A Scientist Visits Kentucky's Creation Museum

Theoretical models are science.
Wrong.

Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

Very nice. Now look up the definition of "theory".
 
Theoretical models are science.
Wrong.

Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

Very nice. Now look up the definition of "theory".
You look it up, theory isn't science. You're the one confused on word definition.

Pulling theories out of your ass isn't science. As I said it can be part of the discussion, brainstorming, and intellectual exercise, whatever. But the fact remains, the faith is just as strong in the "the secular cause was always here" camp. The difference is that theists are honest about it, the other lies and tries to mask it with insults and arrogance.
 
None of these cosmological models assumes that the starting point was nothing, and therefore something from nothing "theories" are not only not vexing but don't exist.
Theoretical models aren't science, Einstein. They may be part of a discussion but they are not evidence, fact or anything but conversation.

You are entitled to your opinion but arrogance doesn't make you look smart. If you prefer to believe there was no first cause and that the universe, or the potential, always existed, but God couldn't have always existed then you are as faithful as any theist.

I don't believe that the Universe has always existed, or that God doesn't exist, or anything else about why there is something rather than nothing. I don't know the answer and I don't substitute belief for that knowledge.

If it's arrogant to inform another of their ignorance, then I am about to be arrogant again. Theoretical models are science. E=mC2 is a theoretical model, Einstein. This is your notice to study more science before making comments about science.
 
Theoretical models are science.
Wrong.

Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

Very nice. Now look up the definition of "theory".
You look it up, theory isn't science. You're the one confused on word definition.

Pulling theories out of your ass isn't science. As I said it can be part of the discussion, brainstorming, and intellectual exercise, whatever. But the fact remains, the faith is just as strong in the "the secular cause was always here" camp. The difference is that theists are honest about it, the other lies and tries to mask it with insults and arrogance.

Uh huh. I expect you don't earn your living in any of the sciences. Good choice. Have a nice day.
 
Theoretical models are science.
Wrong.

Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

Very nice. Now look up the definition of "theory".
You look it up, theory isn't science. You're the one confused on word definition.

Pulling theories out of your ass isn't science. As I said it can be part of the discussion, brainstorming, and intellectual exercise, whatever. But the fact remains, the faith is just as strong in the "the secular cause was always here" camp. The difference is that theists are honest about it, the other lies and tries to mask it with insults and arrogance.

Scientific theories aren't pulled out of anyone's ass. They are the best current explanation of the currently available evidence which comes from a convergence of different fields and are used to make predictions. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and are subject to change or rejection if new or contradicting evidence is discovered, or if any of the theory's predictions are inaccurate. Theories are not beliefs. I don't believe theories and neither does PratchettFan, who is a theist.

It seems the arrogance is yours, and so is the hypocrisy.
 
Scientific theories aren't pulled out of anyone's ass. They are the best current explanation of the currently available evidence which comes from a convergence of different fields and are used to make predictions. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and are subject to change or rejection if new or contradicting evidence is discovered, or if any of the theory's predictions are inaccurate. Theories are not beliefs. I don't believe theories and neither does PratchettFan, who is a theist.

It seems the arrogance is yours, and so is the hypocrisy.
No hypocrisy here. Point it out, asshole. Yes, genius, theories are subject to change, that's why they aren't science. The best understanding doesn't explain theories on bubble universes, a recycling universe, parallel universe, etc. etc. Useful for discussion perhaps but not science.

If theories were science and you say you don't believe in theories then what's that say about you?
 
Scientific theories aren't pulled out of anyone's ass. They are the best current explanation of the currently available evidence which comes from a convergence of different fields and are used to make predictions. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and are subject to change or rejection if new or contradicting evidence is discovered, or if any of the theory's predictions are inaccurate. Theories are not beliefs. I don't believe theories and neither does PratchettFan, who is a theist.

It seems the arrogance is yours, and so is the hypocrisy.
No hypocrisy here. Point it out, asshole. Yes, genius, theories are subject to change, that's why they aren't science. The best understanding doesn't explain theories on bubble universes, a recycling universe, parallel universe, etc. etc. Useful for discussion perhaps but not science.

If theories were science and you say you don't believe in theories then what's that say about you?

It says he understands what science is.
 
Scientific theories aren't pulled out of anyone's ass. They are the best current explanation of the currently available evidence which comes from a convergence of different fields and are used to make predictions. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and are subject to change or rejection if new or contradicting evidence is discovered, or if any of the theory's predictions are inaccurate. Theories are not beliefs. I don't believe theories and neither does PratchettFan, who is a theist.

