what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?

[Bradskii]

The theory that black holes existed has been proven.

You seem to be completely unaware that a theory is an explanation that best fits the facts that we have. It can make predictions and can be tested. There was no 'theory of black holes'. But there was the theory of general relativity which predicted black holes.

Facts can be proved true or false. Theories are either revised or discarded.

 

[John Caldwell]

You seem to be completely unaware that a theory is an explanation that best fits the facts that we have. It can make predictions and can be tested. There was no 'theory of black holes'. But there was the theory of general relativity which predicted black holes.

Facts can be proved true or false. Theories are either revised or discarded.

I know what a theory means. And I get that different people believe different theories best fit the facts.

I have a work associate who is a nuclear physicist. He is convinced all science points to a creator. Another (in the same building) is an agnostic who believes in intelligent design. Yet another is an atheist from China I met a few years ago (same facility, different building).

There are three competing views, each from scientists who have at minimum a PhD.

So which one meets your criteria of "theory" (which one best fits the facts we have)? The one you believe, of course. Your definition is too subjective.


My point is theories are not facts - not the definition of "theory" as there are many (often depending on the context).

 

[Bradskii]

So which one meets your criteria of "theory" (which one best fits the facts we have)?

It seems you've hit upon the answer by accident. The best theory is the one that fits the facts that we have.

And an agnostic who believes in creationism? You gotta larf...

 

[Andre_b]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Got any evidence of these accusations?

You got any evidence for your accusations? You’re the one that started with the exact accusations.
I gave you a series which the first video of the series talks about the entire Big Bang pseudoscience philosophy.

Here it is again, the direct video explaining. Since it seems you glanced at my comment:

 

[John Caldwell]

It seems you've hit upon the answer by accident. The best theory is the one that fits the facts that we have.

And an agnostic who believes in creationism? You gotta larf...

Not an agnostic who believes in Creationism. An agnostic who believes in intelligent design.

I'd call him a Theist, except he doesn't believe we can know a god exists. He insists the evidence necessitates some design (without going so far as personifying a designer).

In other words, scientific facts about our world are best explained by the theory there is an intelligence behind the universe. He stops there.

By your standard Creationism is, however, a legitimate theory because it is the best one we have that fits the facts (per one group of scientists). Intelligent design is another theory because it is the best one we have that fits the facts (per another group of scientists). And evolution is just one more theory because it is the best one we have that fits the facts (per another group of scientists).

Unfortunately your definition renders itself useless. Your argument could be an appeal to the masses ("most scientists believe...."), but then again that's a logical fallacy.

What you are talking about is theories accepted in certain groups. But then we are talking about subjective truth. I do not believe in subjective truth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not an agnostic who believes in Creationism. An agnostic who believes in intelligent design.

I'd call him a Theist, except he doesn't believe we can know a god exists. He insists the evidence necessitates some design (without going so far as personifying a designer).

In other words, scientific facts about our world are best explained by the theory there is an intelligence behind the universe. He stops there.

By your standard Creationism is, however, a legitimate theory because it is the best one we have that fits the facts (per one group of scientists). Intelligent design is another theory because it is the best one we have that fits the facts (per another group of scientists). And evolution is just one more theory because it is the best one we have that fits the facts (per another group of scientists).

Unfortunately your definition renders itself useless. Your argument could be an appeal to the masses ("most scientists believe...."), but then again that's a logical fallacy.

What you are talking about is theories accepted in certain groups. But then we are talking about subjective truth. I do not believe in subjective truth.

One of the philosophical and sociological problems in all of this, even as it pertains to our individual discernments about Cosmology and/or our human history and Existence, is that we all have different levels of understanding, different levels of education, AND different levels of trust in various other individuals and groups who attempt to "inform" us about the nature of these things.

Ultimately, most of us also have to go on 2nd hand (or tertiary) reports and interpretations to make up our minds and our committments where these issues are relevant in our lives since we have little or no way to verify them for ourselves.

So, where God's possible hand in everything is concerned, it's always an open << ? >>

And that's life ...

