Praise White Jesus.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I believe a lot of what men state as fact but never all. My religious beliefs are faith based. I am aware that in the scientific community God is an irritant mostly and not even considered a possibility to most scientists. Theories are taught as facts when the fact that they are theories should be important. 😮‍💨

I was also very upset when I learned that a fake missing link has been attempted multiple times. I realized that there was such a strong desire to get God out of the picture that a reputation was worth risking to do it.

I have a feeling you really don't understand the scientific method. Theory is a very high standard. In order for a theory to be accepted and taught, it has to be as near to fact as anything can be. A law is just a theory that has been tested over time to be true. You act like theory is not even close to being fact. The opposite is true, for theorys that have been proven over time, they are as close to fact as does exist in science.

Originally posted by 753
that reference was completely lost on me

You said "Adam (ie the father of modern man) didn't exist", while I realize you were directly referring to the Christian Mythological figure, I mentioned the scientific, more for fun and not to say "you're wrong."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have a feeling you really don't understand the scientific method. Theory is a very high standard. In order for a theory to be accepted and taught, it has to be as near to fact as anything can be. A law is just a theory that has been tested over time to be true. You act like theory is not even close to being fact. The opposite is true, for theorys that have been proven over time, they are as close to fact as does exist in science.

Really a theory is a factual statement of why something happens and a law is a factual observation of what happens. Laws note universality and theories explain things.

The Laws of Planetary Motion are explained by the Theory of Gravitation.
The theory of Quantum Mechanics was formulated to explain two laws: that light is a wave and that light is quantized.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Really a theory is a factual statement of why something happens and a law is a factual observation of what happens. Laws note universality and theories explain things.

The Laws of Planetary Motion are explained by the Theory of Gravitation.
The theory of Quantum Mechanics was formulated to explain two laws: that light is a wave and that light is quantized.

So, did you just say I was wrong? And if you did, are you saying that theory is just a wild ass guess, just based on someone's belief. You see, I know what you are saying, but The MISTER is not going to understand the difference. I was trying to make it simple for him.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, did you just say I was wrong? And if you did, are you saying that theory is just a wild ass guess, just based on someone's belief. You see, I know what you are saying, but The MISTER is not going to understand the difference. I was trying to make it simple for him.

Hence "factual statement of".

so, laws are the observational consequences of theories?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hence "factual statement of".

Did you read the post I replied too? It is a very typical fundamentalist Christian tact. They use the idea that something is a theory, and not a fact, as a wedge to say that theorys are untrue expressions of propaganda.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, laws are the observational consequences of theories?

I think you're sort of putting the cart before the horse. Laws are really just a consequence of the universe just happening to work that way.

I guess the important bit is that a theory explains why we see a particular law that isn't self evident.

Like for example:

When you're on a train going 10mph and you throw a ball forward at 5mph the a person moving at 0mph will measure it moving at 15mph. This law is self evident, or at least no one ever felt the need/had the ability to formulate a theory to explain it.
Then hundreds of years experiments were done that showed that if you're on that same train and let a photon loose, moving at 670,000,000mph a person standing next to the tract will measure it moving at exactly the same speed.
It is not self evident that these two observed laws can both be simultaneously true. Einstein resolved the problem by formulating a theory (Special Relativity) to explain why we see these two effects.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think you're sort of putting the cart before the horse. Laws are really just a consequence of the universe just happening to work that way.

I guess the important bit is that a theory explains why we see a particular law that isn't self evident.

Like for example:

When you're on a train going 10mph and you throw a ball forward at 5mph the a person moving at 0mph will measure it moving at 15mph. This law is self evident, or at least no one ever felt the need/had the ability to formulate a theory to explain it.
Then hundreds of years experiments were done that showed that if you're on that same train and let a photon loose, moving at 670,000,000mph a person standing next to the tract will measure it moving at exactly the same speed.
It is not self evident that these two observed laws can both be simultaneously true. Einstein resolved the problem by formulating a theory (Special Relativity) to explain why we see these two effects.

I understand all of that. I was purposely making it simple and not going there.

How would you answer this:
Is a theory a fact?
If a theory is not fact, then why is the theory taught is school as a fact?
If a theory is not a fact, then how is it better then the bible, which is fact?

Do you see the problem has nothing to do with the definition of theory?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I understand all of that. I was purposely making it simple and not going there.

That was for inimalist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How would you answer this:
Is a theory a fact?

Yes. Specifically it is a fact that is used mainly to explain why we see things. Because of the nature of science the difference between what is called a law and what is called a theory can be fuzzy, but both are factual. More than that because theories often have strict mathematical backings we can sometimes be more sure of their truth than we are of laws.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. Specifically it is a fact that is used mainly to explain why we see things. Because of the nature of science the difference between what is called a law and what is called a theory can be fuzzy, but both are factual. More than that because theories often have strict mathematical backings we can sometimes be more sure of their truth than we are of laws.

this is what normally confused me with the definitions, so thanks

Originally posted by Robtard
You said "Adam (ie the father of modern man) didn't exist", while I realize you were directly referring to the Christian Mythological figure, I mentioned the scientific, more for fun and not to say "you're wrong."

Originally posted by 753
yeah, I got that, I was refering to the phrase "what you're talking about willis". I don't know where it comes from.

Different Strokes.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That was for inimalist.

Yes. Specifically it is a fact that is used mainly to explain why we see things. Because of the nature of science the difference between what is called a law and what is called a theory can be fuzzy, but both are factual. More than that because theories often have strict mathematical backings we can sometimes be more sure of their truth than we are of laws.

But you only answered the first question. Try answering all of them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you only answered the first question. Try answering all of them.

The second and third question only apply if I answer "no" to the first one.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The second and third question only apply if I answer "no" to the first one.

Can you pretend you answered "no" to the first then?

Originally posted by Robtard
Can you pretend you answered "no" to the first then?

The point of the questions was to deal with people who try to twist language to weaken theories and laws of science. By answering "yes" to the first one I did that, anyone who really needs answers to the second two didn't understand what I said.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, did you just say I was wrong? And if you did, are you saying that theory is just a wild ass guess, just based on someone's belief. You see, I know what you are saying, but The MISTER is not going to understand the difference. I was trying to make it simple for him.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I understand the concept of theories, laws, and the scientific method, quite well. The fact is that I just don't believe that humans will reveal all the mysteries of the universe despite being unable to investigate 99.99% of the universe outside their solar system. Not all theories are equal to scientific law. Do you understand? I'm not saying every theory is a wild ass guess but the ones that are do share that title. Just like your theories about me some theories are rushed and have the taint of emotional bias. What else would make you think I wouldn't understand something that you could? Did you use the scientific method? 😮‍💨

Sorry, but I don't understand your question.

So, if you believe that humans cannot know everything about the universe, I would agree with you. We do the best we can. However, the bible was written by humans and therefore falls under this same idea. A person can't say that science is wrong, and that the bible is right without giving enough evidence to prove their case. What happens over and over again is that when Christians are pressed on what evidence they have, they resort to faith. Faith is fine on a one to one basis, but to convince others, you must spend your time supporting your case. Putting down science is not supporting your case. To most people, it is just a diversionary tactic that appealed to emotions, and leads to suspicion that you cannot support your case.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have a feeling you really don't understand the scientific method. Theory is a very high standard. In order for a theory to be accepted and taught, it has to be as near to fact as anything can be. A law is just a theory that has been tested over time to be true. You act like theory is not even close to being fact. The opposite is true, for theorys that have been proven over time, they are as close to fact as does exist in science.