It seems the arrogance is yours, and so is the hypocrisy.
No hypocrisy here. Point it out, asshole. Yes, genius, theories are subject to change, that's why they aren't science. The best understanding doesn't explain theories on bubble universes, a recycling universe, parallel universe, etc. etc. Useful for discussion perhaps but not science.

If theories were science and you say you don't believe in theories then what's that say about you?

It says he understands what science is.
LOL. You have your belief and I have the dictionary.
 
How to create a mountain of Bull$$$t out of nothing?

Assume something that wasn't actually stated and confuse a whole bunch of people with questionable arguments.
 
Scientific theories aren't pulled out of anyone's ass. They are the best current explanation of the currently available evidence which comes from a convergence of different fields and are used to make predictions. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and are subject to change or rejection if new or contradicting evidence is discovered, or if any of the theory's predictions are inaccurate. Theories are not beliefs. I don't believe theories and neither does PratchettFan, who is a theist.

It seems the arrogance is yours, and so is the hypocrisy.
No hypocrisy here. Point it out, asshole. Yes, genius, theories are subject to change, that's why they aren't science. The best understanding doesn't explain theories on bubble universes, a recycling universe, parallel universe, etc. etc. Useful for discussion perhaps but not science.

If theories were science and you say you don't believe in theories then what's that say about you?

Your hypocrisy is calling out "secularists" for their evidence-based perspective as practicing faith when you are a theist. Your arrogance is based on ignorance, and yet you call me and PratchettFan arrogant.

Theories are the penultimate science. That you don't understand that only demonstrates that you don't know what science is.

Since theories are science, and I don't believe in theories (meaning I don't accept them as truth, only as the current, best explanation of the currently available evidence which is used to make predictions) I guess what that says about me is that I don't practice faith-based reasoning. What do you think it's says about me?
 
Scientific theories aren't pulled out of anyone's ass. They are the best current explanation of the currently available evidence which comes from a convergence of different fields and are used to make predictions. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and are subject to change or rejection if new or contradicting evidence is discovered, or if any of the theory's predictions are inaccurate. Theories are not beliefs. I don't believe theories and neither does PratchettFan, who is a theist.

It seems the arrogance is yours, and so is the hypocrisy.
No hypocrisy here. Point it out, asshole. Yes, genius, theories are subject to change, that's why they aren't science. The best understanding doesn't explain theories on bubble universes, a recycling universe, parallel universe, etc. etc. Useful for discussion perhaps but not science.

If theories were science and you say you don't believe in theories then what's that say about you?

It says he understands what science is.
LOL. You have your belief and I have the dictionary.

No, you have your belief and no amount of contradictory evidence or new information is gonna change your mind. In your dictionary you should look up the word dogma.
 
Scientific theories aren't pulled out of anyone's ass. They are the best current explanation of the currently available evidence which comes from a convergence of different fields and are used to make predictions. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and are subject to change or rejection if new or contradicting evidence is discovered, or if any of the theory's predictions are inaccurate. Theories are not beliefs. I don't believe theories and neither does PratchettFan, who is a theist.

It seems the arrogance is yours, and so is the hypocrisy.
No hypocrisy here. Point it out, asshole. Yes, genius, theories are subject to change, that's why they aren't science. The best understanding doesn't explain theories on bubble universes, a recycling universe, parallel universe, etc. etc. Useful for discussion perhaps but not science.

If theories were science and you say you don't believe in theories then what's that say about you?

Your hypocrisy is calling out "secularists" for their evidence-based perspective as practicing faith when you are a theist. Your arrogance is based on ignorance, and yet you call me and PratchettFan arrogant.

Theories are the penultimate science. That you don't understand that only demonstrates that you don't know what science is.

Since theories are science, and I don't believe in theories (meaning I don't accept them as truth, only as the current, best explanation of the currently available evidence which is used to make predictions) I guess what that says about me is that I don't practice faith-based reasoning. What do you think it's says about me?
I pointed out a fact. Maybe it rubs you the wrong way but that's your shortcoming. If one believes in a secular cause then they so so on faith, not science. There's no evidence for it so what else can it be?

No, theories are not science. Science is fact based, tested and verifiable. Theories aren't. Great for discussion but not fact. Those who choose to make is so are misapplying science as a quasi-religion. Faith based science, as it were.

But that's all a side step to the fact that it's mindless to state that theists have no basis in believing in a secular cause while the secularist has no science to support his views.
 
Scientific theories aren't pulled out of anyone's ass. They are the best current explanation of the currently available evidence which comes from a convergence of different fields and are used to make predictions. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and are subject to change or rejection if new or contradicting evidence is discovered, or if any of the theory's predictions are inaccurate. Theories are not beliefs. I don't believe theories and neither does PratchettFan, who is a theist.

