Religion poll

[Kershaw]

but they are after all - theories.

Lol. This is a pet peeve of mine. You're confusing two different usages of the same word. Do you think the Theory of Gravity is "only a theory"? You can't dismiss them like that without looking pretty silly.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word 'theory' in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science (less ambiguously called a "scientific prediction") versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

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

[ForcedFirebird]

Lol. This is a pet peeve of mine. You're confusing two different usages of the same word. Do you think the Theory of Gravity is "only a theory"? You can't dismiss them like that without looking pretty silly.



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

Until proven, they are, no? You can prove gravity (Newton's LAW), but when discussing something that happened somewhere between 13m and 15m years ago is a different story. Universe expansion was a theory until we could measure the distances between objects (Hubble's LAW), prior to that the theory was the universe was static and was/will always be there. I am using the word in the exact context of the definition you quoted.

[Kershaw]

In science, a theory is pretty much the pinnacle of proven that you can have. It is a precise framework for understanding a large number of facts.

Gravity is a phenomenon and there are several theories to explain it. We can never prove or test any scientific theory 100%, that's impossible. Theories are proven in the common usage of the word. Hypothesis' are hunches that are untested. Theories have our entire history of knowledge behind them. That's the best we know. Can theories change? Yes, they do when new data is found. But until someone proves it outdated, that's the best knowledge we have.

Denigrating the best knowledge we have is just silly. To call it mere "theories" really under represents just what a scientific theory is.

And fyi, Newton's Laws of Motion fall under Newton's Theory of Gravity.

[ForcedFirebird]

In science, a theory is pretty much the pinnacle of proven that you can have. It is a precise framework for understanding a large number of facts.

Gravity is a phenomenon and there are several theories to explain it. We can never prove or test any scientific theory 100%, that's impossible. Theories are proven in the common usage of the word. Hypothesis' are hunches that are untested. Theories have our entire history of knowledge behind them. That's the best we know. Can theories change? Yes, they do when new data is found. But until someone proves it outdated, that's the best knowledge we have.

Denigrating the best knowledge we have is just silly. To call it mere "theories" really under represents just what a scientific theory is.

And fyi, Newton's Laws of Motion fall under Newton's Theory of Gravity.

How can you not proof gravity? How can you not proof the expansion? Now we even just proved relativity last year. Even if the singularity was proven, we would still have to go deeper.

You are missing the point I was making, and zooming in on a detail. We don't even have theories yet as to why/how the singularity even exploded in the first place, so to dismiss any "hypothesis" is just as silly.

...to add, the static universe was a theory, considered fact, so nothing can be dismissed.

Roguetoaster hit the nail on the proverbial head...

I'm fairly with you until the last statement. We cannot prove what spurred the existence of the universe in which we live, so why would you insist after what you said above that events were not aligned by some type of consciousness that we do not understand. To keep an open mind (of the scientific sense) it's allowable that any scenario for creation of the universe is possible, and at this time all are pretty equally probable as we both cannot yet observe the cause, nor likely conceptualize its origin with any certainty.

So, there's really no reason to argue this point, as it's totally a matter of opinion at this juncture.

[mrsleeve]

Wow, what has happened to our educational system, we learned the difference between laws, theory, and theories that govern the forces of measurable, proven laws in like 5th grade.....


Oh well hard to get on with the agw, theories as proven settled hard facts wit out moving the goal posts and blurring those lines.....

Yes this is a troll post

[ForcedFirebird]

Yes this is a troll post

Sleeve+R3v=TROLL

Proof!

[z31maniac]

How can you not proof gravity? How can you not proof the expansion? Now we even just proved relativity last year. Even if the singularity was proven, we would still have to go deeper.

You are missing the point I was making, and zooming in on a detail. We don't even have theories yet as to why/how the singularity even exploded in the first place, so to dismiss any "hypothesis" is just as silly.

...to add, the static universe was a theory, considered fact, so nothing can be dismissed.

Roguetoaster hit the nail on the proverbial head...

This post hurt my head.

[cale]

^ agreed, I regret winding him up.

[ForcedFirebird]

Apparently I'm not alone in my thinking. Just read this...

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/

[z31maniac]

Click bait headline:

Believe != highly probable
"that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe"

Swing and miss.

Try again.

[cale]

Apparently I'm not alone in my thinking. Just read this...

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/step...ghly-probable/

You should probably go read the disclaimer on that site before linking it again...

WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle.

[ForcedFirebird]

I didn't say that he believes in god, but the fact that he mentions it is highly probable that intelligent design influenced the creation of the universe is very similar to what I said earlier.

EDIT: I got click-baited lol.

[Hooffenstein HD]

it's hard to say that we are not "designed" since everything works out so

That's just like a narcissistic confirmation bias. Humans are not perfect at all. Humans are garbage.

[z31maniac]

Eating and breathing through the same hole is excellent. So if you miss swallow you choke to death.

Intelligent design indeed.

[roguetoaster]

Eating and breathing through the same hole is excellent. So if you miss swallow you choke to death.

Intelligent design indeed.

You could use that same weak argument to discount evolution. OTOH, we do have a mechanism to prevent us from using the wrong tube for the wrong thing, which counters both of those points.

Maybe that intelligence blithely expects us to be able to know when to breath in and when to swallow, but that's a lot to expect of modern humans.