Christmas

[truthpaste]

You have posted diagrams of scientific matter because it is shaped like a cross, you choose to believe that science.

The same science, I'll mention it again in capitals THE BIG BANG as my ONE, cheers for the selection offer there, the big bang is widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true. The big bang kind of pisses all over the god creating earth part of your belief. But you probably don't believe that science as it doesn't suit your belief and doesn't have lots of pretty crosses.

As you said "absolutely ****ing true" then it must be a fact.
What you mean is this, as I've been told since I was in short trousers that scientists believe this is how things started, then it must be correct. Let's go to National Geographic, a scientific publication that has never knowingly supported the Bible and in fact once produced a 15 page article celebrating a 'verified' fossil of a dinosaur with feathers!! (in a later edition it had to apologise for jumping the gun as the fossil turned out to be a hoax of a bird fossil stuck onto a dinosaur fossil).
So much for science speculation turning out to be utterly reliable:-

Before we look at one statement, here is the entire article >> ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE EXPLAINED

"Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom. It's thought that at such an incomprehensibly dense, energetic state, the four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were forged into a single force, but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work. To pull this off, we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".

Given that in this short paragraph we have:-

* Here's the theory
* It's thought that..
* but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work.
* we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".

So your "absolutely ****ing true" is hanging on so much uncertainties that I fail to see how any honest individual - scientist or not - could claim it to be an absolute?

[Baloo]

Given that in this short paragraph we have:-

* Here's the theory
* It's thought that..
* but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work.
* we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".

So your "absolutely ****ing true" is hanging on so much uncertainties that I fail to see how any honest individual - scientist or not - could claim it to be an absolute?

To be clear on one point, I believe the way word theory is used in science is a bit different to our common, everyday parlance.

In science, a theory is used to explain the how or why. Even when this can be clearly observed, measured and tested. So even if we knew how gravity works on a sub atomic scale this would still remain a theory.

So a scientific theory isn’t a prior stage before establishing a fact, it’s something different altogether. Sometimes science can be dismissed as merely a ‘theory’ and so equal in credibility to any other speculation, but this really confuses how the word theory is used in a scientific context.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

To be clear on one point, I believe the way word theory is used in science is a bit different to our common, everyday parlance.

In science, a theory is used to explain the how or why. Even when this can be clearly observed, measured and tested. So even if we knew how gravity works on a sub atomic scale this would still remain a theory.

So a scientific theory isn’t a prior stage before establishing a fact, it’s something different altogether. Sometimes science can be dismissed as merely a ‘theory’ and so equal in credibility to any other speculation, but this really confuses how the word theory is used in a scientific context.

I won't engage with who has become the protagonist on this thread as it would be fruitless. It's just amusing that science (a.k.a. knowledge) has enabled many lives to be saved whereas patients all around the world may have perished if they were left to the vagaries of what knowledge and treatment that existed two thousand years ago when microbes, tectonic plates, particles, viruses and electricity was either absent or minimal. What we have subsequently learned has, in many cases, cured what would otherwise be incurable illnesses (regardless of whether they were supposedly sent by a deity as means of punishment), space travel, electronics, computers and a million other sophisticated things that would have probably been deigned as sophistry by illiterate people thousands of years ago.
I see in this thread that there still seems to be this ridiculous attitude about the fact that scientific theory can be wrong. Any intelligent person knows how science progresses and we know it is progressed as we learn more and that we previously understood may indeed be wrong. We learn something from observations and measurement and scientists make their best stab at what may well describe why and in the full knowledge that there may be more to learn. That educated guess may or may not be correct and may be partly correct based on the results and data hitherto. If more information comes to light or throws a spanner in the works then that becomes the most important fact to concentrate on in the pursuit of greater knowledge and accuracy. This is not a failing nor a ridiculous dogma that seeks to defend ancient theories in any way. It is the polar opposite. If someone doesn't have the nous to understand that (as is obvious in this thread) there is no point in stating what to most people is the bleedin' obvious.

