Originally posted by BadzMaro:Do you even really know what you are talking about Larryteo ? But its not TRUTH. Do u understand what i mean. We are talking about the domain and purpose of science. Its not about winning debates. Its about the quest for seeking the truth. Its not about winning or losing. In my view, both ought to be side by side winning it.
Please dont make yourself look any dumber and more stupid. Its already bad enough i am trying to explain the SIMPLE concept of science. Are you a scientist ? Go ask your scientist friends. I am talking about major graduates. Go ask ur physicist friend what is Science. Please. Dont take my word. Go and make ask yourself for credible seeable evidence, maby he will even start to draw graphs and formulate you the answer so u may comprehend.
Why not you introduce some to me. And may I know why Richard Dawkins who is also a scientist can ridicule christianity while not being called DUMB?
Besides, you have yet to answer WHY is it that everything in the bible adds up to say Earth is 6000 years old while there are tribes who are 30 000 years old and a religion called hinduism which is 10 000 years old.
Science... explains.. the mysteries of the universe........ gravity do no disappear if it is not proven. Its not based on the NEED for truth. They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?
As said, science explained the natural phenomenon in the world. I agree science did not create gravity. It just states wat is gravity. And tat statement is a fact and a truth. Science establish tis truth. And as pointed up by another forumer, theory itself is a strong word tat represents scientific fact tat is observable and verifiable.
U got to understand some words like theory have multiple meanings. It is like the word paper. It could represent serious hard word from a group of prestigious researchers to be published for peer review and could change the view of the whole world. Paper could also means the thing u use to wipe your ass after shitting. R u gonna say the group of researchers just write paper for people to wipe their ass with ? U need to get the right meaning of words and debate using tat right context. Otherwise u r just playing with words
If we come down to Egypt, you have to understand the political makeup of the country... sigh... but just to answer ur hypothetical question to my statement, i believe it is wrong, even with no affirmnation nor denial, is becasue, using my current knowledge of science, reasoning, logic and the tale of pang gu, is way more skeptical then that of the case of the Red sea. I hope u understand what i mean now.
I think tat u feel the people of egypt r stupid and refuse to believe in your god after so much miracles, and nobody talk about it or record such events even from the religious aspect. I can understand why u r skeptical about the story of pang gu but I find them largely similar with genesis 1. It is too fairytale. I mean the story of a god create a world in 7 days, and the story of a god who break from a shell and tat forms earth... from my scientific knowledge, wat is the diff ?
Originally posted by Larryteo:Why not you introduce some to me. And may I know why Richard Dawkins who is also a scientist can ridicule christianity while not being called DUMB?
Because Richard Dawkins argument is different from the way you answer. Unless u want to compare your argument and logic with him, i dont think you two are on the same level. And his understanding of science and the way he brings forth his arguments is not unfounded.
Originally posted by BadzMaro:Because Richard Dawkins argument is different from the way you answer. Unless u want to compare your argument and logic with him, i dont think you two are on the same level. And his understanding of science and the way he brings forth his arguments is not unfounded.
You have yet to answer my questions regarding the age of the Earth between bible and reality.
Originally posted by reservistsianz:Science... explains.. the mysteries of the universe........ gravity do no disappear if it is not proven. Its not based on the NEED for truth. They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?
As said, science explained the natural phenomenon in the world. I agree science did not create gravity. It just states wat is gravity. And tat statement is a fact and a truth. Science establish tis truth. And as pointed up by another forumer, theory itself is a strong word tat represents scientific fact tat is observable and verifiable.
U got to understand some words like theory have multiple meanings. It is like the word paper. It could represent serious hard word from a group of prestigious researchers to be published for peer review and could change the view of the whole world. Paper could also means the thing u use to wipe your ass after shitting. R u gonna say the group of researchers just write paper for people to wipe their ass with ? U need to get the right meaning of words and debate using tat right context. Otherwise u r just playing with words
If we come down to Egypt, you have to understand the political makeup of the country... sigh... but just to answer ur hypothetical question to my statement, i believe it is wrong, even with no affirmnation nor denial, is becasue, using my current knowledge of science, reasoning, logic and the tale of pang gu, is way more skeptical then that of the case of the Red sea. I hope u understand what i mean now.
