To the Non Believers.

[Commoner]

Correct! All theories are made up according to the available data at that time, and in general, the new theory that supercedes its predecessor is but an evolution of the former.

No...new models are "made up" or "thought of", new hypothesis. They only become part of a scientific theory once they have been confirmed beyond any resonable doubt by experiments, when they always make accurate predictions and there is no contradictory data that would disprove them, despite everyone trying, over and over again, to do just that.

Otherwise, I agree - theory "evolves".

 

[Commoner]

If you believe it to be incorrect, then please feel free to make up your own theory to explain gravity. Perhaps while your doing that, you may be able to supply more data for the evolution of the Supersymmetry theory, that tries to link the four fundamental forces, which according to that theory, were supposed to have emerged separately during the Big Bang.

No...that's the exact oposite of my point. Newton's model is correct - but only in its own domain. If you take gravity as fact, even though clearly newtonian mechanics does not apply on all scales - neither for the very small, nor at relativistic speeds, then you can no longer argue that something else should not be considered "fact" since the theory has been "updated" in the same way.

Gravity is no more a "fact" than anything else. You still don't undestand the concept of a scientific theory. It's really a shame, since you seem to be able of comprehending similar nuances... That always screams dishonesty to me, but maybe I'm wrong - maybe you really are just misinformed and a bit stubborn.

 

[S-word]

Quoting early Greek science doesn't show anything. There was no empirical testing or rigorous standard of evidence in those days.

Yea, that's why I said that I wouldn't bother to mention Copernicus's theory or Ptolemy's theory which preceded the theory of Copernicus. But what do you think about the steady state theory, or was that theory made up before the empirical testing and rigorous standard of evidence of today? And what about the theories that are made up today when they are tested against the new incoming data and the rigorous standards of evidence that will be in force in the future?

 

[Commoner]

Yea, that's why I said that I wouldn't bother to mention Copernicus's theory or Ptolemy's theory which preceded the theory of Copernicus. But what do you think about the steady state theory, or was that theory made up before the empirical testing and rigorous standard of evidence of today? And what about the theories that are made up today when they are tested against the new incoming data and the rigorous standards of evidence that will be in force in the future?

You're confusing the possibility that we are wrong in what we consider to be "facts" and the relationship of a scientific theory to fact. Do you see how?

There are no "facts" that are better established than a scientific theory. Still...they can be wrong.

 

[S-word]

No...that's the exact oposite of my point. Newton's model is correct - but only in its own domain. If you take gravity as fact, even though clearly newtonian mechanics does not apply on all scales - neither for the very small, nor at relativistic speeds, then you can no longer argue that something else should not be considered "fact" since the theory has been "updated" in the same way.

Gravity is no more a "fact" than anything else. You still don't undestand the concept of a scientific theory. It's really a shame, since you seem to be able of comprehending similar nuances... That always screams dishonesty to me, but maybe I'm wrong - maybe you really are just misinformed and a bit stubborn.

I know that all scientific theories must be falsifiable, and I know all that I need to know on the definition of scientific theory, I may not understand every scientific theory and I have no desire at this point in my eternal life to learn and understand every theory, that is not my God given path. BTW, Newtons theory, which he made up to explain gravity may not be factual in all respects, but gravity as a force, is a fact matey, gravity is a fact. You may not be able to explain exactly the force that keep your feet on the ground and stops you from flying off into space, but the fact that force exists and is called "gravity," is a fact.

 

[Commoner]

I know that all scientific theories must be falsifiable, and I know all that I need to know on the subject.

Then you were intentionally using the term "theory" incorrectly?

 

[S-word]

You're confusing the possibility that we are wrong in what we consider to be "facts" and the relationship of a scientific theory to fact. Do you see how?

There are no "facts" that are better established than a scientific theory. Still...they can be wrong.

So now I have to expain to you the definition of the word "Fact." If it can be wrong then you are not certain that it is correct, and you can therefore not define it as a "Fact," which is something that is known for a certainity. There are of course theories that can incorporate facts, which I have said are described as "true in fact and theory" making a distintion between fact and theory.

 

[S-word]

Then you were intentionally using the term "theory" incorrectly?

