Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
In Defense of Science and Theory
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HYBRED" data-source="post: 13549133" data-attributes="member: 52848"><p>All theories have "holes." This does not disprove the theory; it just shows an area where an assumption, usually based on observation and comparison, was made to bridge a gap in understanding. The only thing that disproves a theory is direct evidence contrary with a stated portion of that theory. </p><p></p><p>This is a fundamental problem with most arguments against any scientific theory; ignorance of the fundamental definitions and methods by which those theories were created. No theory explains everything, and no theory has irrefutable evidence in support of every point. Otherwise we'd be arguing laws, and the only true laws in existence,that can be completely, logically and irrefutably <em>proven</em>, are in Mathematics.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Me too. I think it's hilarious when you can disprove an argument through their application of fallacy rather than fact.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, it is science. Just because there isn't a currently known explanation doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Lightning was a miracle once too...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I wondered who would be the first to post the most often used, and most asinine, argument against evolutionary theory. All this shows is that you really don't have a clue what you're arguing against, you just don't like it because someone told you not to. This is actually very similar to a parent telling their child not to like a certain race because of some unfounded stereotype.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The thing is, even that need to be right is imaginary. Science does not seek to prove or disprove<em> religion</em> because it simply does not care about it. Both exist to explain the unexplainable, and IMO there is easily room for both sides in a person's life. Why is it so "bad" to have a reasoned, supported explanation, instead of a "the Bible says so" explanation? Why must that reasoned, supported explanation be made to also prove or disprove the existence of God, when the truth is that it just doesn't apply?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HYBRED, post: 13549133, member: 52848"] All theories have "holes." This does not disprove the theory; it just shows an area where an assumption, usually based on observation and comparison, was made to bridge a gap in understanding. The only thing that disproves a theory is direct evidence contrary with a stated portion of that theory. This is a fundamental problem with most arguments against any scientific theory; ignorance of the fundamental definitions and methods by which those theories were created. No theory explains everything, and no theory has irrefutable evidence in support of every point. Otherwise we'd be arguing laws, and the only true laws in existence,that can be completely, logically and irrefutably [I]proven[/I], are in Mathematics. Me too. I think it's hilarious when you can disprove an argument through their application of fallacy rather than fact. Yes, it is science. Just because there isn't a currently known explanation doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Lightning was a miracle once too... I wondered who would be the first to post the most often used, and most asinine, argument against evolutionary theory. All this shows is that you really don't have a clue what you're arguing against, you just don't like it because someone told you not to. This is actually very similar to a parent telling their child not to like a certain race because of some unfounded stereotype. The thing is, even that need to be right is imaginary. Science does not seek to prove or disprove[I] religion[/I] because it simply does not care about it. Both exist to explain the unexplainable, and IMO there is easily room for both sides in a person's life. Why is it so "bad" to have a reasoned, supported explanation, instead of a "the Bible says so" explanation? Why must that reasoned, supported explanation be made to also prove or disprove the existence of God, when the truth is that it just doesn't apply? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
In Defense of Science and Theory
Top