I think tat u feel the people of egypt r stupid and refuse to believe in your god after so much miracles, and nobody talk about it or record such events even from the religious aspect. I can understand why u r skeptical about the story of pang gu but I find them largely similar with genesis 1. It is too fairytale. I mean the story of a god create a world in 7 days, and the story of a god who break from a shell and tat forms earth... from my scientific knowledge, wat is the diff ?
Whats the difference? The fact that it is written in the bible, so IT MUST BE TRUE!
Originally posted by reservistsianz:Science... explains.. the mysteries of the universe........ gravity do no disappear if it is not proven. Its not based on the NEED for truth. They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?
As said, science explained the natural phenomenon in the world. I agree science did not create gravity. It just states wat is gravity. And tat statement is a fact and a truth. Science establish tis truth. And as pointed up by another forumer, theory itself is a strong word tat represents scientific fact tat is observable and verifiable.
U got to understand some words like theory have multiple meanings. It is like the word paper. It could represent serious hard word from a group of prestigious researchers to be published for peer review and could change the view of the whole world. Paper could also means the thing u use to wipe your ass after shitting. R u gonna say the group of researchers just write paper for people to wipe their ass with ? U need to get the right meaning of words and debate using tat right context. Otherwise u r just playing with words
If we come down to Egypt, you have to understand the political makeup of the country... sigh... but just to answer ur hypothetical question to my statement, i believe it is wrong, even with no affirmnation nor denial, is becasue, using my current knowledge of science, reasoning, logic and the tale of pang gu, is way more skeptical then that of the case of the Red sea. I hope u understand what i mean now.
I think tat u feel the people of egypt r stupid and refuse to believe in your god after so much miracles, and nobody talk about it or record such events even from the religious aspect. I can understand why u r skeptical about the story of pang gu but I find them largely similar with genesis 1. It is too fairytale. I mean the story of a god create a world in 7 days, and the story of a god who break from a shell and tat forms earth... from my scientific knowledge, wat is the diff ?
You still dont understand the concept of science. Until now. The domain of science. How old are you actually ? If i may ask. And what field of study are u in ? I am curious. Science does NOT establish THAT TRUTH. Explains the Reasons.. WHY. I Its not thier domain, hence Science is always seeking EXPLAINATION WHY. Do you understand. The fact, is gravity exists, is TRUE since the beginning of time does not mean science SAYS its true. IT merely, EXPLAINS.. that 9.81ms2 , WHY. Disbelieving gravity or disproving gravity's existence does not matter, as gravity IS still there. Thats the TRUTH. The TRUTH is that 9.81ms2 is gravity ON THIS PLANET. Can u see the difference here.
Its to unravel the mysteries of the universe , HOW and WHY it works the way it works and try to REPLICATE it. When you do your applied mechanics and physics, its not TRUTH, it explains WHY.
Your words have to be exact. Even when u say Theories have different meanings like paper, i was not the one who used the word TRUTH and FACT when its not right to be used in this context. U say i need to get the right meaning for the right context ? But do you even full understand your own meaning in the full context and understand my meaning ? because if you dont understand the simple concept of Science, Truth and Fact, how can u say that i am the one that is playing with words ?
And as for Pangu , 7 days cannot be taking literally but figuratively. Time and space is different from God. When he stretches his arms, and when the Sun rises and sets, it doesnt mean his bodily function of spreading his arms. Do you understand what i mean. The Sun RISES and SETS, doesnt mean earth is the centre of the universe. Its a figuratively.
