13 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI accept a theory can be wrong. However, the fact is that modern theories are based on stacks of evidence. They are not the hypotheses that you describe.
You really need me to look through the past and find theories that
were found wrong in the past? That is the point, they can be wrong,
and if you need me to find a few I will.
Kelly
13 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm curious as to why you see scientific theories as being so entirely flawed and you consistently repeat that they are "only theories" when they became scientific theories only because they have a great deal of evidence behind them and they match better than anything else we have in their explanation of natural phenomena.
You really need me to look through the past and find theories that
were found wrong in the past? That is the point, they can be wrong,
and if you need me to find a few I will.
Kelly
I'm curious whether you put that same kind of criticism towards your own faith? Of course, creationism isn't "just a theory", ID isn't a scientific theory, and religion "isn't just a theory" but they also don't have any major evidence behind them.
If religion stuck with their claims and didn't admit fallibility, would you respect it more?
The point is that the strength of scientific thoeries is that they change to match the evidence. Religion has not changed to match the evidence for the vast majority of cases and it has no apparent reliable method to do so.
13 May 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI'm sorry, when I said:
I'm curious as to why you see scientific theories as being so entirely flawed and you consistently repeat that they are "only theories" when they became scientific theories only because they have a great deal of evidence behind them and they match better than anything else we have in their explanation of natural phenomena.
I'm curious whether you put t ...[text shortened]... nce for the vast majority of cases and it has no apparent reliable method to do so.
"
If religion stuck with their claims and didn't admit fallibility, would you respect it more? "
I meant if science stuck with their claims..etc..
14 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI've seen you and others here paint "facts" and dress them up to
I accept a theory can be wrong. However, the fact is that modern theories are based on stacks of evidence. They are not the hypotheses that you describe.
mean what you want. I'm not at all as certain half the stuff you think
is true, is. I'm not calling you a lair here either, you may truly believe
what think is true about the universe, but it doesn't mean you have
all your facts straight.
Kelly
14 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayPerhaps, not everything we think is true really is. I accept that. I'm ALWAYS willing to change my mind as and when the balance of evidence shifts. Anyone who believes in a literal reading of the bible is unable to do that, because they lend no credibility to the evidence. That is to say they trust the words in one book as greater than the sum total of the evidence to the contrary. THAT is intellectual dishonesty, in my opinion.
I've seen you and others here paint "facts" and dress them up to
mean what you want. I'm not at all as certain half the stuff you think
is true, is. I'm not calling you a lair here either, you may truly believe
what think is true about the universe, but it doesn't mean you have
all your facts straight.
Kelly
15 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain you try to misrepresent science here KJ.
I've seen you and others here paint "facts" and dress them up to
mean what you want. I'm not at all as certain half the stuff you think
is true, is. I'm not calling you a lair here either, you may truly believe
what think is true about the universe, but it doesn't mean you have
all your facts straight.
Kelly
Scientists rarely claim everything they know to be fact, all they do is present the most likely cause based on current evidence. Science is progressive and adaptive, ideas change as new evidence comes to light. No one ignores evidence just because it contradicts previous findings or beliefs, it just means the previous hypothesis needs modification. Yes, in some cases hypotheses get entirely disgarded, but all this just shows how good and unbiased the scientific process can be. Yes I say unbiased, because science is not controlled by one person. Science is a peer reviewed process where everyone can contribute evidence to the understanding of any given topic.
If you or anyone can present evidence to debunk even the greatest scientific theories, then do so, the scientific community will gladly consider the evidence.
Science is not a conspiracy to indoctrine a way of thinking, its a search to progress our understanding; it is never a static fundamentalist belief.
15 May 08
Originally posted by timebombtedI don't think you care what I write you just have a list of complaints
Again you try to misrepresent science here KJ.
Scientists rarely claim everything they know to be fact, all they do is present the most likely cause based on current evidence. Science is progressive and adaptive, ideas change as new evidence comes to light. No one ignores evidence just because it contradicts previous findings or beliefs, it just means ...[text shortened]... hinking, its a search to progress our understanding; it is never a static fundamentalist belief.
you are going to use regardless of what I say. You said, again I tried
to misrepresent science here, yet the word science wasn't part of my
post at all. I give up, you win, you have your belief system and you
will complain and if there isn't anything to complain about you will
make it up, there is a word for that you know, but I doubt it will sink
in.
