Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Different scientific theories for the same thing? If such a situation exists they are not believed.I told you why. You can have differing theories for the same thing. Why can't you accept that? The "beginning" of the universe is an excellent example. Not all theories can be right, maybe none are. IF you choose to believe one it's by faith, not science.
No, that's not true. The bulk of scientific papers at that time did not predict global cooling. That was a few newspaper articles.During the 60-70s the prevalent theory was that the planet was cooling and if we didn't adopt socialist policies we would be facing the next ice age.
As a matter of curiosity, what are the different scientific theories about the 'beginning' of the universe?
My 'kind.' Why aren't you the bigoted moron today. It seems you simply have no idea what you are talking about.That's the problem with your kind. You go and find something you think "fits" but you don't actually know anything about it. In fact you don't know much of anything.Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.Not all scientific theories agree? What the fuck are you talking about? Give some examples. I need a good laugh.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
But let me help you out a little:
Remember, Einstein only discovered General Relativity a quarter way through the last century. A blink of an eye considering human history. The theory hopefully helps us to understand the big stuff: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, on to the entire universe. And even Einstein didn't believe his own theory. He thought the universe was infinite and unchanging. In his equations, he used "K" for the "universal constant". It was Hubble and his work that physically proved Einstein wrong. Try to figure out why dunce. Hint, what was Hubble famous four? That proves that science is ever changing as understanding grows from discovery. Religion doesn't change. Duh.
Quantum Mechanics is about the "little stuff". Like molecules, atoms, and even tinier stuff like electrons and quarks. Republicans think "quarks" are the sounds ducks make.
So the two theories, WHICH ARE STILL BEING DEVELOPED, don't agree. Yet.
Republicans are so fucking stupid, they don't give scientists credit for anything because scientists don't know everything. Republicans and conservatives are just laughable people.
I'm not a physicist and I am in awe of their brilliance. Republicans, people who put a young earther in charge of the US science committee, think physicists are over educated and without common sense. Worse, they become angry and defensive when people call conservatives fools. Well, I think fools is being polite.
And what you seem to be missing is that science is not predicated on 'believing' one theory or another at all. What you are trying to do is take religion and cram it into science. The two do not work the same and, quite frankly, have nothing to do with one another. Religion requires faith and belief in its tenants. Science CANNOT have faith or belief - to do so would negate it as scientific. Those theories that disagree are simply the best we have until one data set or test comes along to eliminate the incorrect theory. Even then, the first thing that occurs is the hunt for yet another possibility (another theory) as well as more testing the current best model.I told you why. You can have differing theories for the same thing. Why can't you accept that? The "beginning" of the universe is an excellent example. Not all theories can be right, maybe none are. IF you choose to believe one it's by faith, not science.Again, no scientific theory is ever proven. A scientific theory is simply the best available knowledge/explanation until better knowledge/explanations come along. You've been told this, how come you can't accept it?If you believe in an unproven theory you have no high ground in claiming a secular cause as "science" while the theist is surrendering the ability to think. It's arrogant and a misuse of the word science.
Which religion have I promoted? I posted the definition of science and made it clear that's how I choose to use the word. You are restating what I said, that is, if one has a belief in a competing theory, that ISN'T science. Thanks.And what you seem to be missing is that science is not predicated on 'believing' one theory or another at all. What you are trying to do is take religion and cram it into science. The two do not work the same and, quite frankly, have nothing to do with one another. Religion requires faith and belief in its tenants. Science CANNOT have faith or belief - to do so would negate it as scientific. Those theories that disagree are simply the best we have until one data set or test comes along to eliminate the incorrect theory. Even then, the first thing that occurs is the hunt for yet another possibility (another theory) as well as more testing the current best model.I told you why. You can have differing theories for the same thing. Why can't you accept that? The "beginning" of the universe is an excellent example. Not all theories can be right, maybe none are. IF you choose to believe one it's by faith, not science.Again, no scientific theory is ever proven. A scientific theory is simply the best available knowledge/explanation until better knowledge/explanations come along. You've been told this, how come you can't accept it?If you believe in an unproven theory you have no high ground in claiming a secular cause as "science" while the theist is surrendering the ability to think. It's arrogant and a misuse of the word science.
As a matter of interest, do you think the Big Bang Theory is based on no observation?In this case we are talking about origins, first cause, creation, whatever you want to call it. There is no test or observation, period.
I was talking about ORIGINS. It's very hard to communicate with you guys. The Big Bang Theory does not explain origins and there are numerous theories, as I mentioned EARLIER. Parallel, bubble, recycling, etc. universe(s).As a matter of interest, do you think the Big Bang Theory is based on no observation?In this case we are talking about origins, first cause, creation, whatever you want to call it. There is no test or observation, period.
You didn't specify the competing scientific theories you implied existed btw, I'm curious as to what they are. Any chance of a list?
Then the confusion is all yours. Arrogance won't mask it, sorry.Ah. I do not consider them to be scientific theories. If you do I understand your confusion.
Nor do I understand how parallel, bubble etc explain origin as you imply.
That is true, it seems I understand neither your language nor what you're trying to say.Then the confusion is all yours. Arrogance won't mask it, sorry.
That's because your head it too far up your ass.That is true, it seems I understand neither your language nor what you're trying to say.Then the confusion is all yours. Arrogance won't mask it, sorry.
in order to a theory a hypothesis needs SOME supporting evidence......it needs to be successfully tested at some point or it never becomes a theory.......why do you pretend this isn't true?......Again, no scientific theory is ever proven. A scientific theory is simply the best available knowledge/explanation until better knowledge/explanations come along. You've been told this, how come you can't accept it?If you believe in an unproven theory you have no high ground in claiming a secular cause as "science" while the theist is surrendering the ability to think. It's arrogant and a misuse of the word science.
in order to a theory a hypothesis needs SOME supporting evidence......it needs to be successfully tested at some point or it never becomes a theory.......why do you pretend this isn't true?......Again, no scientific theory is ever proven. A scientific theory is simply the best available knowledge/explanation until better knowledge/explanations come along. You've been told this, how come you can't accept it?If you believe in an unproven theory you have no high ground in claiming a secular cause as "science" while the theist is surrendering the ability to think. It's arrogant and a misuse of the word science.
I said your head was up your ass. How much proof do we need to accept the theory as fact?That may be the case, or it may be that you can't explain what you want to say, or that what you want to say does not match reality.
You have provided no proof of anything, instead, from what can be understood of your writing, you appear to keep insisting scientific theories can be taken as fact when they are just the best present knowledge/explanation.I said your head was up your ass. How much proof do we need to accept the theory as fact?
How do you create something out of nothing?
How?
You tell me. You're the rabbi.
Well I could assume a magic mythical being did it... or I could try to find an answer. What should I do?
A rabbi atheist. Oh mummah...
It's amongst a younger generation of cosmologists, string theorists and bubble universe theorists and the like, where problems with something out of nothing theories are proving most vexing.