*edited for your sake Stupidissmart* which i told u it admit my mistake in that statement*
Originally posted by Larryteo:You have yet to answer my questions regarding the age of the Earth between bible and reality.
Did u READ my posts ?
have u even attempted them ? The date of the earth was not 7 days old or what nots. Why do you guys take things so literally ? What happened to being open minded and think OUTSIDE the square. You guys are thinking IN the square.
I think u r realy confused here. Gravity exists but who is the one tat inform the world its existence ? Science ! Who informs the world about facts such as freezing point or dynamics etc ? Science ! They stated the truth. U r saying tat they did not create gavrity etc. I agee with u. But they tell us wat is true and wat is not true in tis world. They stated the truth about gravity.
Let me ask u a hypothetical question. I saw john kill mary. I told the police john kill mary. Am I stating the truth ? Or am I just explaining how mary got killed ? Or did I just try to say how and why mary got killed ? Can't u see tat the words I told to the police "explaining" and "how" mary got killed is the truth itself ? U r just rephrasing the same sentence in another matter and rejecting the original sentence.
For your 7 days explanation, I find tat u have already twisted the actual literal understanding of the whole passage. The bible explicitly said tat a day is morning and night, the day which we interprete it as, 24hrs. Now u say it is just figuratively. U could just take any lines and say it is just "figuratively" and totally twist the actual literal understanding of the word. Then u r in big trouble because u r already controlled by some organisation who could twist and turn any words in the bible for their own liking.
lets use the dicitionary to state wat it is truth
Truth: From dictionary.com
the true or actual state of a matter:
conformity with fact or reality
a verified or indisputable fact
Now science says there is gravity. Did it says the true or actual state of a matter (gravity) Yes. Did if conform with fact and reality ? Yes. Is it a verified and indisputable fact ? Yes. Science has stated a truth
Thats why Science EXPLAINS why the apple that went up must come down....
You dont use science to EXPLAIN , the forensics , experts go about WHY.. she was killed.. HOW. You just state the TRUTH of the FACT. Because you saw with your own eyes. Because tha tis YOUR TRUTH, hence the JURY decides whether your TRUTH is FACT.
They stated the TRUTH about gravity in regards to it being 9.81ms2, not because gravity is the TRUTH. I am rejecting the original sentence but not rephrasing it, because that is how u properly state the science and its relevence to the truth and fact. But Science is not TRUTH. U get it ?
That 7 days explaination is just for THAT sentence. Well, i did not say that day and night is 24 hours have to be taken figuratively, u are again putting things in my mouth. There are times when we notice that our literaly interpretation is wrong, thats why we use science to EXPLAIN and hence understood the actual figurative meaning. Because the bible itself during that time, they hardly know quantumn physics, seismology , how do u expect them to narrate it ? We are now more educated , hence we are able to understand better.
The Jericho walls if during that time, u use geotechnical and geophysics to measure its seismic waves and do resistivity on it, u will get the EXPLAINATION as to why the walls collapse. Back then, they do not understand. But was merely told, to do so with thier faith that the walls will collapse.
Hence, i am not twisting n turning. Because i believe in science as much as i believe the bible. And hence i am more open minded to the figurative narration and interpretations.
Originally posted by reservistsianz:lets use the dicitionary to state wat it is truth
Truth: From dictionary.com
the true or actual state of a matter:
conformity with fact or reality
a verified or indisputable fact
Now science says there is gravity. Did it says the true or actual state of a matter (gravity) Yes. Did if conform with fact and reality ? Yes. Is it a verified and indisputable fact ? Yes. Science has stated a truth
sigh..
The conception of approximative truth (or verisimilitude). The concepts of relative error, and degree of inadequacy are introduced. By means of them the concept of truth-content of quantitative facts-statements, laws and theories is defined. Laws and theories accepted in science have a high truth-content, i.e. they are approximately true.
Below is just a brief explaintation to your truth and fact in the murder scenario.
