- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,334
- Location
- Woking
Squark, you know as much as anyone else does with regards to whether God exists or not, which is absolutely **** all.
1500 Year Old Bible Claims Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified
- Thread starter dirtychinchilla
- Start date
I stand by what I say. Once again you challenge what I say in yet another thread where you say "nonsense" "rubbish" "stupid" but seem unable to detail why. I note no-one else had a problem with that statement. Seems a reasonable statement to me.
I would guess the reason you don't envisage an evolution or overriding of those theories is because you haven't actually got a clue about science even if you sing its praises and repeatedly belittle religion in several threads.
With the repeated appeals to expertise I am left wondering what exactly your expertise is because I have never ever seen you post in a thread where someone is actually asking a scientific query in a thread which would require knowledge and application of that knowledge.
I am happy to be proved wrong, corrected or to learn something. See I am rather open minded chap and happy to change my viewpoint or knowledge base if someone can show me their reasoning is sound. I have yet to see any reasoning from you at all.
Let me explain then. You said this:
You clearly have a complete lack of understanding of both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics, mysterious as it is, provides the most accurate predictions of any known scientific theory. It really is a stunning discovery and a stunning piece of physics. Regarding your point about adaption over time, I would agree that in the case of Quantum Mechanics, it will be adapted as new evidence comes in, but it will not be completely unused in 2000 years (Why 2000 ? Seems a bit arbitrary, almost you like you pulled a number out of your ass) because it explains the known observations we have and fits the evidence. Just like 300 years after Newton we are still using his theory of mavity.
General Relativity, is less likely to be adapted as it is already a complete theory which explains everything well and makes testable, accurate predictions. General Relativity is like mavity and Evolution. No serious person is arguing against it.
This statement really betrays your ignorance. The word 'theory' has different meanings when used in a different context. The common use would be something like:
'I have a theory why Man United are the best Premier League football team'
That is the casual use of the word. It has no real basis in fact it's more about intuition or gut feeling.
In science the word has a different meaning.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of mavity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
You would think that a God who has time to make laws about seafood would have something to say about something as abhorrent as slavery...
I don't think I do.
So you agree it will change. Therefore, don't you consider your initial response to me rather strong and actually completely the opposite of what you are saying now.
Err, 2000 because that is approximately the amount of years since the birth of Jesus, you know the chap this thread is about ... and again the hostility.
So you think General Relativity will not be adapted or changed over the next 2000 years. Good luck on that one. Whilst we may take things from it into future I really doubt they will teaching it at universities in 2000 years other than in its historical context. Which of course is my opinion but a reasonable point of view I believe that didn't warrant the response you gave.
So basically you've just said there what I said all along - that it is just a theory and may well and more than likely will be adapted over time. Thanks for that it's always nice when someone proves your point for you and save you the time.
I wonder whether other posters believe that these two theories will remain unchanged it appears even you now think one won't. If that is the case then why did you reply as you did rather than actually take the effort to put that post you've just posted there. See a little effort makes it look a whole lot better even if I don't agree with what you are saying. I mean you are railing against religion so often (which was my contention in that other thread) rather than explain why you just launched off on one and therefore became the very thing you denounced.
Last edited:
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
I think you are being a little bit disingenuous with this one. Calling a scientific theory "just a theory" is the sort of rubbish that kedge comes up with when arguing against evolution. You have more than enough scientific knowledge to know that a scientific theory is more than "just a theory".
Fixed
I just can't be bothered to argue with him m8. He's not amenable to evidence or reason and has demonstrated this in many threads on this forum. I have better things to do with my time than argue with ignorant people on the interweb. Reasonable people viewing this thread will have their own opinions and that's enough for me.
You have more than enough scientific knowledge to know that a scientific theory is more than "just a theory".
And you should maybe have looked at the context it was stated in here. Let me help you;
ie they are not truth. They are open to and will be changed.
I saw the original and I still disagree with what you said in the follow up post.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
I think ignorant is a bit harsh. Xordium seems rather intelligent compared to some of the posters on GD. Also, there seems to be some agreement between your positions.
So do you think those two theories will stand the test of time and still be used in their current form in 2000 years?
They are theories - no more no less - they are not fact, they are mutable to any new evidence and new thought. There is nothing special about a scientific theory - the beauty of science is we always seek explanation but we never assume we have discovered the truth. To make them out to be anything more is to play the very same mistake religions have when attempted to describe the universe and its components and mark them as something elevated akin to truth.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
Dogmatism v Pragmatism
The biggest problem science faces is that experiments with the potential to further existing theories are so expensive.
The biggest problem science faces is that experiments with the potential to further existing theories are so expensive.
I'm not saying he is an ignorant person. I'm saying he's ignorant on the science. We, me too, are all ignorant about a great many things in life. None of us can know everything. When Xordium says a scientific theory is just a theory, it's annoying. It's annoying because this is the same old BS that people who know nothing about science always trot out and it becomes tiresome to repeatedly explain this to people, even more so when after the explanation they just dismiss you. A theory in science is the graduation point of knowledge, you can't get any higher in science than a theory. I just wish people would understand that.
Last edited:
And yet it may be more expensive (long-term) to not further our knowledge.
I have no idea. All I am saying is that when you start using the same sort of language as kedge then you are possibly using the wrong language. "Just a theory" is the same response you get from Creationists trying their best to belittle the mountain of evidence in support of evolution in favour of their narrow interpretation of some bronze age myths. It struck me as wrong coming from someone of your ability and experience.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
I think he does understand it. Nobody knows if any particular scientific theory will be improved in the future, hence it is probably best not to rule out the possibility nor to insist that they won't.
So you have no idea ... now that is interesting. Let me rephrase that: what do you think the likelihood they will remain unchanged is?
I think you drastically misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying they are bad theories or good theories. I am saying they are 'just theories' ie not truth. I would argue when you elevate them into something they are not then you are talking the language of kedge which matters not if the point is valid. In regards to evolution whilst the name has remained the same the ideas behind it have been subtly changed throughout time, added to, adapted and improved. Our current understanding of evolution is far beyond what was originally raised.
Moreover, I don't know where you get the idea I have any ability or experience - I am ignorant when it comes to science.