Athiests...want evidence of God? Read here.


Come on my atheist friends, I still await the answer to the simple question.

Why is it called scientific theory and not scientific fact ?

So far all I have seen is some pathetic ad hominem from the scholars.
I don't really expect anyone to answer it truthfully because the very answer is against all you stand for in your atheist religion.


Well let me explain something volente, whenever you try and play simplistic word games instead of using real understanding, you come across as too stupid to respond to. I'll wrestle this time, but not for long, there's real work to do.

Theories and facts are not simple definitions that you can seperate within the context of science. "Facts" as one might suppose they are, are not absolutes, and theories have continuously varying ranges of established acceptability. There is no theory or fact (whatever that is) within science that is not open to skeptical investigation and overturn- which is the complete opposite of religion in which you are handed dogmas that you are not allowed to question for fear of burning in hell. Science on the other hand is defined as a constantly evolving source of truth in which even the most fundamental 'facts' are always questioned, science in fact is not a body of knowledge, but rather a process of investigation. The truths of science are all around you in that all of our material advancement is built upon them. Being a tech worker, I in fact have less faith than you do in science as part of my job is to constantly question it. You however have great faith in science because you always simply assume the medicine will work or that your computer will turn on. So you better think next time you lecture about the 'religion' of science because you are a practicioner of it. I don't have faith in science, I provisionally accept the results because of all the hard evidence I have. My acceptance is subject to change, unlike your religion.

The scientific method is the same whether it applies to evolution or to quantum mechanics, you can't seperate the two. However different theories have different levels of support. Quantum mechanics is one of the most tested and established theories of all time, it is more a 'fact' than most facts are. In fact the measurement uncertainty of most 'facts' renders them less useful than theory. The theory of QM is an overarching and powerful way to represent all the 'facts' we know about the atomic world, is is better than facts in that is has a powerful predictive and explainatory power that has been tested and verified over and over again. Your computer was partially designed using the principles of QM and would not work if this mere 'theory' was not in fact correct in its assertions. So you see, your simplistic 'facts and theories' argument is complete bullshit.
 
Quote from volente_00:

Come on my atheist friends, I still await the answer to the simple question.


Why is it called scientific theory and not scientific fact ?


So far all I have seen is some pathetic ad hominem from the scholars.


I don't really expect anyone to answer it truthfully because the very answer is against all you stand for in your atheist religion.
More...
Mav88 gave you a great answer but I have a slightly different take.

To me, facts are indisputable bits of truth. Only a fool, a lunatic or a charlatan would call them into question.

And scientific theories are entirely based on facts ('scientific facts' you say? No, facts are just facts).

For example, gravity is a fact. Even infants are aware of gravity. Did you know there is a theory of gravity? In fact, there are more than one theories of gravity.

A theory of gravity has nothing to do with the existence of gravity, because gravity is a fact. A theory of gravity is an explanation for how gravity works.

Here's another fact: evolution. Yes, evolution is a fact, and only fools and lunatics doubt its existence. We know evolution exists because life changes over time, sometimes so rapidly that we can even see it. Without evolution, there would no such thing as breeding livestock and crops. Without evolution, there would be no fossil record with a rich variety of life, most of it now long extinct and very few modern lifeforms in the ancient record.

People like you try time and again to dispute the fossil record. Might as well try to swim to the moon against the pull of gravity. Gravity and evolution, two indisputable facts against which all your wailing and gnashing of teeth amount to absolutely nothing.

The theories of evolution, like the theories of gravity, have nothing to do with existence, they are all about explaining mechanisms, causes and effects of an indisputable fact: evolution.

Now since you have proven yourself to be a troll who demands answers from others but refuses to answer a simple question put to you, I have but one recourse:

volente_00 >>>> ignore
 
Quote from kut2k2:

Mav88 gave you a great answer but I have a slightly different take.

To me, facts are indisputable bits of truth. Only a fool, a lunatic or a charlatan would call them into question.

And scientific theories are entirely based on facts ('scientific facts' you say? No, facts are just facts).

For example, gravity is a fact. Even infants are aware of gravity. Did you know there is a theory of gravity? In fact, there are more than one theories of gravity.

A theory of gravity has nothing to do with the existence of gravity, because gravity is a fact. A theory of gravity is an explanation for how gravity works.

Here's another fact: evolution. Yes, evolution is a fact, and only fools and lunatics doubt its existence. We know evolution exists because life changes over time, sometimes so rapidly that we can even see it. Without evolution, there would no such thing as breeding livestock and crops. Without evolution, there would be no fossil record with a rich variety of life, most of it now long extinct and very few modern lifeforms in the ancient record.

People like you try time and again to dispute the fossil record. Might as well try to swim to the moon against the pull of gravity. Gravity and evolution, two indisputable facts that all your wailing and gnashing of teeth mean absolutely nothing against.

The theories of evolution, like the theories of gravity, have nothing to do with existence, they are all about explaining mechanisms, causes and effects of an indisputable fact: evolution.

