By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why do you swear upon a bible at court??

nightsurge on 18 August 2009
highwaystar101 said:
nightsurge said:
Scoobes said:
 

Science in general? Are you being sarcastic? We're talking about the same science that allows us to fly around the world in mere hours. The same science that ensures we have drugs and anti-biotics for what were some of the most devestating diseases? The same science that gives us the computers and consoles we use to play the games that most of us write about on these forums? By shaky and unproven you mean that its assumed correct until disproven? This means that unlike religious viewpoints its always open to new evidence.

Sorry I mostly meant the science of evolution, creation, things which cannot be proven. I did not mean to imply things such as basic science, biology, things which are tangible and can be proven.

Do you think a scientific theory is based on unmeasurable ideas that scientists come up with whilst they are drunk?

OT:

I think the subject is moot anyway because it is a rare occasion that a non-faith based government make their residents swear on a bible anyway. I knwo the US don't do it anymore anyway.

 

No I do not, but do you know the definition of a theory?  They have no solid proof for most theories.  They have ideas and possible explanations.  They base the big bang theory solely on some conception that since space can be seen to expand from a central point, it must have started out there... even without instrumentation that can prove what they are seeing.  It could be they are comparing the expansion of our own galaxy to a much larger center of gravity that is not the center of the universe.  I also love how they even guess at the elements which somehow existed before nothing and somehow combined in a surge of energy to create the universe.  Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transfered... so where did the immense energy come from that could create a bang large enough to create the universe?

Also, things like carbon dating have been found many times over to be extremely flawed at determining the age of things.  Scientists all give estimates which are nothing more than educated guesses at what they think explains things.  There's just as much proof to religious stories from the Bible as there is for any scientific explanation of the beginning times....



Around the Network
emilie autumn on 18 August 2009
nightsurge said:
highwaystar101 said:
nightsurge said:
Scoobes said:
 

Science in general? Are you being sarcastic? We're talking about the same science that allows us to fly around the world in mere hours. The same science that ensures we have drugs and anti-biotics for what were some of the most devestating diseases? The same science that gives us the computers and consoles we use to play the games that most of us write about on these forums? By shaky and unproven you mean that its assumed correct until disproven? This means that unlike religious viewpoints its always open to new evidence.

Sorry I mostly meant the science of evolution, creation, things which cannot be proven. I did not mean to imply things such as basic science, biology, things which are tangible and can be proven.

Do you think a scientific theory is based on unmeasurable ideas that scientists come up with whilst they are drunk?

OT:

I think the subject is moot anyway because it is a rare occasion that a non-faith based government make their residents swear on a bible anyway. I knwo the US don't do it anymore anyway.

 

No I do not, but do you know the definition of a theory?  They have no solid proof for most theories.  They have ideas and possible explanations.  They base the big bang theory solely on some conception that since space can be seen to expand from a central point, it must have started out there... even without instrumentation that can prove what they are seeing.  It could be they are comparing the expansion of our own galaxy to a much larger center of gravity that is not the center of the universe.  I also love how they even guess at the elements which somehow existed before nothing and somehow combined in a surge of energy to create the universe.  Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transfered... so where did the immense energy come from that could create a bang large enough to create the universe?

Also, things like carbon dating have been found many times over to be extremely flawed at determining the age of things.  Scientists all give estimates which are nothing more than educated guesses at what they think explains things.  There's just as much proof to religious stories from the Bible as there is for any scientific explanation of the beginning times....

actually that was solved a lng time ago, here i'll explain: there are ten spacial dimension(Humans can only percive 3) and one time dimension, atleast that was what physisit thought until seaching from the beggining of all, they discover other universe, living paralell to ours but in spaces we couldn't percive, and in this long oddysey it was discovers all universes are born and contained in the same place, a fiber so tiny it cannot be percived yet so universal to hold everything, thats the eleventh dimension. thats as far as i know, but all universes are born there, evaporate there and contained there.



 

highwaystar101 on 18 August 2009
nightsurge said:
highwaystar101 said:
nightsurge said:
Scoobes said:
 

Science in general? Are you being sarcastic? We're talking about the same science that allows us to fly around the world in mere hours. The same science that ensures we have drugs and anti-biotics for what were some of the most devestating diseases? The same science that gives us the computers and consoles we use to play the games that most of us write about on these forums? By shaky and unproven you mean that its assumed correct until disproven? This means that unlike religious viewpoints its always open to new evidence.