Truthful answers and factual answers are identical to questions like “What time did you go to bed last night?”, “How much are 2 + 2 or 99 + 1?”, “Did you steal that money?”
And most of the time, truth and fact also seem to be permanent and non-negotiable. But that is not always 100% absolutely the case.
When you fly to another country, for instance, “what time did you go to bed last night?” might be answered in terms of the time in the zone one started from, in the zone one landed, or possibly in one of the zones in between. Even if you stay at home, the answer might be the point at which you turned off the television and started your nightly routine. It might be the point at which you got into bed with a book, when you actually turned the light out, or when you estimate you went to sleep.
How much are two and two won’t always be four if one is adding two glasses of water into a single pitcher, and 99 + 1 might still equal 1 if one is talking about pennies and dollars.
The answer to whether you stole that money might very much depend on what you mean by “steal.” If someone owed you five dollars and you took it out of their wallet when they weren’t home to pay for a pizza together that evening, the answer might be rather different than if you lifted the same wallet from the pocket of a shopper in the local mall.
Things really get complicated when what the world accepts as “fact” actually changes. This happens in science far more often than most people realize. But why and when facts are not absolute, permanent, and fixed in science is a topic for another post.
You dont use science to EXPLAIN , the forensics , experts go about WHY.. she was killed.. HOW. You just state the TRUTH of the FACT. Because you saw with your own eyes. Because tha tis YOUR TRUTH, hence the JURY decides whether your TRUTH is FACT.
I told u the scenario of I saw john kill mary. Tat is the truth. I tell the jury tis fact. Wat I said is the truth. Whether the jury believe me or otherwise is not even part of the picture. I stated the truth and tat is all. Full stop. Science, as wat u describe, explain why the apple falls down. It uses the explanation gravity. And tat is a fact and a truth. If u say gravity is not a truth, then the only logical conclusion left is gravity is a lie. U don't even believe in gravity ? Or r u redefining the word truth ?
The 7 days and "morning" and "night" r from the bible.
genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Now u say tat our literal reading of the passage is wrong, and tat the people who wrote them knows nothing about science. I am sorry but aren't these people trying to be science ? They try to explain how the world comes about. They r wrong. And the bible is supposed to be true for all times. Now wat u r trying to achieve is asking people to believe in the bible for some part and not believe in other parts. Selective reading. If u cannot use your own literal interpretation to some simple text and has to depend on other organisation, then u r controlled by them. Cults also practise selective reading to their own scriptures and non interpretation on the scripture by themselves but from someone of a higher authority. Some cults even use the bible itself. Wat is the difference between u and them ? Why they r wrong and u must be right ?
u r again playing with wat is truth or not true. Wat u say is just sometime truth is hard to come about. However in the scenario I given (john murder mary), the truth is straightforward. And I have stated it accurately out to the police (john kill mary). For science, it had stated many statements, and some very obvious and straightforward, like existence of gravity. It stated the truth.We observe tat things fall to the ground and it is due to gravity and tat is true. Then wat is the issue here now ? Do u agree tat science can state wat is the truth ?
Originally posted by reservistsianz:You dont use science to EXPLAIN , the forensics , experts go about WHY.. she was killed.. HOW. You just state the TRUTH of the FACT. Because you saw with your own eyes. Because tha tis YOUR TRUTH, hence the JURY decides whether your TRUTH is FACT.
I told u the scenario of I saw john kill mary. Tat is the truth. I tell the jury tis fact. Wat I said is the truth. Whether the jury believe me or otherwise is not even part of the picture. I stated the truth and tat is all. Full stop. Science, as wat u describe, explain why the apple falls down. It uses the explanation gravity. And tat is a fact and a truth. If u say gravity is not a truth, then the only logical conclusion left is gravity is a lie. U don't even believe in gravity ? Or r u redefining the word truth ?