No matey, a theory is something made up by men to explain observable phenomena that has been tested, with a result conforming to all the available data that is present at the time of those experiments and conclusions, but there are no absolutes, everything, and I mean everything evolves, even theories, the only constant in this boundless cosmos, is constant change.

 

[Commoner]

So now I have to expain to you the definition of the word "Fact." If it can be wrong then you are not certain that it is correct, and you can therefore not define it as a "Fact," which is something that is known for a certainity. There are of course theories that can incorporate facts, which I have said are described as "true in fact and theory" making a distintion between fact and theory.

No, s-word.

You're talking about facts and theories on two different levels. On the one hand - theory is what describes fact. In that respect, "fact" is not meant to be a measure of certainty - it is simply "the thing being described". The distinction is simply between the thing being described and the thing that describes the thing being described.

But when we talk about facts as in defining the certainty with which we know something, that's a completely different ballpark. There are no things we can be completey certain of, there simply is no such thing as "completely certain". In that sense - on the scale of certainty - a scientific theory is the highest level of certainty.

 

[Commoner]

No matey, a theory is something made up by men to explain observable phenomena that has been tested, with a result conforming to all the available data that is present at the time of those experiments and conclusions, but there are no absolutes, everything, and I mean everything evolves, even theories, the only constant in this boundless cosmos, is constant change.

Hopefully, for the last time, what you're referring to are hypotheses.

Nobody is arguing there are any absolutes. We are simply objecting to your equating hypotheses with a scientific theory.

 

[Danny Heim]

No matey, a theory is something made up by men to explain observable phenomena that has been tested, with a result conforming to all the available data that is present at the time of those experiments and conclusions, but there are no absolutes, everything, and I mean everything evolves, even theories, the only constant in this boundless cosmos, is constant change.

very well said

 

[Danny Heim]

Well, since it is your personal theory based on what you conclude from collective things around us, then i have no objection on most of it.

I would ask you just about the part about religion being a disadvantage, why?

I could say it all in one word, war. We have been warring over religious doctrine since it came into existence. So much so that we have now taken it to be just a part of human nature and accept it as inevitable. But religion does not stop there with its trouble causing influence. It is behind our political, social and economic paradigms as well.

In each of these cases religion’s main influence comes in the form of conflicting diversity. That word, diversity, is most often used in terms of being a good thing, it is what gives life its color; it is what makes it interesting and with nature it is what makes it work. But with religion it only creates confusion and conflict. Republicans fight Democrats, liberals fight conservatives, democracy fights fascism and communism fights democracy. It becomes constant turmoil, cooperation becomes impossible, and the world continues its decline as wars get bigger, more frequent and sadly they get uglier too.

How is religion linked to our social, political and economic paradigms? Because of the many diverse ideas that come out of religious beliefs and ideologies about issues like how we got here, what is right and what it wrong, what is smart and what is dumb, what should and should not be taught and so on, we can never get on the same page about anything. The best we can do is establish trade agreements between each other and the only reason we do that is out of the need to survive and since modern times you can add the need for comfort, otherwise we’d of killed each other already.

So far we have survived this in our development of civilization and in many ways you could even say we’ve survived it well. Our ideologies are so diverse, it is amazing we have managed to get this far. We must be able to repress very well. But in spite of that ability, we are still losing ground and losing it fast. If we did not have the crisis’s we have now that are so dire and growing so fast, I would say our species would eventually work all this out. But Mother Nature has the clock in hand now, and she’s not waiting for us any longer, so the scientists say, and I believe them.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The Fact of Gravity.- objects in our everyday experience tend to fall downwards when not otherwise prevented from doing so.
The Theory of Gravity.-a deductive theory composed of empirical data expressed as quantifiable properties to explain the mechanism of gravity.

The Fact of Evolution- the inherited traits of a population of organisms change through successive generations. After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species.
The Theory of Evolution- a deductive theory composed of empirical data expressed as quantifiable properties to explain the mechanisms involved in evolution.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/quizzes/90162-science-quiz-question-1-a.html

 

[Badran]

I could say it all in one word, war. We have been warring over religious doctrine since it came into existence. So much so that we have now taken it to be just a part of human nature and accept it as inevitable. But religion does not stop there with its trouble causing influence. It is behind our political, social and economic paradigms as well.

