Printable View
Pft. The point is that you have no knowledge to make that judgment. All this theory sounds great and all, but no one on this board is knowledgable enough to say one way or the other...so you have to say "well, the scientists say so, so I guess that must be". And that is no different than what you're calling religion.
You dont have to have a doctorate to understand science no more than you need to be a priest to understand religion.
Technically, yes. But the point is that you're pretty much going on faith either way on many issues because you have so little knowledge. There are too many armchair scientists on the net today, talking as if they know a damn thing about what they're talking about. Fact is, people here know as much about black holes as my grandma.
You're reaching. I can do a study of gravity right now, and have strong evidence that supports its existence as detailed by the most basic Newtonian physics. I can redo this test a million times and undoubtably achieve the same result each time. That's what makes it science. There is nothing supernatural in any religion I know of that can be shown to have credible evidence and a replicable result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
No one KNOWS anything about black holes, that's the point. We can theorize and postulate, but we don't know. The point is that there is EVIDENCE that can be shown to support the theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I know nothing about black holes, but my knowledge in the field of biology is farely extensive. By no means can I call myself an expert, but that is no reason to exclude me from conversation. Otherwise I am pretty sure that I could not talk about anything at all.
"There is nothing supernatural in any religion I know of that can be shown to have credible evidence and a replicable result."
The problem is that one day we say something is there and the next we can say it isn't. Does the evidence become less credible once we determine its nonexistence? Your gravity example also really doesn't work as the working theory behind it is completely different than it originally was.
"The point is that there is EVIDENCE that can be shown to support the theory."
But this isn't usually the case. I can say God came out one day and said "evolve", and evolution was preset, and He knows what's going to happen. How can I not observe that? I can observe the result all the time. I can't observe the cause, and in scientific theory, you can't always either.
If 'it' didn't exist then there was obviously stronger evidence of its non-existence than of its existence. That's why the new theory must be tested and retested before it becomes such and the old is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Just because the theory changes doesn't mean it's invalid. The theory was refined because of new evidence collected and tested and merged into the overall theory, not because one is 'right' and the other is 'wrong'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Yes, but you have no evidence whatsoever to support this theory. You're arbitrarily attributing a cause to an observable effect. That's not science because there's no way you can admit you could be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
You're missing the point. The point is you have no idea what's going on but choose to believe it because someone told you and it sounded good. Which is no different than religion. And that's why your whole "religion = mental defect" is rubbish.
"That's not science because there's no way you can admit you could be wrong."
If there is no God, I would be wrong. So if science is to be better, there can't be any black holes until it's established there are some. But as it is, black holes exist until it's established there aren't any.
Okay this is silly, you're just retreading your previous statements without even considering my points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
But no one can ever prove to you that there is no God, because your belief in God isn't based on evidence or a replicable result. It's based on either tradition or a deep psychological belief that does not require proof. That's not science. That is religion. Black holes don't just 'exist' because someone says they do, all they can say is that there is evidence supporting the claim that they do and either gather new evidence to further support their theory or to refute it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
What are your points? Science says black holes exist until we say otherwise. I say God exists until I see otherwise. If you can observe the effects of black holes now but there aren't any, what's the difference between that and I can observe God's effects? You don't even know how I define God.
"that does not require proof"
Everything is relative, and hence, unprovable.