The 7 days and "morning" and "night" r from the bible.
genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Now u say tat our literal reading of the passage is wrong, and tat the people who wrote them knows nothing about science. I am sorry but aren't these people trying to be science ? They try to explain how the world comes about. They r wrong. And the bible is supposed to be true for all times. Now wat u r trying to achieve is asking people to believe in the bible for some part and not believe in other parts. Selective reading. If u cannot use your own literal interpretation to some simple text and has to depend on other organisation, then u r controlled by them. Cults also practise selective reading to their own scriptures and non interpretation on the scripture by themselves but from someone of a higher authority. Some cults even use the bible itself. Wat is the difference between u and them ? Why they r wrong and u must be right ?
Why would gravity be a lie when Science already explains why the apple falls down ? The truth is that its 9.81ms2 on this planet. I never rejected it. Hence its TRUE that gravity exist. Like i said again n again... it is Science's explaination of WHY Gravity works. The Truth is Gravity Exists. U get it ? So i did no reject the explaination or reject the existence of Gravity, so why would gravity not be True in your context when it was never False? Science EXPLAINS WHY... it doesnt state the TRUTH.
WTF.. i didnt say ur literal interpretations is wrong what are u talking about ? I said i agree with the literal explainations that night and day, a day is 24 hours. They wrote what they saw, the recorded it with divine inspirations. And images that flood thier or whatever divine inspirations, u must not forget, they had to put it into paper! Imagine if Steven Hawkings was paul and he had the divine inspiration and revelation and what nots, wont the message be the same but just worded differently with formulas and 21st explainations ? Do u see the difference ?
Its like bringing a cavement to the 21st century, what would he discribe our cars and skyrises. U tell me.
And its not called selective reading,selective reading means ONLY reading SOME matierials, i would call it more like selective interpretations according to the changing times and science. Because there is still so much much more we dont understand. As science progresses, we may find out its true meaning is actually so figuratively simple to explain. Why do we always try to "figuratively" explain things ? Because for some one who doesnt understand, can understand in his level of comprehension.
Originally posted by reservistsianz:u r again playing with wat is truth or not true. Wat u say is just sometime truth is hard to come about. However in the scenario I given (john murder mary), the truth is straightforward. And I have stated it accurately out to the police (john kill mary). For science, it had stated many statements, and some very obvious and straightforward, like existence of gravity. It stated the truth.We observe tat things fall to the ground and it is due to gravity and tat is true. Then wat is the issue here now ? Do u agree tat science can state wat is the truth ?
I agree that Science EXPLAINS it,and its about WHY and HOW , not the TRUTH .
To understand Science first, one must understand this very simple concept thats all. To differentiate thier domain.
*Let me once and for all EDIT it, again regarding the True or False, I said again, i admitted, i told you again n again, my statement still stands regarding science and its domain and the truth*
Science states gravity exist. Gravity is a true fact. Science had stated a fact and a truth. But such simple statements lost its meaning to u.
Instead u believe theology states truth. And sadly theology is not known to establish truth but instead, lies.
I don't want to argue with u on such silly things now. U r just repeating the same point over and over again. U just refuse to treat the explanation they give as truth and a fact
They wrote what they saw, the recorded it with divine inspirations. And images that flood thier or whatever divine inspirations, u must not forget, they had to put it into paper!
Why do u think the author saw visions ? Why not a booming voice from the sky ? They just copied word by word from the booming voice. Why not the sky drop the paper with writings on them and they just use it ? Any reason why u can say it is some vision ?
Originally posted by reservistsianz:
Science states gravity exist. Gravity is a true fact. Science had stated a fact and a truth. But such simple statements lost its meaning to u.
Instead u believe theology states truth. And sadly theology is not known to establish truth but instead, lies.
I don't want to argue with u on such silly things now. U r just repeating the same point over and over again. U just refuse to treat the explanation they give as truth and a fact
They wrote what they saw, the recorded it with divine inspirations. And images that flood thier or whatever divine inspirations, u must not forget, they had to put it into paper!
