Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Recent Biblical Archaeology
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ophiolite" data-source="post: 77136156" data-attributes="member: 234799"><p>You were replying to [USER=433007]@Estrid[/USER] , but a couple of points you made caught my eye.</p><p>I'll anticipate Estrid's response to your comment above - she'll correct me if I have her wrong. She and I and any reasonable, educated person would be sceptical of "people who claim their versions of historical events are the absolute truth" . I would go further and say I would be thoroughly dismissive of them, considering them to be ignorant charlatans. Consequently, I'm not sure in what way your comment is relevant. Perhaps you will clarify.</p><p></p><p>The Big Bang Theory has its origins almost a century ago, although it was not until the early 1960s that detection of the background radiation put the nail in the coffin of its main rival, Steady State Theory. Before and since the theory has undergone major developments as new data became available, or old data was reinterpreted. The JWST data is no different in that regard. </p><p></p><p>You also say "some scientists have questions about the theory". This suggests you have a distorted understanding of what science is and how it operates. Of course scientists have questions about the theory. If they didn't they wouldn't be scientists. </p><p></p><p>A theory represents the pinnacle of scientific understanding. It is the product of observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation and testing. Rinse and repeat. It doesn't, ever, get any better than a theory. But every theory can itself get better by the aforementioned efforts. That's all that's happening here. </p><p></p><p>I was always aesthetically attracted to Steady State theory and still harbour a faint and unjustified hope BBT theory may yet be overturned. Unfortunately for that wish there is no practical chance that the JWST data will bring that about. It will just lead to adjustments, clarification and refinement of the existing theory.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, exactly the same. You seem to misunderstand this also. Current evolutionary theory itself evolved from Darwin's work. There have been many changes, exciting, intriguing, challenging, fascinating . . . the list goes on. That's what science does. It pushes the boundaries of understanding. It's almost as if you think challenges to current scientific indicate some sort of weakness, when those challenges are the inherent strength of the discipline.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ophiolite, post: 77136156, member: 234799"] You were replying to [USER=433007]@Estrid[/USER] , but a couple of points you made caught my eye. I'll anticipate Estrid's response to your comment above - she'll correct me if I have her wrong. She and I and any reasonable, educated person would be sceptical of "people who claim their versions of historical events are the absolute truth" . I would go further and say I would be thoroughly dismissive of them, considering them to be ignorant charlatans. Consequently, I'm not sure in what way your comment is relevant. Perhaps you will clarify. The Big Bang Theory has its origins almost a century ago, although it was not until the early 1960s that detection of the background radiation put the nail in the coffin of its main rival, Steady State Theory. Before and since the theory has undergone major developments as new data became available, or old data was reinterpreted. The JWST data is no different in that regard. You also say "some scientists have questions about the theory". This suggests you have a distorted understanding of what science is and how it operates. Of course scientists have questions about the theory. If they didn't they wouldn't be scientists. A theory represents the pinnacle of scientific understanding. It is the product of observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation and testing. Rinse and repeat. It doesn't, ever, get any better than a theory. But every theory can itself get better by the aforementioned efforts. That's all that's happening here. I was always aesthetically attracted to Steady State theory and still harbour a faint and unjustified hope BBT theory may yet be overturned. Unfortunately for that wish there is no practical chance that the JWST data will bring that about. It will just lead to adjustments, clarification and refinement of the existing theory. Yes, exactly the same. You seem to misunderstand this also. Current evolutionary theory itself evolved from Darwin's work. There have been many changes, exciting, intriguing, challenging, fascinating . . . the list goes on. That's what science does. It pushes the boundaries of understanding. It's almost as if you think challenges to current scientific indicate some sort of weakness, when those challenges are the inherent strength of the discipline. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Recent Biblical Archaeology
Top
Bottom