24 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI guess you dont understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
There could be many reasons. They are just guessing that it is all due to global warming, which can not even be proven. At this time itt is only a theory, like evilution.
The Instructor
A hypothesis is a best guess.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested against the evidence and not found to be wrong.
There is also a theory of gravity. It is just a theory. You could test it. Find a high building. Go to the top. Get to the edge. Jump.
If you dont fall, then you have disproved the theory.
It is strange that the only Flat Climaters I meet are from the U.S. The call that climate scientists are making it up for their own ends puzzles me. I mean the solar/wind/etc companies must be throwing around lots of their vast sums of money to buy the opinion of all these scientists.....
Hold on. Maybe its the oil companies taking a leaf out of the book of the tobacco companies.
Cigarettes are not addictive!!
CO2 does not cause climate change!!!!!
24 Aug 13
Originally posted by zestyYou are confusing Theory and Law.
I guess you dont understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
A hypothesis is a best guess.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested against the evidence and not found to be wrong.
There is also a theory of gravity. It is just a theory. You could test it. Find a high building. Go to the top. Get to the edge. Jump.
If you dont f ...[text shortened]... e tobacco companies.
Cigarettes are not addictive!!
CO2 does not cause climate change!!!!!
There is both a Law of Gravity and a Theory of Gravity. You were talking about the Law of Gravity on Earth. The Theory of Gravity is for the Universe.
The Law of Gravity on Earth has been adequately tested on Earth to know that it is true for effects on Earth. The Theory of Gravity of the Universe has not been adequately tested throughout the Universe to know if it is a law or not.
An hypothesis is a idea or guess as to how things might work, but has not been tested by the scientific method.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsThis is a bogus. By definition a scientific theory has been repeatedly tested and confirmed using the scientific method of observation and experimentation.
You are confusing Theory and Law.
There is both a Law of Gravity and a Theory of Gravity. You were talking about the Law of Gravity on Earth. The Theory of Gravity is for the Universe.
The Law of Gravity on Earth has been adequately tested on Earth to know that it is true for effects on Earth. The Theory of Gravity of the Universe has not been adequ ...[text shortened]... as to how things might work, but has not been tested by the scientific method.
The Instructor
It's no wonder that you don't trust science and seem to be unable to make or grasp basic scientific conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
24 Aug 13
Originally posted by forkedknightThe reference you give states the following:
This is a bogus. By definition a scientific theory has been repeatedly tested [b]and confirmed using the scientific method of observation and experimentation.
It's no wonder that you don't trust science and seem to be unable to make or grasp basic scientific conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory[/b]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time.
So we see that scientific theories are at different levels of verification. A few scientific theories are almost at the level of a law, while others are at a much lower level of verification. For example, the theory of evolution has been verified enough to explain variations at the micro level, but no verification at all at the macro level.
The Instructor
24 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsBy your own definition posted here, the subject of dating of fossils and rock formations have been verified over and over and over by many different methods, all roughly converging on common dates. Carbon dating has been verified by many other techniques accurate to 40,000 years+. Radiometric dating methods have proven the billion year+ age of rocks on Earth many times over by different techniques.
The reference you give states the following:
[b]The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time.
So we s ...[text shortened]... variations at the micro level, but no verification at all at the macro level.
The Instructor[/b]
Since it clashes with your hard held religious dogma, your fairy tale of the 6000 year old Earth, you just ignore all those different techniques and just go Nya Nya Nya I'm covering up my ears I can't hear you just like a 5 year old child.
All that just shows you operate under a clear agenda, that of weaponized 'science', using that term extremely loosely because what you propose is not science but gibberish designed to sway weak minds. If you hadn't noticed, there are some very strong minds here WAY strong enough to see through your obfuscations.
25 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI have already made reference to the problems with radiometric dating and their lack of reliability.
By your own definition posted here, the subject of dating of fossils and rock formations have been verified over and over and over by many different methods, all roughly converging on common dates. Carbon dating has been verified by many other techniques accurate to 40,000 years+. Radiometric dating methods have proven the billion year+ age of rocks on Eart ...[text shortened]... , there are some very strong minds here WAY strong enough to see through your obfuscations.
The Instructor
25 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsOnly in your deluded mind. The so-called problems are just BS made up by creationists with an agenda to destroy science, not build it up. For instance, do you see creationist scientists actually trying to add to the list of techniques that give dating? No, just trying to tear down, and totally unsuccessfully I might add to the hundreds of years of very effective science already on the books. So where is the creationist work on actual NEW science, eh? All they have done is to attempt to prove real science wrong.
I have already made reference to the problems with radiometric dating and their lack of reliability.
The Instructor
25 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are the one talking about young earth creationists, not me. Why do you bring up a subject, then refuse to discuss it?
That is as silly a question as has come across in the science forum. Take it to spiritual sparky.
Oh yeah, you just want to whine and complain and tell people you are correct. No questioning allowed, you are by definition correct.
Just wanted to clear that up. Thanks.
25 Aug 13
Originally posted by EladarA&E is a different part of the fairy tale. How can I even guess as to what part of the myth is authentic, not in a real sense but authentic in the sense of seeing the script and knowing what was written. Going with your silly creation story, I would imagine A would be about 20 years old. But what difference does it make? Did you think your bible god would have made him 60 to start with? Or did you think maybe it was given an age of 1 and had to be raised by wolves or something?
You are the one talking about young earth creationists, not me. Why do you bring up a subject, then refuse to discuss it?
Oh yeah, you just want to whine and complain and tell people you are correct. No questioning allowed, you are by definition correct.
Just wanted to clear that up. Thanks.
25 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseOnce again, your assumptions are correct all others are wrong. Whatever makes you sleep better at night and makes you feel like you are right.
A&E is a different part of the fairy tale. How can I even guess as to what part of the myth is authentic, not in a real sense but authentic in the sense of seeing the script and knowing what was written. Going with your silly creation story, I would imagine A would be about 20 years old. But what difference does it make? Did you think your bible god would h ...[text shortened]... th? Or did you think maybe it was given an age of 1 and had to be raised by wolves or something?
25 Aug 13
Originally posted by EladarI sleep quite well at night. I don't EVER worry about how old A&E are or were when they were decanted or whatever you think happened. It is just another creation myth, one of hundreds around the world. You just happen to be one of the billions who have been brainwashed into thinking that story is real. It is such a waste of brainpower.
Once again, your assumptions are correct all others are wrong. Whatever makes you sleep better at night and makes you feel like you are right.
26 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is clear that you have no brainpower to waste.
I sleep quite well at night. I don't EVER worry about how old A&E are or were when they were decanted or whatever you think happened. It is just another creation myth, one of hundreds around the world. You just happen to be one of the billions who have been brainwashed into thinking that story is real. It is such a waste of brainpower.
The Instructor
26 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds-this is coming from a moron and a none scientist who knows nothing about science and with an I.Q way lower than all the scientists here and yet who arrogantly thinks he knows better than all us scientists including Einstein.
It is clear that you have no brainpower to waste.
The Instructor
RJHinds: get out of the science forum. You have nothing to say about science and you don't belong here.