[truthpaste]

I won't engage with who has become the protagonist on this thread as it would be fruitless. It's just amusing that science (a.k.a. knowledge) has enabled many lives to be saved whereas patients all around the world may have perished if they were left to the vagaries of what knowledge and treatment that existed two thousand years ago when microbes, tectonic plates, particles, viruses and electricity was either absent or minimal. What we have subsequently learned has, in many cases, cured what would otherwise be incurable illnesses (regardless of whether they were supposedly sent by a deity as means of punishment), space travel, electronics, computers and a million other sophisticated things that would have probably been deigned as sophistry by illiterate people thousands of years ago.
I see in this thread that there still seems to be this ridiculous attitude about the fact that scientific theory can be wrong. Any intelligent person knows how science progresses and we know it is progressed as we learn more and that we previously understood may indeed be wrong. We learn something from observations and measurement and scientists make their best stab at what may well describe why and in the full knowledge that there may be more to learn. That educated guess may or may not be correct and may be partly correct based on the results and data hitherto. If more information comes to light or throws a spanner in the works then that becomes the most important fact to concentrate on in the pursuit of greater knowledge and accuracy. This is not a failing nor a ridiculous dogma that seeks to defend ancient theories in any way. It is the polar opposite. If someone doesn't have the nous to understand that (as is obvious in this thread) there is no point in stating what to most people is the bleedin' obvious.

Verified science works - no press conference required

[Croesy Blue]

To be clear on one point, I believe the way word theory is used in science is a bit different to our common, everyday parlance.

In science, a theory is used to explain the how or why. Even when this can be clearly observed, measured and tested. So even if we knew how gravity works on a sub atomic scale this would still remain a theory.

So a scientific theory isn’t a prior stage before establishing a fact, it’s something different altogether. Sometimes science can be dismissed as merely a ‘theory’ and so equal in credibility to any other speculation, but this really confuses how the word theory is used in a scientific context.

Yep theory in Science is different to the everyday use.

[truthpaste]

Yes I've long been aware that gravity is a theory, no problem. But that's only a third of the issue - "we don't currently know" and "we haven't yet figured out how..." is a problem if people are going to insist that science has come up with THE definitive answer.

If they actually knew already knew HOW it all began then why build the Hadron Collider for a total cost of about $4.75 billion and an annual ongoing cost of about $1 billion per year?

Sure, actual science is wonderful, at 10p or even billions of dollars, guesswork is just guesswork.

[lardy]

Yes I've long been aware that gravity is a theory, no problem. But that's only a third of the issue - "we don't currently know" and "we haven't yet figured out how..." is a problem if people are going to insist that science has come up with THE definitive answer.

If they actually knew already knew HOW it all began then why build the Hadron Collider for a total cost of about $4.75 billion and an annual ongoing cost of about $1 billion per year?

Sure, actual science is wonderful, at 10p or even billions of dollars, guesswork is just guesswork.

Because they are people who would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did I promise.

[truthpaste]

Because they are people who would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did I promise.

You mean someone like me!

Rewind, I was informed that your story was >> "widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true" - so as you've said above, I asked for documentation. If you agree with the need for this then you too need the same, because you just said "would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did.."

So we both await the definitive evidence we require.

[lardy]

You mean someone like me!

Rewind, I was informed that your story was >> "widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true" - so as you've said above, I asked for documentation. If you agree with the need for this then you too need the same, because you just said "would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did.."

So we both await the definitive evidence we require.

One group is actively looking for evidence, the other isnt.

Guess which group you're in...

[Croesy Blue]

One group is actively looking for evidence, the other isnt.

Guess which group you're in...

Maybe you missed the that God made a protein shaped like the thing the bible says his son was killed on, before it even happened.

[truthpaste]

One group is actively looking for evidence, the other isnt.

Guess which group you're in...

One group has had three days to produce their evidence and are still scratching their heads

[bobh]

Yes I've long been aware that gravity is a theory, no problem. But that's only a third of the issue - "we don't currently know" and "we haven't yet figured out how..." is a problem if people are going to insist that science has come up with THE definitive answer.

If they actually knew already knew HOW it all began then why build the Hadron Collider for a total cost of about $4.75 billion and an annual ongoing cost of about $1 billion per year?

Sure, actual science is wonderful, at 10p or even billions of dollars, guesswork is just guesswork.

Gravity doesn't exist.
The Earth sucks.