Kelly
15 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayBut of course you do. I really don't care if you reply or not.
I've seen you and others here paint "facts" and dress them up to
mean what you want. I'm not at all as certain half the stuff you think
is true, is. I'm not calling you a lair here either, you may truly believe
what think is true about the universe, but it doesn't mean you have
all your facts straight.
Kelly
16 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIf your words below are not related to science, then I apologise and would like to here what, other than science, you were addressing?
I don't think you care what I write you just have a list of complaints
you are going to use regardless of what I say. You said, again I tried
to misrepresent science here, yet the word science wasn't part of my
post at all. I give up, you win, you have your belief system and you
will complain and if there isn't anything to complain about you will
make it up, there is a word for that you know, but I doubt it will sink
in.
Kelly
"I've seen you and others here paint "facts" and dress them up to
mean what you want. I'm not at all as certain half the stuff you think
is true, is. I'm not calling you a lair here either, you may truly believe
what think is true about the universe, but it doesn't mean you have
all your facts straight."
16 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayNothing is being made up KJ, yet another of your mis-representations.
I don't think you care what I write you just have a list of complaints
you are going to use regardless of what I say. You said, again I tried
to misrepresent science here, yet the word science wasn't part of my
post at all. I give up, you win, you have your belief system and you
will complain and if there isn't anything to complain about you will
make it up, there is a word for that you know, but I doubt it will sink
in.
Kelly
I gave you an explanation of what science is, to show that facts are not made up.
16 May 08
Originally posted by timebombtedI was talking about "you and others" as you can see I did not say
If your words below are not related to science, then I apologise and would like to here what, other than science, you were addressing?
"I've seen you and others here paint "facts" and dress them up to
mean what you want. I'm not at all as certain half the stuff you think
is true, is. I'm not calling you a lair here either, you may truly believe
...[text shortened]... ink is true about the universe, but it doesn't mean you have
all your facts straight."
science, it is simply what I said, not how you recieved it.
Kelly
16 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedOkay you did not use the word liar, "mis-representation" is how you
Nothing is being made up KJ, yet another of your mis-representations.
I gave you an explanation of what science is, to show that facts are not made up.
are suggesting I attacked something I wasn't even talking about?
Kelly
16 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedNothing is being made up; I was talking about you and others "HERE"
Nothing is being made up KJ, yet another of your mis-representations.
I gave you an explanation of what science is, to show that facts are not made up.
and you are accusing me of attacking science. Speaking about
you and others here is attacking science? I was not aware you guys
were science incarnate? Can we please get away from something I was
not saying and go back to those things I did say, if I have to defend
myself I would prefer doing that over something I was saying not over
something you claimed I said and I didn’t.
Kelly
22 May 08
From the Bose-Einstein Condensate entry in Wikipedia: In 1999, Danish physicist Lene Vestergaard Hau led a team from Harvard University who succeeded in slowing a beam of light to about 17 metres per second and, in 2001, was able to momentarily stop a beam. She was able to achieve this by using a superfluid. Hau and her associates at Harvard University have since successfully transformed light into matter and back into light using Bose-Einstein condensates.[citation needed] Details of the experiment are discussed in an article in the journal Nature, 8 February 2007. [12]
22 May 08
Originally posted by eamon oNow THAT is impressive! Won't this change a lot of the physics we were taught concerning the absolute unchanging nature of the speed of light? If the speed of light can be stopped completely, e=mc2, can become e=0, right?
From the Bose-Einstein Condensate entry in Wikipedia: In 1999, Danish physicist Lene Vestergaard Hau led a team from Harvard University who succeeded in slowing a beam of light to about 17 metres per second and, in 2001, was able to momentarily stop a beam. She was able to achieve this by using a superfluid. Hau and her associates at Harvard University have ...[text shortened]... tails of the experiment are discussed in an article in the journal Nature, 8 February 2007. [12]