N
neophyte
Guest
Which has nothing to do with what I responded to. You don’t have to have a replacement theory prior to rejecting one that’s wrong, and it’s nonsense to say that you do.
Last edited:
- Status
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Yes you do. That’s called science. If something matches observations, you need to have a better theory before rejecting one that works. See my Galileo example above.
F
Freddy
Guest
As the good Captain said, if the theory works, you need a better one. If it doesn’t work, then it’s not a valid theory in the first place.Freddy:
Which has nothing to do with what I responded to. You don’t have to have a replacement theory prior to rejecting one that’s wrong, and it’s nonsense to say that you do.
Heavy elements are produced in the cores of stars: It matches the evidence so you need a better explanation to invalidate the theory.
Heavy elements are produced by gaseous emissions from dragons: There’s no evidence for that so it’s not a valid theory.
Ain’t science wonderful…
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
Read Ed Fesers blogs.
N
neophyte
Guest
I suggest that you re-read what I said.
N
neophyte
Guest
And as I told him, I suggest you re-read what I actually said. You guys don’t listen very well. Heck, you don’t even seem to know what you said.
Last edited:
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
I did. My statement stands. This is a scientific theory, and its rejection necessitates a replacement. It’s not good enough to say “we just don’t know.”
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
You said this:Freddy:
And as I told him, I suggest you re-read what I actually said.
Then follow the posts…Freddy:
That is complete nonsense.
J
JimG
Guest
When I was a teenager I worked Saturday nights at the mailroom of the Kansas City Star during the print run for the Sunday newspaper. When the presses are running one floor below and the newspapers are coming up from below, the air gets filled with fine newsprint dust, which always coated my eyeglasses. I called it stardust. But it was nothing poetic or philosophical.
R
Rau
Guest
Which is rather uncomfortable for science, as it is the pivotal question. Why is there…anything?Greenfields:
We don’t know. We can’t investigate back that far.Go on,and the Big Bang came from ?
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Existence? It’s worth thinking on some more…
R
Rau
Guest
The why is the fundamental question. The rest are details.
N
NormalBeliever
Guest
The fact we can even coherently ask “Why” implies the question does make sense. Even if the answer is “No reason”; it’s still an intelligible response to an intelligible question.
D
Duke12VonFalkenburg
Guest
Unless you ask the question “why” you’re search for the truth will always be incomplete. I think it makes no sense to ignore a fundamental question. What if I told you that asking “how”? Made no sense to me. You would laugh me off the stage.
I think there is enough evidence for us to conclude that God exists. I think it’s the most rational conclusion. It covers the most data and makes the most sense and i think it fulfills the criteria of Occam’s razor I think it works.
Take your best shot at answering “why”? And ask yourself is this the best explanation when compared to other hypotheses?
N
neophyte
Guest
Nonsense. This is just you making stuff up.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
It’s rejection does not necessitate a replacement. But if the theory well fits the data (better than any other), there ought to be a reason for its rejection.
The poster rejecting the theory that the heavier elements (“stardust”) were created inside stars could articulate no basis for his rejection other than an appeal to his “judgement”. But he ought to be able to articulate his thought processes and the aspects considered that gave rise to that judgement, but he has not. A “judgement” with no basis is…not science as we know it.
Last edited:
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
I do not know what to say that will convince you that you’re wrong.
- Status