Why do u think the author saw visions ? Why not a booming voice from the sky ? They just copied word by word from the booming voice. Why not the sky drop the paper with writings on them and they just use it ? Any reason why u can say it is some vision ?
Same goes to you repeating the same thing. I understand where you are coming from with Science = Truth and Fact. Cause that is what you are saying. My understanding of Science = How and Why. To sum it up in the most simplistic manner.
Theologions like Scientists can be both be equally wrong. So If they can be wrong, i cant accept that its Truth. U see .
Because the scripture are written in a way that it can be understood. Do u think the authors with divine inspirations would understand if u dropped mathematical formulations of the big bang theory on his lap , how long did Steven Hawkings to come up with that and the academic knowledge he first had to acquire? And would the people at THAT time understood the formula. How thick would the book be. It wont be practical, it would take decades, centuries to condense every explaination down to the subatomic levels. The bible if properly interpreted can be used from the day it was published, till the day of mankinds last days on earth. The bible is not like current publications which will always have a 5th edition , 10th edition omitted or added, taken out and put back in like ur science text books.
I have not have divine inspirations before. So i cannot tell you. I may not even know when why or how divine inspiration works. So i again, cannot tell u about it.
I also thought why not God just BOOMZ... like, tell him everything... why not just give him some massive scroll and all he does it just cut n paste. I have pondered these questions myself, not to say you also.
Now I have bee saying tis to
My understanding of Science = How and Why
and science answer these "how" and "why" with statements. And these statements are correct on answering the "how" and "why". And since they r correct, they r truth and facts. Do u agree with these simple statements ?
And the authors do not have to understand mathmatics formula. And god do not have to say it in such abstract form. He could simply say he create the world in a long time. And tat is easily understood and non contradictory to science. However he chose to use the word "day".
And if u do not know on wat basis they get the divine inspiration, u should believe god should be smart enough to come to a system where he won't get misunderstood and rejected by the people. A simple way is just ask the person to write word for word where no error will be present.
Science EXPLAINS the HOW and WHY. They are only correct because it has been there and correct the whole time, which is HOW and WHY it was explained by Science. But the How and Why are only explained with our current technology and intelligence. Because TRUTH is not what science does. And if they can be wrong, then Science is NOT TRUTH and FACTS .So i have to disagree with those simple statements.
Lets just end it here finally by saying that we are just in total disagreement of what Science is. Science to you = Truth and Fact . Science to me is How and Why and is not the Truth. And we have both given our explainations, i accept your conceptualisation of Science in relation to Truth and Fact.
What is a DAY to God. 1 billion years ? A long long time ago ? Maybe in a day but fastforwared xMillions ? Maybe as we progress, we may actually discover that... a day in the sudden big bang theory is all it took. All he asks... is a little bit of Faith.Thats all.
God is smart. Thats why the Bible is not a dead book. Its not limited to just a simple use. Word for word, but people will still disbelieve. U see the problem here ? He knows people wont believe, what difference does it make going word for word, when with divine inspirations and in most simplest of words people already cant and refuse to believe ?
Dear Maro,
You seem to hold the word 'theory' with disgust like a dirty underwear. Let me put it to you that all science is theory.
"A scientific theory is a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions."
It doesn't sound so bad in this light does it? A scientific theory is not something you pull out of your ass - it has to make sense. In your language, a theory should explain why something occurs and sensibly so. Then there are theories that explain why why, and so on. But alas, the strings of why's must end somewhere and at there science has exhausted itself, the rest can be left to theologians and philosophers to argue.
For example:
1. Man observes that apples fall. No idea why.
2. Galileo measures that masses row down a ramp with constant acceleration. Still no idea why.
3. Newton proposes the idea of gravity. That 2 masses attract each other with the force = GMm/(r^2) .
4. Einstein brings forth General Relatvity Theory. Explains gravity is caused by curvature in 4-d space-time (Minkowski space) and the act of falling is in fact a body following the path of least resistance in Minkowski space.