Now since you have proven yourself to be a troll who demands answers from others but refuses to answer a simple question put to you, I have but one recourse:

volente_00 >>>> ignore
More...

Calling it "a theory" is just a fundie fallacy. Anything that contradicts their dogma gets ridiculed although they pretend they are discussing.

You do get a square in fundie bingo though.
 
Quote from seneca_roman:

Calling it "a theory" is just a fundie fallacy. Anything that contradicts their dogma gets ridiculed although they pretend they are discussing.

You do get a square in fundie bingo though.
More...
I didn't come with the names, that's the accepted lingo: Newton's theory of gravity, Darwin's theory of evolution.

If it was up to me, I'd have named them Newton's theory about gravity and Darwin's theory about evolution, to clear up any misinterpretations. A "theory of x" does sound like it is x that is theoretical rather than the explanation for x being the theory. It's one reason why we keep having to argue this point over and over with the Genesis crowd.
 
Quote from Smart Money:

There are a many examples where God starts with something natural to make a miracle. Why can't the big bang and evolution be part of the process of creation?

SM
More...

One could argue that GoD is the process by which all things seem to be. However, regarding the big bang and evolution, we must look at motive and intent. Intent can be another word for intelligent design. What was the intent?

*Our Father* starts with what is natural, GoD, to make a miracle, the "Son of God".

The "Son of God" starts with what is natural, Self, Reality, to make a fake...the w.o.r.l.d.

The w.o.r.l.d. is a *will other than reality for lies and delusion*

There are really no facts in such a world. Instead, there is judgment backed by the power of thought...belief.

Judgements are intentional declarations that make real what is not...making natural what is unnatural.

Gravity is unnatural to the Son of God.
It is not a fact.
Gravity is one of many intentional judgements which obscure the fact that the Son of God is lord of all experiences.
As such, gravity seems to be a kind of lord, or law, instead of the Lord.
Judgments deny Self...and seem to become "facts"...or "truth".
An explosion, as part of a "process", is symbolic...of destruction and obliteration.

A miracle is simply the insertion of Self where it is being denied by a previous intent.

The w.o.r.l.d. intentionally denies Self.
A miracle intentionally accepts what Is, Was, and Always will be true: the miracle of GoD...the Son of God...Creation itself.

Christ!
 
Quote from kut2k2:

I didn't come with the names, that's the accepted lingo: Newton's theory of gravity, Darwin's theory of evolution.

If it was up to me, I'd have named them Newton's theory about gravity and Darwin's theory about evolution, to clear up any misinterpretations. A "theory of x" does sound like it is x that is theoretical rather than the explanation for x being the theory. It's one reason why we keep having to argue this point over and over with the Genesis crowd.
More...

It's better that the w.o.r.l.d. genesis be thought of as simultaneous. An honest scientist could deduct that time is not linear. The appearance of evolution in what is made simultaneously points to a kind of deception. In fact, the w.o.r.l.d is a deception, complex enough to fool Self. However, it can only fool Self so long as a desire for what is not true overrides reason.

The world is one thing, one idea, one concept, one belief. The themes within it are variations of the one thing/idea/concept/belief. Each moment in time is a picture that represents the one thing/idea/concept/belief. The pictures, when strung together by intent, seem to make time, like individual picture frames make a movie. If there is intent to deny the eternal, one will experience the pictures as linear time. If the intent is to accept what is eternal, the pictures and the movie will vanish. They vanish because they are a delusion of mind, "seen" in imagination - image making. They show everything as it is nOt. So, nothing about the pictures are real or true or fact.

Christ!
 
One could argue that GoD is the process by which all things seem to be. However, regarding the big bang and evolution, we must look at motive and intent. Intent can be another word for intelligent design. What was the intent?

*Our Father* starts with what is natural, GoD, to make a miracle, the "Son of God".

The "Son of God" starts with what is natural, Self, Reality, to make a fake...the w.o.r.l.d.

The w.o.r.l.d. is a *will other than reality for lies and delusion*

There are really no facts in such a world. Instead, there is judgment backed by the power of thought...belief.

Judgements are intentional declarations that make real what is not...making natural what is unnatural.

Gravity is unnatural to the Son of God.
It is not a fact.
Gravity is one of many intentional judgements which obscure the fact that the Son of God is lord of all experiences.
As such, gravity seems to be a kind of lord, or law, instead of the Lord.
Judgments deny Self...and seem to become "facts"...or "truth".
An explosion, as part of a "process", is symbolic...of destruction and obliteration.

A miracle is simply the insertion of Self where it is being denied by a previous intent.

The w.o.r.l.d. intentionally denies Self.
A miracle intentionally accepts what Is, Was, and Always will be true: the miracle of GoD...the Son of God...Creation itself.

Christ!

A bunch self-deluded foolish garbage. The above is what you get when someone's thoughts are not bound by the discipline of real science.
 
6566308_70169157ef_o.jpg
 
Quote from fhl:

"Anti-God is Anti-American" blah blah blah
More...
That's odd, the word "God" doesn't appear anywhere in my copy of the US Constitution. Where does it appear in yours?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top