In each of these cases religion’s main influence comes in the form of conflicting diversity. That word, diversity, is most often used in terms of being a good thing, it is what gives life its color; it is what makes it interesting and with nature it is what makes it work. But with religion it only creates confusion and conflict. Republicans fight Democrats, liberals fight conservatives, democracy fights fascism and communism fights democracy. It becomes constant turmoil, cooperation becomes impossible, and the world continues its decline as wars get bigger, more frequent and sadly they get uglier too.

How is religion linked to our social, political and economic paradigms? Because of the many diverse ideas that come out of religious beliefs and ideologies about issues like how we got here, what is right and what it wrong, what is smart and what is dumb, what should and should not be taught and so on, we can never get on the same page about anything. The best we can do is establish trade agreements between each other and the only reason we do that is out of the need to survive and since modern times you can add the need for comfort, otherwise we’d of killed each other already.

So far we have survived this in our development of civilization and in many ways you could even say we’ve survived it well. Our ideologies are so diverse, it is amazing we have managed to get this far. We must be able to repress very well. But in spite of that ability, we are still losing ground and losing it fast. If we did not have the crisis’s we have now that are so dire and growing so fast, I would say our species would eventually work all this out. But Mother Nature has the clock in hand now, and she’s not waiting for us any longer, so the scientists say, and I believe them.

While i do not agree with all parts, i will just say that this is the assumed disadvantages of religion, not religion being a disadvantage. Meaning that, just because all these things might be true, doesn't mean religion is a disadvantage, because you haven't been fair about it's advantages.

Religion is supposed to be for most of those who follow it, the truth, or the teachings from their maker, or the explanation for the universe, or the guide to their thinking and morals.........

So, i can't judge religion that way, as in judge by it's perks and disadvantages, because this judgment is neutral, and not putting in mind the fact that religion is supposed to the truth for people who follow it. Also, if we assume that all your notes on the point we are at today are true, religion has nothing to do with it. Because it has always been there, so it could be something else that have put us in such position.

Also, war has many reasons, religion is merely one of the excuses that leaders have used to justify wars. Political struggles, greed, pride, conflicts of any kind are all reasons for war. Religion isn't, it is a tool that leaders use to justify their war by. I'll admit though, that surely some of the religious wars were because some people really believed that their religion or their God says so, but that is not enough to judge it or deem it as a bad thing. A lot of things can be used in a good or a bad way, so it is not enough a proof against religion, that some used it that way. Because others have used it well, and it gave them great satisfaction in their lives in so many ways.

 

[Commoner]

So far we have survived this in our development of civilization and in many ways you could even say we’ve survived it well. Our ideologies are so diverse, it is amazing we have managed to get this far. We must be able to repress very well. But in spite of that ability, we are still losing ground and losing it fast. If we did not have the crisis’s we have now that are so dire and growing so fast, I would say our species would eventually work all this out. But Mother Nature has the clock in hand now, and she’s not waiting for us any longer, so the scientists say, and I believe them.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the memo...which doomsday predictions are you referring to exactly?

 

[dogsgod]

S-words Response; What TheHappyTraveler said, was that once an hypothesis has been proven to be one hundred% correct, it then becomes a theory, (theory = when hypothesis is 100% correct (proven) )which means, according to his definition of Scientific theory, all scientific theories must be 100% correct.

If he is correct, then the Big Bang theory, must be 100% proven. The Big bang theory states that the universe and all therein including the intellect that has and is continuing to evolve and will supposedly evolve beyond the intellect of mankind, originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion (The exact time of the Big Bang has not been 100% proven as yet) ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of Matter at extreme density and temperature. Do you agree that the Big Bang theory is 100% correct, or do you believe that it is still only a hypothesis?

And what about the “Steady State Theory,” if the hypothesis that the universe maintains a constant average density with matter created to fill the void left by galaxies that are receding from each other, has been 100% proved, why has the “Steady State Theory” been abandoned in favour of the "Big Bang Theory."

We won’t even bother to mention the major scientific “Theory” of Nicolaus Copernicus which was published in 1543, the year of his death, after which, Ptolemy’s “Theory,” that the earth was the stationary centre of the universe, which was the prevailing scientific “Theory” among the astronomers in Europe in the days of Copernicus, was abandoned. No one’s going to argue that Copernicus’s scientific Hypothesis/Theory was 100% correct (Proven).