 

[chilehed]

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdbXyyVfVp-55KmIH5gQhYVUZ9xE5sXeA

You rely on Walter Veith as an expert in astrophysics?? *rolleyes*

 

[Yttrium]

So which one meets your criteria of "theory" (which one best fits the facts we have)? The one you believe, of course. Your definition is too subjective.

You know, it's quite possible to consider something to be most likely without fully believing in it.

I don't have faith in any scientific theory, being a skeptical type of person. I just consider it to be the best natural explanation we have... for the time being. It might not be correct, but it's designed to fit the facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't have faith in any scientific theory, being a skeptical type of person. I just consider it to be the best natural explanation we have... for the time being. It might not be correct, but it's designed to fit the facts.

And what happens when a "natural explanation" comes in contact with a miracle?

 

[Astrid]

You rely on Walter Veith as an expert in astrophysics?? *rolleyes*

And a YouTube vid.

 

[Astrid]

You seem to be completely unaware that a theory is an explanation that best fits the facts that we have. It can make predictions and can be tested. There was no 'theory of black holes'. But there was the theory of general relativity which predicted black holes.

Facts can be proved true or false. Theories are either revised or discarded.

Those who claim understanding beyond that of any researcher
on earth invariably turn out to be unaware of even
the basics of Intro to remedial science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those who claim understanding beyond that of any researcher on earth invariably turn out to be unaware of even the basics of Intro to remedial science.

Can a person enjoy the smell of flowers or a newly-mowed lawn, without being aware of even the basics of botany?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You got any evidence for your accusations? You’re the one that started with the exact accusations.
I gave you a series which the first video of the series talks about the entire Big Bang pseudoscience philosophy.

Here it is again, the direct video explaining. Since it seems you glanced at my comment:

I'm not interested in your videos, only your words. Care to try again?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You rely on Walter Veith as an expert in astrophysics?? *rolleyes*

Never heard of him. Who is he?

--- googling --- googling --- googling ---

Oh my! A creationist zoologist. No evidence in his bio he knows squat about astrophysics.

 

[NxNW]

No, the Theory of Evolution (which technically is not even a true scientific theory as it cannot be proven via the scientific method)

No theory can be proved, only disproved. Failure to disprove it is an indication of accuracy. The ToE has never been disproved after 160 years.

Evolution does occur, at least within a species.

Speciation -- the creation of new species -- occurs. It has been documented in nature and in the lab. If you accept this, and you have to, there is no problem with the entire Theory of Evolution, because speciation is all you need.

BUT the idea all species evolved from a common species is less than a scientific theory. It is merely an idea based on applying scientific principles (micro evolution) to all life.

All evidence points toward common ancestry. Pick any two species, and there is a common ancestor if you go back far enough. The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins explains this as well as anything.

Then again, none of this has anything to do with the age of the universe, so we're getting off track.

 

[NxNW]

there are also Lamarckism (excludes natural selection), Orthogenesis (organisms changing towards a goal), Vitalism, among other theories.

These may have been hypotheses, but they are not theories.

 

[NxNW]

I know what a theory means.

Your posts prove otherwise. A theory is not affected by belief.

I have a work associate who is a nuclear physicist. He is convinced all science points to a creator. Another (in the same building) is an agnostic who believes in intelligent design. Yet another is an atheist from China I met a few years ago (same facility, different building).

There are three competing views, each from scientists who have at minimum a PhD.

So which one meets your criteria of "theory" (which one best fits the facts we have)? The one you believe, of course. Your definition is too subjective.

If it doesn't make testable predictions, it's not a theory.

If you can conceive of a test such that, if it fails, Creation or Intelligent Design are disproved, then you might be able to call them theories. Otherwise, they are not.

 

[Yttrium]

And what happens when a "natural explanation" comes in contact with a miracle?

Then we look for a non-science explanation. Science is a tool for finding natural explanations. We break open the toolbox and find another tool.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then we look for a non-science explanation.

And what would that look like?

 

[Yttrium]

And what would that look like?

I'm not sure, but I'm hoping that it involves cute magical girl warriors fighting for love and justice.