Sorry I mostly meant the science of evolution, creation, things which cannot be proven. I did not mean to imply things such as basic science, biology, things which are tangible and can be proven.

Do you think a scientific theory is based on unmeasurable ideas that scientists come up with whilst they are drunk?

OT:

I think the subject is moot anyway because it is a rare occasion that a non-faith based government make their residents swear on a bible anyway. I knwo the US don't do it anymore anyway.

 

No I do not, but do you know the definition of a theory? They have no solid proof for most theories. They have ideas and possible explanations. They base the big bang theory solely on some conception that since space can be seen to expand from a central point, it must have started out there... even without instrumentation that can prove what they are seeing. It could be they are comparing the expansion of our own galaxy to a much larger center of gravity that is not the center of the universe. I also love how they even guess at the elements which somehow existed before nothing and somehow combined in a surge of energy to create the universe. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transfered... so where did the immense energy come from that could create a bang large enough to create the universe?

Also, things like carbon dating have been found many times over to be extremely flawed at determining the age of things. Scientists all give estimates which are nothing more than educated guesses at what they think explains things. There's just as much proof to religious stories from the Bible as there is for any scientific explanation of the beginning times....

You're kidding me right? They don't have proof for most theories? Theories are built of fact to explain a law of nature. If there was no proof it would be a hypothesis. Theory ismore or less the highest accolade a scientific idea can achieve before it becomes a law. You can say it's all guess work with no facts as much as you like, but the reality is it requires a lot of testing and evidence for a hypothesis to become a theory. And the more viidence you find the better you understand the theory so the evidence will never stop coming, and if the evidence suggests something else the theory is adapted to support  so if results are "flawed" the theory becomes better understood.

And as for the definition of theory, I removed it from my sig yesterday and I've had to correct people twice already, I'm going to put it back in.

Now as per sqrls wishes I'm not posting about science again.

 



nightsurge on 18 August 2009
emilie autumn said:
nightsurge said:
highwaystar101 said:
nightsurge said:
Scoobes said:
 

Science in general? Are you being sarcastic? We're talking about the same science that allows us to fly around the world in mere hours. The same science that ensures we have drugs and anti-biotics for what were some of the most devestating diseases? The same science that gives us the computers and consoles we use to play the games that most of us write about on these forums? By shaky and unproven you mean that its assumed correct until disproven? This means that unlike religious viewpoints its always open to new evidence.

Sorry I mostly meant the science of evolution, creation, things which cannot be proven. I did not mean to imply things such as basic science, biology, things which are tangible and can be proven.

Do you think a scientific theory is based on unmeasurable ideas that scientists come up with whilst they are drunk?

OT:

I think the subject is moot anyway because it is a rare occasion that a non-faith based government make their residents swear on a bible anyway. I knwo the US don't do it anymore anyway.

 

No I do not, but do you know the definition of a theory?  They have no solid proof for most theories.  They have ideas and possible explanations.  They base the big bang theory solely on some conception that since space can be seen to expand from a central point, it must have started out there... even without instrumentation that can prove what they are seeing.  It could be they are comparing the expansion of our own galaxy to a much larger center of gravity that is not the center of the universe.  I also love how they even guess at the elements which somehow existed before nothing and somehow combined in a surge of energy to create the universe.  Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transfered... so where did the immense energy come from that could create a bang large enough to create the universe?

Also, things like carbon dating have been found many times over to be extremely flawed at determining the age of things.  Scientists all give estimates which are nothing more than educated guesses at what they think explains things.  There's just as much proof to religious stories from the Bible as there is for any scientific explanation of the beginning times....

actually that was solved a lng time ago, here i'll explain: there are ten spacial dimension(Humans can only percive 3) and one time dimension, atleast that was what physisit thought until seaching from the beggining of all, they discover other universe, living paralell to ours but in spaces we couldn't percive, and in this long oddysey it was discovers all universes are born and contained in the same place, a fiber so tiny it cannot be percived yet so universal to hold everything, thats the eleventh dimension. thats as far as i know, but all universes are born there, evaporate there and contained there.

^^This is the exact type of scientific stuff I'm talking about when I say a lot of theories regarding creation and such are just not proven.  No more so than anything religious.

And again, I'm sorry highwaystar101, I'm still just talking about the theories for creation/evolution/big bang, etc.  I should have been more clear on that.  I, too, will stop this discussion.