Dinowhat?

[Hespera]

You have to see it the way I see it from my side of the fence.

I’m told that theories that are proven to be true beyond all reasonable doubt are often proven to be false beyond all reasonable doubt.

I’m also told that science doesn't allow for absolute certainty and nothing can be known for certain.

Therefore, I have no reason to take you guys seriously.

I’m told that theories that are proven to be true beyond all reasonable doubt are often proven to be false beyond all reasonable doubt

Then it should be easy to name a half dozen of those theories. Care to do so?

proven to be false beyond all reasonable doubt

and if anyone told you that he is an idiot. I think you just made that up.

The pronounced and frequently displayed tendency to make things up is a real good reason not to take you guys seriously.

 

[Split Rock]

You have to see it the way I see it from my side of the fence.

I’m told that theories that are proven to be true beyond all reasonable doubt are often proven to be false beyond all reasonable doubt.

I’m also told that science doesn't allow for absolute certainty and nothing can be known for certain.

Therefore, I have no reason to take you guys seriously.

You "know" all this stuff for certain, and you claim it is because you have God's mind. Is there any reason we should take you seriously??

 

[Insane_Duck]

You have to see it the way I see it from my side of the fence.

I’m told that theories that are proven to be true beyond all reasonable doubt are often proven to be false beyond all reasonable doubt.

I’m also told that science doesn't allow for absolute certainty and nothing can be known for certain.

Therefore, I have no reason to take you guys seriously.

Like hespera said. How many examples do you have? The more established a theory gets, the harder it is to overturn. Just because of all the supporting evidence.

 

[Hespera]

Like hespera said. How many examples do you have? The more established a theory gets, the harder it is to overturn. Just because of all the supporting evidence.

We arent ever going to get them. he just made that up and wont ever take resopnsibility for it ,either.

 

[Doveaman]

Like hespera said. How many examples do you have? The more established a theory gets, the harder it is to overturn. Just because of all the supporting evidence.

It does not matter how harder it is. If a theory is ever overturned, this means it was never a “fact”. So your scientific descriptions are misleading.

 

[Doveaman]

We arent ever going to get them. he just made that up and wont ever take resopnsibility for it ,either.

Get what, Hespera? Do you mean the many examples of scientific theories that were falsified beyond all reasonable doubt over the years?

And if a theory is a "fact" then how can you have more than one theory for a single idea, like moon formation theories?

And if moon formation theories are "facts" then why are scientist having doubts about them?

"It found 100 times more water in the beads than has been measured before, and suggests that the Moon once held a Caribbean Sea-sized volume of water. The find also casts doubt on aspects of theories of how the Moon first formed."

BBC News - Moon's interior water casts doubt on formation theory

 

[Psudopod]

Get what, Hespera? Do you mean the many examples of scientific theories that were falsified beyond all reasonable doubt over the years?

And if a theory is a "fact" then how can you have more than one theory for a single idea, like moon formation theories?

And if moon formation theories are "facts" then why are scientist having doubts about them?

"It found 100 times more water in the beads than has been measured before, and suggests that the Moon once held a Caribbean Sea-sized volume of water. The find also casts doubt on aspects of theories of how the Moon first formed."

BBC News - Moon's interior water casts doubt on formation theory

Who said theories = facts?

 

[mzungu]

It does not matter how harder it is. If a theory is ever overturned, this means it was never a “fact”. So your scientific descriptions are misleading.

Once more you are toying with a word you do not understand. Theories are not facts. Theories explain the evidences which are facts. eg: The Empirical Evidences shows that:

The moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 3.78cm per year. This is a FACT.

Tidal forces between the Earth and Moon force the Earth's rotation to slow down whereas the moons orbital speed to increase resulting in the increasing distance between the moon and Earth. This is a FACT.

The theory of General relativity amongst others EXPLAINS these FACTS.

We need theories to explain the evidences and data we have.

Is this so hard to understand. If you continue to skew the meaning of the word theory when it has been explained to you then you are just being disingenuous and we should in all honesty just ignore you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Get what, Hespera? Do you mean the many examples of scientific theories that were falsified beyond all reasonable doubt over the years?

And if a theory is a "fact" then how can you have more than one theory for a single idea, like moon formation theories?

And if moon formation theories are "facts" then why are scientist having doubts about them?

"It found 100 times more water in the beads than has been measured before, and suggests that the Moon once held a Caribbean Sea-sized volume of water. The find also casts doubt on aspects of theories of how the Moon first formed."

BBC News - Moon's interior water casts doubt on formation theory

Why do scientific facts become disproven? Because facts are established items of knowledge. Usually, they come from observations ("It is a fact that the sky is blue"), but they can also come from extraordinarily well-established theories - these theories are so well evidenced that they're treated as if they were hard-and-fast facts.

Consider the existence of atoms. Strictly speaking, they're theoretical. They're inferred from various phenomena. But, the evidence is so monumentally overwhelming that they're treated as if they're facts, as if their existence is as well known as the existence of trees and cats.

The Moon has five main scientific explanations for its formation, and the consensus (and the evidence) has generally settled on the Great Impact hypothesis. However, powerful new evidence may well come along that contradicts this hypothesis and supports another, thus shifting the consensus. This spread of explanations comes from the sheer lack of conclusive evidence we have as to the Moon's origin. Things like atoms and evolution, on the other hand, have accrued so much evidence that they are the one theory in their field that has stood the test of time. For all intents and purposes, they're facts.

In other words, a) an establish fact may well be an extraordinarily well-evidenced theory, and b) not every theory, hypothesis, or tentative explanation get the esteemed title of 'fact'.

 

[Hespera]

Why do scientific facts become disproven? Because facts are established items of knowledge. Usually, they come from observations ("It is a fact that the sky is blue"), but they can also come from extraordinarily well-established theories - these theories are so well evidenced that they're treated as if they were hard-and-fast facts.

Consider the existence of atoms. Strictly speaking, they're theoretical. They're inferred from various phenomena. But, the evidence is so monumentally overwhelming that they're treated as if they're facts, as if their existence is as well known as the existence of trees and cats.

The Moon has five main scientific explanations for its formation, and the consensus (and the evidence) has generally settled on the Great Impact hypothesis. However, powerful new evidence may well come along that contradicts this hypothesis and supports another, thus shifting the consensus. This spread of explanations comes from the sheer lack of conclusive evidence we have as to the Moon's origin. Things like atoms and evolution, on the other hand, have accrued so much evidence that they are the one theory in their field that has stood the test of time. For all intents and purposes, they're facts.

In other words, a) an establish fact may well be an extraordinarily well-evidenced theory, and b) not every theory, hypothesis, or tentative explanation get the esteemed title of 'fact'.

i hope you wont muddy the water misusing the word 'fact".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

i hope you wont muddy the water misusing the word 'fact".

How have I misused the word 'fact'? I wrote quite a lot to explain what I meant by the term.

 

[mzungu]

i hope you wont muddy the water misusing the word 'fact".

How have I misused the word 'fact'? I wrote quite a lot to explain what I meant by the term.

Shhhhh!!!!! Keep it down; If a Creo hears you two arguing over the word "Facts" then there is no hope for mankind!