[Locked] Is Scientist really proving the Bible to be wrong?
0
Takerial wrote...
Actually Lundi, Laws are just theories. You should know that by now right?And facts are actually used to support theories, not the other way around. Theories are actually there to explain certain circumstances and questions, not facts.
starting to think that the persons understanding of things is a bit askew.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Renovartio wrote...
Takerial wrote...
Actually Lundi, Laws are just theories. You should know that by now right?And facts are actually used to support theories, not the other way around. Theories are actually there to explain certain circumstances and questions, not facts.
starting to think that the persons understanding of things is a bit askew.
Yeah. Seems like someone that pulls a lot of facts from youtube videos and wikipedia type sites and only understand about half of what he reads.
He's constantly misusing terms.
0
Takerial wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
Takerial wrote...
Actually Lundi, Laws are just theories. You should know that by now right?And facts are actually used to support theories, not the other way around. Theories are actually there to explain certain circumstances and questions, not facts.
starting to think that the persons understanding of things is a bit askew.
Yeah. Seems like someone that pulls a lot of facts from youtube videos and wikipedia type sites and only understand about half of what he reads.
He's constantly misusing terms.
Did you find anything wrong with one of my previous posts in this thread? Just wondering since I wouldn't want people to think of me as being half assed in my opinions.
Anywho wasn't the original topic of this thread lost in some way?
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Renovartio wrote...
Takerial wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
Takerial wrote...
Actually Lundi, Laws are just theories. You should know that by now right?And facts are actually used to support theories, not the other way around. Theories are actually there to explain certain circumstances and questions, not facts.
starting to think that the persons understanding of things is a bit askew.
Yeah. Seems like someone that pulls a lot of facts from youtube videos and wikipedia type sites and only understand about half of what he reads.
He's constantly misusing terms.
Did you find anything wrong with one of my previous posts in this thread? Just wondering since I wouldn't want people to think of me as being half assed in my opinions.
Anywho wasn't the original topic of this thread lost in some way?
Nothing I really saw that bothered me a whole lot. Not going back too far because I'd rather not read certain comments that will just make my head hurt.
And losing the topic happens a lot in these types of threads.
Always going to be someone who has to show the absoluteness of science while claiming that's not what they're doing.
0
Well I post posted on this page and the previous one.
Well then again the topic itself was already talked out in a way.
No things are absolute. Reason why I hate it when people try to force me to do or say something that would make it so. Like making a promise you can't keep.
Well then again the topic itself was already talked out in a way.
No things are absolute. Reason why I hate it when people try to force me to do or say something that would make it so. Like making a promise you can't keep.
0
Takerial wrote...
Actually Lundi, Laws are just theories. You should know that by now right?And facts are actually used to support theories, not the other way around. Theories are actually there to explain certain circumstances and questions, not facts.
...Seriously, are you trying to claim you know more about science when you say these scientifically innacurate statements?
A LAW is not a THEORY.
Here's why.
A LAW is a mathematical constant that is always true, given certain conditions.
A THEORY is an explanation of facts and evidence that is given to explain the observed facts.
To your second point, that I'm simply wrong, and facts are made to support theories...you're fundamentally incorrect. There's a comic that demonstrates this personally.
A scientific theory comes from this question, "Here's the evidence and the facts. What can we discern from this?" the second part of the comic is entitled "The Creationist Method" which is a man holding up a bible and saying, "This is our conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?"
hypotheses' and theories are derived from observed facts, in order to explain them better.
Also, you didn't address the fact that saying scientific theories get 'more accurate' is in actuality, a completely correct way to look at them, using of course, your logic, and statement.
Seriously, you get fundamental scientific philosophy incorrect, and then say, "Pssh, you just get all your information from wiki and youtube." ...Well while that's incorrect, I would have to ask where do you get YOUR information from I at least have science textbooks in my library that I like to consult on what science is, albeit it IS a small one. Where are you gettign YOUR information?
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Meh, I already posted my two cents on the actual topic itself on the very first page.
It's just a poorly designed topic that lead to people blowing things whatever way they wanted.
It's just a poorly designed topic that lead to people blowing things whatever way they wanted.
0
Takerial wrote...
Meh, I already posted my two cents on the actual topic itself on the very first page.It's just a poorly designed topic that lead to people blowing things whatever way they wanted.
why is he dragging on about this?
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
You don't think a Scientific Law is still a theory?
