Religion, Dinosaurs, A.I. and Aliens

[Stryder]

But that is the difference between a theory and something proven.

Let me ask you a question and this only requires a YES or NO.

Do you call it 'The Theory of Sunrise'?

You can do, considering there was nothing to state in that "theory" how the sun appears to rise, after all the logical conclusion back then would be that the sun god rode upon the backs of horses or a chariot across the sky, well that would be a theory, unless it became accepted as indoctrination (Which religion did)

 

[Stryder]

What do you mean by that? Anyone who has an opinion on weather the sun will rise, as in my example, has a theory.

You really need things explained to you.

Q.E.D. John, You can't prove a Theory.

 

[Dywyddyr]

What do you mean by that? Anyone who has an opinion on weather the sun will rise, as in my example, has a theory.

Oh for crying out loud! How stupid can you be? It is NOT a theory in the scientific sense.

You really need things explained to you.

How many times do you need the definition of "theory" giving to you?
Read post #321 again.
Reported AGAIN for trolling.

 

[John99]

and how...how did that person know the sun would rise? Although he could not, at the time, prove it he used perception. He gathered some evidence, he felt the warmth still held by the rocks, he saw a blade of grass growing, and for ever day the sun rose.

After one week he declared the sun will rise EVERY day. His theory has now been proven to be factual.

The other guy says:

No, this sun rises because of us. That is his theory and will always remain a theory because in order to prove it both have to disappear. Yet we know his theory is erroneous except he will believe it until the day he dies and the sun will rise without him.

 

[John99]

Oh for crying out loud! How stupid can you be? It is NOT a theory in the scientific sense.
.

And YOU read #344. That IS science and you cannot even define science without looking the word up.

 

[Dywyddyr]

And YOU read #344. That IS science

It's not a theory.
Edit: Nor is it "proven" to be factual. How does he know that there won't be a day 300 years in the future when the Sun won't rise?

and you cannot even define science without looking the word up.

Inane and off-topic.

 

[NMSquirrel]

OK..First..get that theory arguement into its own topic..maybe the words that mean different things to different ppl (like Cool) topic.

dyw..have you been using those goats productivley or are you just shoving them in the closet?..

IOW..maybe you should start selling goat milk, with all the goats you have collected..you sure do manage to get ppls goats easily..

 

[Dywyddyr]

dyw..have you been using those goats productivley or are you just shoving them in the closet?..
IOW..maybe you should start selling goat milk, with all the goats you have collected..you sure do manage to get ppls goats easily..

Maybe I'm just feeling capricious.
Or I like inducing panic.
Geddit, huh? Huh, do you?
Oh come on...

 

[NMSquirrel]

Maybe I'm just feeling capricious.
Or I like inducing panic.
Geddit, huh? Huh, do you?
Oh come on...

:spank:

 

[TheVisitor]

This is probably where you assume various scientists are indoctrinated...
Sure you will have hard liners that will appear pushy in regards to science, however this doesn't prove a failure in science, it doesn't prove that science is religion, it just proves that people are inherently flawed when it comes to the Human Condition.

That's a good explanation. You stated the problem better than I could.
It's not so much that science is like a religion. Poor choice of words on my part.
It's more a problem inheirent with the human condition.
An organizational stucture that they both have in common.
Very good, somebody finally gets it.
We still have a problem with priorities in both organized structures.
A certain resistance to change that creates a "knowledge filter" condition.
I guess human nature is the real culprit here.
The end result is the same even if my explanation was not as eloquent.

 

[John99]

It's not a theory.

Exactly. It was a theory.

Edit: Nor is it "proven" to be factual. How does he know that there won't be a day 300 years in the future when the Sun won't rise?

That does not matter. Anything can happen.

For example:

you plant a seed, you water the seed and give it sun light. Your theory is the seed will grow into a tree. We know now what happens to seeds, and take into account something can go WRONG.

Exapnding on that:

Human sees trees growing and plants growing. Human comes upon some seeds, human looks at seeds in hand and theorizes these little balls are what becomes a tree.

Never seen that happen but tht is now his theory. So he sets out to prove that theory.


This reminds me of when i teach people something new they often say "that was easy" and i tell them 'it is easy because you now know how it is done'.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Exactly. It was a theory.

Wrong. It wasn't a theory and it wasn't proved.

That does not matter. Anything can happen.

Pure crap. Of course it matters. That's what prevents it being proven.

For example:
you plant a seed, you water the seed and give it sun light. Your theory is the seed will grow into a tree. We know now what happens to seeds, and take into account something can go WRONG.

Once again you misuse the word theory.

Are you simply incapable of learning or do you spend hours of practice in your endeavour to remain totally ignorant?

 

[John99]

If you say "No, The theories been proven and is no longer a theory" then it becomes indoctrinated

I dont know what you mean by that or what the term "indoctrinated" is for.

 

[John99]

Wrong. It wasn't a theory and it wasn't proved.


Pure crap. Of course it matters. That what prevents it being proven.


Once again you misuse the word theory.

Are you simply incapable of learning or do you spend hours of practice in your endeavour to remain totally ignorant?

You are wrong. 300 years from now the sun does not rise so you conclude tht the since the sun rose for millions (at least) of years then it is not known that the sun rises every day??? THINK about what you are saying. Well i am right.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You are wrong.

300 years from now the sun does not rise so you conclude tht the since the sun rose for millions (at least) of years then it is not known that the sun rises every day??? THINK about what you are saying. Well i am right.

If the Sun does not rise one day then his "theory" (and it isn't a theory) has been disproved.
A single instance of something NOT following a theory shows that the theory was wrong.

If it does not rise on even one day then, obviously, the statement "the sun rises every day" is false.

 

[John99]

Yet, the larger picture remains oblivious to many.

Suppose you come across a fossil. You never seen this animl and only go by what is in the fossil. You cinclude based on the fossil that the animal was capable of flight. That is fine and we can accept it because that is the evidence judging by what you perceive to be wings. BUT you are NEVER going to know for certain.

 

[John99]

If the Sun does not rise one day then his "theory" (and it isn't a theory) has been disproved.
A single instance of something NOT following a theory shows that the theory was wrong.

No it doesnt. Things change so by your own at "logic" then everyhting is wrong. An old car door rusts into oblivion means the car door never existed.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No it doesnt. Things change so by your own at "logic" then everyhting is wrong. An old car door rusts into oblivion means the car door never existed.

Wrong again.
Did you miss the word "every" in your own sentence?
What does "every" mean?
Reported again.

 

[John99]

Reported again.

Reported for what?

 

[Stryder]

Reported for what?

John, I think He's stated it a couple of times. Trolling.

The reason some would suggest this is because when someone reiterates and reiterates and reiterates something and the other person ignores it all three times, it can be seen as quite trollish.