusly don't understand most of the stuff you read. It wouldn't help to post it for you, you've read it. Maybe you could help yourself by starting a thread on what scientific theory is, maybe after many people explain it you'll get what it means.

oh, and how was i wrong?

was it when i stated the scientific theories are based on observable facts, and yeild the exact the same results each time tests are done? you disagree, stating you must have found some flaw in gravity, as it can be wrong? id like to see it.

and that was also when you were ranting that CRV should be accepted because its only 90% accurate? (yet youve Still managed to elude me on presenting that data i asked for). if its only 90% accurate, tell me how this is fact? how it falls into scientific theories along side of evolution, gravity, germ theory etc.

im guessing at school you were the kid running into the classrooms yelling "you cant teach this. its music Theory!".