That is so naive it's not even funny.
A theory is an explanation to a given question or given set of questions using facts as support. It is true that the questions tend to come after seeing the facts such as seeing an apple fall to the ground and then asking "WHY does the apple fall to the ground?"
The Law of Gravity is explaining WHY the apple fall to the ground as a theory.
Nothing I said suggests that getting more accurate is a correct way to look at things. Learn to read.
That is so naive it's not even funny.
A theory is an explanation to a given question or given set of questions using facts as support. It is true that the questions tend to come after seeing the facts such as seeing an apple fall to the ground and then asking "WHY does the apple fall to the ground?"
The Law of Gravity is explaining WHY the apple fall to the ground as a theory.
Nothing I said suggests that getting more accurate is a correct way to look at things. Learn to read.
0
Renovartio wrote...
Takerial wrote...
Meh, I already posted my two cents on the actual topic itself on the very first page.It's just a poorly designed topic that lead to people blowing things whatever way they wanted.
why is he dragging on about this?
Both you and Takerial have been essentially telling me, "No you're wrong." Takerial regularly accuses me of 'getting my info from youtube and wiki' while never explaining where he's gettig his facts.
both of you consistently misrepresent what I'm saying, and try to make it look like I'm saying many things I in fact am not saying.
the biggest lie that's been spread is that I in any way have been saying there's any such thing as an absolute truth in science.
I mean, don't YOU find it annoying when people almost seem to DELIBERATELY misunderstand you?
Takerial wrote...
The Law of Gravity is explaining WHY the apple fall to the ground as a theory.
Nothing I said suggests that getting more accurate is a correct way to look at things. Learn to read.
Yes, actually, something you said EXPLICITLY stated that it was a correct way of looking at things. Let me quote you once more, you suggested the correct way is to say "We are getting less inaccurate" Which, logically, is the EXACT same statement as "We are getting more accurate." Which is what I have said is the correct statement all along. Your wording is different, but both of us are saying the EXACT same thing, and you're claiming, rather arbitrarily, that your wording is more correct.
Secondly, the Law of Gravity DOESN'T explain why the apple fell to the ground. Explain to me exactly how "f1=F2=G[(m1xm2)/r^2]" Exlains WHY the apple falls to the ground. where in there is there a single explanation as to why?
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
If there is no absolute facts, then you cannot tell something their theory or idea is absolutely wrong either.
Which is what you are doing.
Which means in return you are doing exactly what you say you are not doing.
Which is what you are doing.
Which means in return you are doing exactly what you say you are not doing.
0
BigLundi wrote...
the unknown wrote...
It is not an explanation if it not a fact but rather ab assumption you believe is right based on facts.
Wow, really? "I believe my explanation is right, as the facts support it."
Firstly, isn't that...duh? I mean, if facts support the validity something, it's factually correct.
Secondly, Theories are not assumptions made based on facts, they are explanations that are made to explain why facts are the way they are, and are verifiably correct if they can make accurate predictions.
BigLundi wrote...
"despite the fact that new information doesn't cause theories to be wrong, but more accurate"... you can look around the internet and find thousands of theories that have been proven wrong due to an advancement of technology.
Give me one.
Seriously...
You really seem to hate it when I ask you to back up your claims.
If it was a fact, then why would it be called a theory?
Wow, really? Do you have some sort of fucking mental block? I've already EXPLAINED toyou that there are LAws, there are Facts, and there are Theories. The FACT of evolution is that organisms change over time in allellic frequency. that's a regularly observed fact. IF you don't agree it's a fact that species change over time, I'm going to have to ask you to stop responding, as you've clearly not bothered to educate yourself on the matter one single bit.
The THEORY is the EXPLANATION of the FACT. Do you get it yet? The fact, and the theory, are two seperate things, but they are necessary for eachother to exist.
His theory explains what COULD be a fact not a fact. If he had a time machine and went back in time to see what really happened then...it will be a fact not a theory. Things from the past can only remain as a theory because we are not a 100% sure of what really happened. If we were a 100% sure and no one could argue about it...then and only then will it be a fact.
...YOU'RE AN IDIOT! HOLY SHIT. I will say this once, and only once.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 100% SURE IN SCIENCE. YOU MADE THAT UP.
Although the Earth is getting warmer, it is NOT all our fault. The theory itself blames the Earth getting warmer due to human activities which your videos disagree with. Therefore the theory of global warming is false.
