Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealrm
...... I stated that it needs to be treated as other scientific theories and rigorously tested and we currently only have limited means of testing the theory. I stated we should continue to challenge it the same as other theories. That is science. That is how theories get revised and honed.
OK, but test at the frontiers, the fringes of the thing - not as a monolithic whole that needs to be completely reconsidered every time a YECcer raises an objection. The scientific community need not waste their time on considering whether the earth and all species past and present were created some 8000 years ago.
In fact I do. It's your opinion I find baffling, not mine.
Quote:
And formulating a theory that explains a certain thing that exists and is measurable is not "predicting" anything.
Yes, it is. Einstein predicted gravitational lensing long before anyone spotted such a thing. Such lensing certainly exists, we can certainly measure it. Does the phenomenon not exist? Can we not measure it? Were not such things predicted to exist? One of us is missing something essential here; I don't think it's me.
Quote:
I could formulate a brand new theory in which cloud faeries create clouds ... does the existence of clouds prove my theory?
You tell me what proves your theory. It's your theory, surely you know.
Quote:
The big bang theory is not testable ...cannot be recreated, and cannot be falsified.
I just told you how it could be. No cosmic microwave background, a completely smooth CMB or very hot CMB would all falsify current cosmological thinking. The Big Bang theory isn't just "once upon a time there was nothing, which exploded", it explains that which we see in some detail and has consequences we can examine to see if the theory holds water. When a different theory comes along that explains all that the big bang theory does and more beside then that will be, to the best of our knowledge, the way things are. At the moment, though, there's no intellectually valid reason to discard it.
And it does not care about how you feel about it.
Quote:
Therefore, what it actually is nothing more than pure speculation.
Bah! What more can be said at this point?
Quote:
As for the question "I know this because?". What are you suggesting? That there is only one universally agreed to theory of evolution to which all evolutionists agree?
I'm not suggesting anything, I'm asking how you know that.
And over 65% of college students say their primary source of news and current events is The Daily Show and Colbert Report. I think this alone should explain such nonsense.
And over 65% of college students say their primary source of news and current events is The Daily Show and Colbert Report. I think this alone should explain such nonsense.
The other news outlets are manned or womanned by comedians. Lots of people take them seriously, though.
The other news outlets are manned or womanned by comedians. Lots of people take them seriously, though.
That's just a subjective snipe. IF you don't agree with any given editorialist/news caster, then he/she is a comedian. On the other hand, Colbert and Stewart ARE professional comedians.
This is the same confusion we have with regards to Reagan and Obama. Reagan was a mediocre actor who became a great President, and Obama is a mediocre President who has become a great actor.
Einstein predicted gravitational lensing long before anyone spotted such a thing.
Actually, Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity in 1916 and a British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington confirmed Einstein's prediction of gravitational lensing on May 29, 1919 during a solar eclipse. So it was not that long. We are still testing Einstein's theories to this day.
So long as it's understood that the creationist in question is totally out to lunch and really understands nothing about science, the dates when things that prove him to be knowless happened aren't that important.
The results of the survey are disturbing (though no one here actually believes them), but the more bothersome point is that the researchers lack the ability to distinguish between a theory and a fact. We're looking at science doctrine again. Only observable phenomena can be assigned the status of true. Theories play a crucial role, but they can't be shown to be true, and they're not supposed to become doctrine. Nobody knows how the Universe got started. The Big Bang Theory is a theory, and since it cannot be shown observed, it cannot be said to be true. To say that 61% of respondents were ignorant by not picking "The universe began with a huge explosion" is a bit of a stretch.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