By this definition, GR is extremely successful in providing an explanation of why gravitation attract exists. More importantly, GR is testable in scenarios where old Newtonian theory fail. However, that is not to say the Newtonian theory is rubbish, in fact, it is extremely useful in in progress of scientific knowledge. You see, scientific progress is made in baby steps - in slowly conquering the areas where doubt and ignorance prevail.
But why should mass curve space-time. I admit science still has no answer to that yet. Perhaps the answer would be found in future probing into areas of quantum gravity.
What I must stress is that scientific ignorance in a field does not imply the intervention of a divine being. In fact, the existance of a divine being is in its nature untestable and therefore unscientific. You can belive that the laws of science and the initial conditions of the universe are the creation of a divine being or it could equally be a school project of a higher dimensional high school student - I stress again that this assertion is fundamentally untestable. However, what is know is that all observations seem to point out that the laws of science have not changed since the beginning of time.
Also some addons:
"Science... explains.. the mysteries of the universe........ gravity do no disappear if it is not proven. Its not based on the NEED for truth. They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?"
I don't quite understand this rant. Newton's theory of gravity is alot more than g = 9.81 m/ss. It has made extremely successfuly predictions in planetary and lunar orbit, in trajectory calculations, on the moon where humans stepped and in mars where man's rovers roamed. Newton's theory is universally a good approximate. Why are you fudging up terms like 'fact', 'truth' and 'theory' anyway? In what ways are 'fact' and 'truth' different? Can you define them objectively? If you idea of 'truth' is the why of why of why of why... etc, then as I explained its beyond the realm of science.
Theres also a debate going on about documentation and records. I am no historian but I believe that accuracy degrades with time. Just because there are millions of references to Santa Claus does not make him real. The bible has already proven itself to be splotchy when it comes to scientific reporting and historic accuracy. It is in my humble opinion better read for its moral lessons.
BOTH OF YOU HERE ARE BEING STUPID SINCE EACH OF YOU ARE TALKING TO DIFFERENT BREEDS!
Originally posted by Deadstroke:Dear Maro,
You seem to hold the word 'theory' with disgust like a dirty underwear. Let me put it to you that all science is theory.
"A scientific theory is a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions."
It doesn't sound so bad in this light does it? A scientific theory is not something you pull out of your ass - it has to make sense. In your language, a theory should explain why something occurs and sensibly so. Then there are theories that explain why why, and so on. But alas, the strings of why's must end somewhere and at there science has exhausted itself, the rest can be left to theologians and philosophers to argue.
For example:
1. Man observes that apples fall. No idea why.
2. Galileo measures that masses row down a ramp with constant acceleration. Still no idea why.
3. Newton proposes the idea of gravity. That 2 masses attract each other with the force = GMm/(r^2) .
4. Einstein brings forth General Relatvity Theory. Explains gravity is caused by curvature in 4-d space-time (Minkowski space) and the act of falling is in fact a body following the path of least resistance in Minkowski space.
By this definition, GR is extremely successful in providing an explanation of why gravitation attract exists. More importantly, GR is testable in scenarios where old Newtonian theory fail. However, that is not to say the Newtonian theory is rubbish, in fact, it is extremely useful in in progress of scientific knowledge. You see, scientific progress is made in baby steps - in slowly conquering the areas where doubt and ignorance prevail.
But why should mass curve space-time. I admit science still has no answer to that yet. Perhaps the answer would be found in future probing into areas of quantum gravity.
What I must stress is that scientific ignorance in a field does not imply the intervention of a divine being. In fact, the existance of a divine being is in its nature untestable and therefore unscientific. You can belive that the laws of science and the initial conditions of the universe are the creation of a divine being or it could equally be a school project of a higher dimensional high school student - I stress again that this assertion is fundamentally untestable. However, what is know is that all observations seem to point out that the laws of science have not changed since the beginning of time.