There's no such thing as the Theory of Global Warming. You made that up. And if you didn't, please provide a single peer reviewede scientific paper that refers to global warming as a "theory". AND, if you somehow manage to find that, please point out where a single scientist has EVER defined t as "the theory thathumans are the sole cause of the earth;'s warming." I know you can't find that, because no credible paper would let such a piece of shit idea through peer review.
Global warming is a theory
No it's not.
that humans are the main cause of the Earth getting warmer but people also use it to refer to the Earth getting warmer. Just type in Global warming theory in Google to see what I mean. So the theory of Global Warming (not the one people use to refer to the Earth getting warmer) is false and this can be proven.
There's no such thing as "The theory of global warming" And climate scientists have been in consensus for decades that the world is warming, and greenhouse gases play a role in it, AND, people pump out greenhouse gases.
these are the fcts.
Okay first of all, there is such a thing as 100% in science. If you cannot argue against a data no matter what you find, then that is what will be considered 100%. 100% usually exists in the present. Will you claim the results of drug tests are theories then? Aren't they suppose to be 100% accurate? And they are considered science right? If I test a chemical compound and it has hydrogen and everyone everyone else had the same result, isn't that 100% accurate? Then again, what do you consider to be Science?
"You really seem to hate it when I ask you to back up your claims."
...no, I just thought you of all people will at least understand that some theories have been proven wrong due to discoveries caused by an advancement of technology. If you still want me to back that up, then all I can say is you NEED to take some science classes.
There's no such thing as "The theory of global warming"...just type it in Google. I learned this in a science class and I have did my research.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba299
0
BigLundi wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
Takerial wrote...
Meh, I already posted my two cents on the actual topic itself on the very first page.It's just a poorly designed topic that lead to people blowing things whatever way they wanted.
why is he dragging on about this?
Both you and Takerial have been essentially telling me, "No you're wrong." Takerial regularly accuses me of 'getting my info from youtube and wiki' while never explaining where he's gettig his facts.
both of you consistently misrepresent what I'm saying, and try to make it look like I'm saying many things I in fact am not saying.
the biggest lie that's been spread is that I in any way have been saying there's any such thing as an absolute truth in science.
I mean, don't YOU find it annoying when people almost seem to DELIBERATELY misunderstand you?
I was saying that you continually bring up the same point without really going deeper other then to say that your right without any possible way to not be. You even went so far as to insult that other person which already puts you in the wrong. Seeing as if your going to try and discuss something getting mad won't really help with your point.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
No, there is no such thing as 100% in science unknown.
Anyone claiming tests to create 100% accurate results are either naive or lying.
And no, even if you test a chemical compound and everyone else does it would not be 100% accurate. All you're doing is failing to prove it isn't accurate. That's how science works because to prove 100% accurate means you would have to prove the same results.
IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
Which is beyond what we are capable of.
Anyone claiming tests to create 100% accurate results are either naive or lying.
And no, even if you test a chemical compound and everyone else does it would not be 100% accurate. All you're doing is failing to prove it isn't accurate. That's how science works because to prove 100% accurate means you would have to prove the same results.
IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
Which is beyond what we are capable of.
0
Takerial wrote...
No, there is no such thing as 100% in science unknown.Anyone claiming tests to create 100% accurate results are either naive or lying.
And no, even if you test a chemical compound and everyone else does it would not be 100% accurate. All you're doing is failing to prove it isn't accurate. That's how science works because to prove 100% accurate means you would have to prove the same results.
IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
Which is beyond what we are capable of.
Yeah but if my result can never be proven wrong or indifferent, isn't that 100%
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
the unknown wrote...
Takerial wrote...
No, there is no such thing as 100% in science unknown.Anyone claiming tests to create 100% accurate results are either naive or lying.
And no, even if you test a chemical compound and everyone else does it would not be 100% accurate. All you're doing is failing to prove it isn't accurate. That's how science works because to prove 100% accurate means you would have to prove the same results.
IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
Which is beyond what we are capable of.
Yeah but if my result can never be proven wrong or indifferent, isn't that 100%
No.
Because you would have to prove it absolutely right for it to be 100%.
And that's ignoring the fact that the Scientific Method cannot produce anything absolute regardless on if you prove it right with the Scientific Method in all circumstances.
0
the unknown wrote...