Some scientific theories (not all, but some theories) can incorporate facts and tested hypothesis, these are generally referred to as being, “True in fact and theory” which makes a distinction between what is proven fact, and what is merely theory.

I would tweek what TheHappyTraveler said, fact beyond a reasonable doubt. A proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, hypotheses becomes a part of theory. A scientific theory is a body of facts.

 

[Danny Heim]

While i do not agree with all parts, i will just say that this is the assumed disadvantages of religion, not religion being a disadvantage. Meaning that, just because all these things might be true, doesn't mean religion is a disadvantage, because you haven't been fair about it's advantages.

Religion is supposed to be for most of those who follow it, the truth, or the teachings from their maker, or the explanation for the universe, or the guide to their thinking and morals.........

So, i can't judge religion that way, as in judge by it's perks and disadvantages, because this judgment is neutral, and not putting in mind the fact that religion is supposed to the truth for people who follow it. Also, if we assume that all your notes on the point we are at today are true, religion has nothing to do with it. Because it has always been there, so it could be something else that have put us in such position.

Also, war has many reasons, religion is merely one of the excuses that leaders have used to justify wars. Political struggles, greed, pride, conflicts of any kind are all reasons for war. Religion isn't, it is a tool that leaders use to justify their war by. I'll admit though, that surely some of the religious wars were because some people really believed that their religion or their God says so, but that is not enough to judge it or deem it as a bad thing. A lot of things can be used in a good or a bad way, so it is not enough a proof against religion, that some used it that way. Because others have used it well, and it gave them great satisfaction in their lives in so many ways.

I can't argue with most of what you say either Badran. As the discussion moves forward and if I should continue with it, and I think I will, then my views on the advantages of religion will definitely come out. Discussing this is in full takes volumes of 1's and 0's. I apologize for the negativity. But I am coming from a purview of emergency and the negative at this point is therefore inherent, since in my view the disadvantages, at present, are having more affect than the advantages.

And yes, war has many reasons beyond religion, or I should say religious doctrine. However, even those other reasons can be and are heavily influenced by religion, for that matter, just about everything is influenced by religion.

 

[S-word]

The Fact of Gravity.- objects in our everyday experience tend to fall downwards when not otherwise prevented from doing so.
The Theory of Gravity.-a deductive theory composed of empirical data expressed as quantifiable properties to explain the mechanism of gravity.

The Fact of Evolution- the inherited traits of a population of organisms change through successive generations. After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species.
The Theory of Evolution- a deductive theory composed of empirical data expressed as quantifiable properties to explain the mechanisms involved in evolution.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/quizzes/90162-science-quiz-question-1-a.html

Correct! Thank God for evolution, soon will appear the next stage in that eternal process, which is that new species that comes through mankind, and is the spirit that is currently developing within the inner most sanctuary of the body of mankind, for the kingdom of God is within you.

When the new species will take the throne of the Most High in the evolving singularity, and gain dominion over all life-forms that preceded him, of whom Jesus was the first fruits to be harvested from the body of mankind, the first of many brothers to inherit a portion of the immortal body of the Lord God our Saviour, as seen in the glorious light body of Jesus of Nazareth, who appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus.

And as we, who have united ourselves to "Who I Am," have borne the image of the first Adam, so too shall we bear the image of the second Adam, and the new species will rule the world with a rod of iron, then will the world eventually know peace.

 

[Luminous]

So now I have to expain to you the definition of the word "Fact." If it can be wrong then you are not certain that it is correct, and you can therefore not define it as a "Fact," which is something that is known for a certainity. There are of course theories that can incorporate facts, which I have said are described as "true in fact and theory" making a distintion between fact and theory.

like i said, you are a great poet...and by extension you are good at grammar and semantics...but a scholar or philosopher, you are not. and language exists above and beyond dictionaries and other books of men.

 

[S-word]

like i said, you are a great poet...and by extension you are good at grammar and semantics...but a scholar or philosopher, you are not. and language exists above and beyond dictionaries and other books of men.

Whatever matey. You must continue to believe that which you choose to believe, that is your perogative.