Also some addons:
"Science... explains.. the mysteries of the universe........ gravity do no disappear if it is not proven. Its not based on the NEED for truth. They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?"
I don't quite understand this rant. Newton's theory of gravity is alot more than g = 9.81 m/ss. It has made extremely successfuly predictions in planetary and lunar orbit, in trajectory calculations, on the moon where humans stepped and in mars where man's rovers roamed. Newton's theory is universally a good approximate. Why are you fudging up terms like 'fact', 'truth' and 'theory' anyway? In what ways are 'fact' and 'truth' different? Can you define them objectively? If you idea of 'truth' is the why of why of why of why... etc, then as I explained its beyond the realm of science.
Theres also a debate going on about documentation and records. I am no historian but I believe that accuracy degrades with time. Just because there are millions of references to Santa Claus does not make him real. The bible has already proven itself to be splotchy when it comes to scientific reporting and historic accuracy. It is in my humble opinion better read for its moral lessons.
Exactly what i was saying all this while. U are talking as if i wasnt making sense in Science as Theory and the meaning of Theory itself. Isnt my whole point that it is a Theory ? And i am not holding it in disgust. I mere ly staying that Science = Why and How. Thats all. I myself study applied mechanics, fluid and all these Theories, i am fully aware. Once again, am i talking to rocks ? I am just saying the simple concept of Science. I do not say Theory is wrong or hold it in disgust. Are u guys so dense ? All i am saying is Science is not TRUTH. Whats so hard to understand ?
What u are saying.. is exactly my point! Science is Theory! I know 9.81ms2 is not just it, but i am just using it in such a simplyfying way to make my statement. IF they cant comprehend such simplicity, how can i even attempt something more complicated? Arent i not talking in the most.. simplest of form and substance here?
I not using it to say Divine Interpretation! I am just saying Science is not Truth. Jeez.. is it so hard to understand ? Do u guys understand the word understand ?
Now.. Truth.. is THE TRUTH. WHY.. is THE REASON. TRUTH is the apple goes up it comes down. WHY is the WHY it comes down. THATS ALL. Is it so hard to comprehend such simple english.
I have stated again and again.. that I believe in THE MESSAGE.. and the message is ? The moral story of the Bible. How hard is it for you guys to comprehend !
Originally posted by BadzMaro:Exactly what i was saying all this while. U are talking as if i wasnt making sense in Science as Theory and the meaning of Theory itself. Isnt my whole point that it is a Theory ? And i am not holding it in disgust. I mere ly staying that Science = Why and How. Thats all. I myself study applied mechanics, fluid and all these Theories, i am fully aware. Once again, am i talking to rocks ? I am just saying the simple concept of Science. I do not say Theory is wrong or hold it in disgust. Are u guys so dense ? All i am saying is Science is not TRUTH. Whats so hard to understand ?
What u are saying.. is exactly my point! Science is Theory! I know 9.81ms2 is not just it, but i am just using it in such a simplyfying way to make my statement. IF they cant comprehend such simplicity, how can i even attempt something more complicated? Arent i not talking in the most.. simplest of form and substance here?
I not using it to say Divine Interpretation! I am just saying Science is not Truth. Jeez.. is it so hard to understand ? Do u guys understand the word understand ?
Now.. Truth.. is THE TRUTH. WHY.. is THE REASON. TRUTH is the apple goes up it comes down. WHY is the WHY it comes down. THATS ALL. Is it so hard to comprehend such simple english.
I have stated again and again.. that I believe in THE MESSAGE.. and the message is ? The moral story of the Bible. How hard is it for you guys to comprehend !
Science explains creation not creator.
Originally posted by Larryteo:Science explains creation not creator.
Exactly. Why it exists. Not the creator. U have to understand its creation, before u can understand its creator.