Okay first of all, there is such a thing as 100% in science. If you cannot argue against a data no matter what you find, then that is what will be considered 100%.
No it won't. I gaurantee it won't. It will simply be labeled as "Not shown to be incorrect or inaccurate yet." There's no such thing as 100% in science. Takerial says this, and me and Takerial can almost never agree on anything. you seem to be the only person who cannot grasp this.
100% usually exists in the present.
No it doesn't.
Will you claim the results of drug tests are theories then? Aren't they suppose to be 100% accurate?
someone's never heard of a 'false positive' before.
And they are considered science right? If I test a chemical compound and it has hydrogen and everyone everyone else had the same result, isn't that 100% accurate?
No, it's considered to be consistent.
Then again, what do you consider to be Science?
The quest to have knowledge using empirical data, testing of hypotheses, confirmations, and continuous attempts at disproof.
That's a sloppy layman's idea, but it covers the basics.
"You really seem to hate it when I ask you to back up your claims."
...no, I just thought you of all people will at least understand that some theories have been proven wrong due to discoveries caused by an advancement of technology. If you still want me to back that up, then all I can say is you NEED to take some science classes.
...no, I just thought you of all people will at least understand that some theories have been proven wrong due to discoveries caused by an advancement of technology. If you still want me to back that up, then all I can say is you NEED to take some science classes.
Alright, how about this...name a single theory, that was proven wrong, without the fact it was explaining being proven wrong. That work better for you?
There's no such thing as "The theory of global warming"...just type it in Google. I learned this in a science class and I have did my research.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba299
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba299
You didn't do as I asked you to. I asked you to find a SINGLE peer reviewed scientific paper from a scientist that claimed global warming was a Theory.
You failed to do this. you instead gave me a political bias website written by...not a climatologist, but an energy advisor, with an undefined PhD in...something, that's not given. Until you do as I asked, you, and everyone else who calls what you're talking about 'global warming theory' are simply making the words up. It's not a real thing. No climatologist has ever, to the best of my knowledge, ever stated any such thing as 'Global Warming Theory'. It's not a scientific theory.
Edit: quick note to Renovatio. Could you explain to me how insulting someone in any way makes me wrong? I mean, it makes me a dick, but it doesn't hurt my argument whatsoever.
0
Takerial wrote...
the unknown wrote...
Takerial wrote...
No, there is no such thing as 100% in science unknown.Anyone claiming tests to create 100% accurate results are either naive or lying.
And no, even if you test a chemical compound and everyone else does it would not be 100% accurate. All you're doing is failing to prove it isn't accurate. That's how science works because to prove 100% accurate means you would have to prove the same results.
IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
Which is beyond what we are capable of.
Yeah but if my result can never be proven wrong or indifferent, isn't that 100%
No.
Because you would have to prove it absolutely right for it to be 100%.
And that's ignoring the fact that the Scientific Method cannot produce anything absolute regardless on if you prove it right with the Scientific Method in all circumstances.
Okay, I wouldn't go on about this because I remembered a saying "the maximum something can be is 99.9% because there is always a .1% something out of the ordinary can occur."
Now... let's hear BigLundi five page paper explaining why I am wrong as I am sure he has already began.
0
Okay srsly he is going with the "the thing I say is always right because it always is" kind of strategy... this was old before it even began. I think he's just trying to mentally attack his opponent to just give up on the topic.
0
the unknown wrote...
Now... let's hear BigLundi five page paper explaining why I am wrong as I am sure he has already began.
Let's not, because as soon as you said that you agree nothing is 100% in science, I stopped disagreeing with you on that point.
Also, To Revartion. No I'm not saying that I'm right, because I say I'm right, I'm saying people are wrong, because I can demonstrate them to be wrong. I'm not simply saying, "My opinion states you're wrong. So haha."
I mean seriously, If you'd like I can explain who my sources are for my views on how science works. I'm more than willing to tell you.
Several of my textbooks include:
Prentice C. Hall's copywrite 2007 version of Biology, which is, by the by, co writen by a christian scientist, Kenneth Miller, whom I have NO problem with.
Lectures on Gravitation - By Brian Hatfield and Richard Feynmann. Feynmann, by the by, is one of my favorite thinkers of all time, and I recommend the video I posted in my priginal post in the other topic, as it's him explaining his work, and personal philosophy, and it's thoroughly entertaining.