It seems the arrogance is yours, and so is the hypocrisy.
No hypocrisy here. Point it out, asshole. Yes, genius, theories are subject to change, that's why they aren't science. The best understanding doesn't explain theories on bubble universes, a recycling universe, parallel universe, etc. etc. Useful for discussion perhaps but not science.

If theories were science and you say you don't believe in theories then what's that say about you?

It says he understands what science is.
LOL. You have your belief and I have the dictionary.
No, you have your belief and no amount of contradictory evidence or new information is gonna change your mind. In your dictionary you should look up the word dogma.
What evidence did you provide? The dogma apparently is all yours.
 
You guys have such a shallow understanding of both science and religion. You act as they are both some monolithic concepts that completely agree. Not all religions agree. Not all scientific theories agree.

until you guys begin to recognize nuances in human thought you won't get far in discussing it

Well, science is pretty monolithic. Scientists will certainly disagree, but science itself is really just a set of rules. Religion is a tad more complicated, but to be fair it is a lot older.






"Science" is far from monolithic. It is a series of rules about how to observe the natural world and interact with it. That's all science is. It doesn't concern itself with morals or "truth", it is only concerned with facts, and the accurate gathering of them.

How is a standardized set of rules not monolithic?






Because as we learn more they are modified to conform to the new paradigm. Monolithic implies a belief system. Science is an observational protocol, that's all.
 
You guys have such a shallow understanding of both science and religion. You act as they are both some monolithic concepts that completely agree. Not all religions agree. Not all scientific theories agree.

until you guys begin to recognize nuances in human thought you won't get far in discussing it

Well, science is pretty monolithic. Scientists will certainly disagree, but science itself is really just a set of rules. Religion is a tad more complicated, but to be fair it is a lot older.






"Science" is far from monolithic. It is a series of rules about how to observe the natural world and interact with it. That's all science is. It doesn't concern itself with morals or "truth", it is only concerned with facts, and the accurate gathering of them.

How is a standardized set of rules not monolithic?






Because as we learn more they are modified to conform to the new paradigm. Monolithic implies a belief system. Science is an observational protocol, that's all.

Yes. Theories and hypothesis are modified to conform to the new information. But the rules don't change. I completely agree that science is a protocol, but the protocol does not change. You don't suddenly say that for this we don't need testing and for that we can call assumption fact. Fudging data is fudging data regardless of what discipline one is in. In that science is monolithic, and it needs to be.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: cnm
Theoretical models are science.
Wrong.

Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
if that is the sum understanding of science, all science can be documented on a single page......
 
You guys have such a shallow understanding of both science and religion. You act as they are both some monolithic concepts that completely agree. Not all religions agree. Not all scientific theories agree.

until you guys begin to recognize nuances in human thought you won't get far in discussing it

Well, science is pretty monolithic. Scientists will certainly disagree, but science itself is really just a set of rules. Religion is a tad more complicated, but to be fair it is a lot older.






"Science" is far from monolithic. It is a series of rules about how to observe the natural world and interact with it. That's all science is. It doesn't concern itself with morals or "truth", it is only concerned with facts, and the accurate gathering of them.

How is a standardized set of rules not monolithic?






Because as we learn more they are modified to conform to the new paradigm. Monolithic implies a belief system. Science is an observational protocol, that's all.

Yes. Theories and hypothesis are modified to conform to the new information. But the rules don't change. I completely agree that science is a protocol, but the protocol does not change. You don't suddenly say that for this we don't need testing and for that we can call assumption fact. Fudging data is fudging data regardless of what discipline one is in. In that science is monolithic, and it needs to be.




Untrue. If a new system emerges that allows greater measurement detail, it is adopted once it's accuracy is confirmed. Theories technically are not allowed to be modified by new information. The hypothesis is formulated. Tests for that hypothesis are created. If the hypothesis survives the initial attack (for that is what it is) then it graduates to the level of a theory.

If at any time the hypothesis, or the theory, fails a test it is considered a failed theory (or hypothesis) and is discarded. Then a new hypothesis is formulated based on the new evidence. It's a tortuous process and is intended to be that way.

Please note this is a very abbreviated description of the process.
 
Theoretical models are science.
Wrong.

Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
if that is the sum understanding of science, all science can be documented on a single page......
LOL
 
Theoretical models are science.
Wrong.

Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
if that is the sum understanding of science, all science can be documented on a single page......
Right next to the story about how Noah got marsupials from Oz and back again, and how the worldwide flood left no trace.
 

Forum List

Back
Top