YES. THEY. ARE. See theory of gravity for details.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the scientifically ignorant not knowing there is no fundamental difference between a theory and a law.

Relativity is just as much of a theory as Newton's laws of mechanics were, and in fact, Einstein's work is more accurate even than that.

Theory is a hypothesis of extenuating circumstances.. How does that make it 'law'?

And the theory of gravity is just that: A theory. We have no idea of how it works except what we perceive it to do.

That doesn't make it law.

Without "extenuating circumstances," nothing we ever said or thought of would ever matter.
Although you can argue for this conclusion, not many do, because it is a pointless conclusion.

If the ideas accepted by almost all are not laws, what is?



And for the question at hand, I can walk faster than the speed of light. (Vacuum is important to add.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

Theory == Law.

There is no difference; both can be expounded upon and improved, such is the nature of science. They are synonymous. Don't try to argue this. You are wrong. Plain and simple.

Ah. I suppose. I recall reading an article where they lowered the speed of light along some solid to ten yards per second? Something like that. Though I doubt you walk that fast, it'll probably get slower and slower as time goes by.

Kellimus, however you cut the pie (pie!), a theory is something that's generally accepted. Correct until proven otherwise, so to speak. So unless you have a proof otherwise, I think we can safely use Einstein's theories.

So why does science always have to be right? What if science can provide perceptions that we can accept, but what if it's not truth?

What makes science so 'perfect'? What if the perceptions of everyone are wrong?

I mean come on now, look at The Holy Bible, they got it all wrong. That's a different conversation anyways.


Well thank you for replying in a mature manor and not just flat out saying I'm "wrong", and bringing up a good point about theories instead of a "I think they're right so you're wrong" attitude You have a very good point, but refer to my question to Syphon if you'd like

Science works to create an understanding of the world around us, it does this with a method (so creatively named) The Scientific Method.

The end result of a successful experiment is a theory.
The theory states, when X... Y.
people argue that it is not a fact because the X factor is not always present... but that theory KNOWS that when X is present... Y.
To be less vague, (and hopping over to math ^.^):
The square root of a number equals y. therefore, Squareroot(x)=y

This is TRUE when x is valid, otherwise it is undefined. (btw x is valid for x>-%u221E).

Light is a cosmic speed limit, only challenged by gravity (they are the same speed)
this is derived from Relativity, devised by Einstein.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 19 2009, 9:09 pm by MillenniumArmy. Reason: Double post deleted as requested

I was not arguing whether science was right or wrong (Although, it is right and perfect because it is empirically tested and evaluated.), I was telling you the definition of words from their standpoint. You were arguing wrongly against the actual, factual definition of words. You... Just can't do that. Well you can, but you'll just make yourself look (more) foolish. You don't get to decide what the scientific method considers a law or a theory.

Because if it's wrong than it is changed to be right... That's kinda the entire reason we keep testing things...

Tru.dat

I know science is correct, i'm just bringing a different viewpoint to the table

But how do we know if the current one is right? You never know when some other crazy discoveries waiting a to be discovered a thousand years away.

We don't know for sure, but it's interesting that Newton's laws are only "wrong" for a factor he was unable to investigate. Relativity has been explored with countless experiments, the u-masons being one of the more monumental discoveries. Around the world, particle accelerators are fired up all of the time, and those results conform to Einstein's theories. Even right now, more research is being conducted that may lead to new discoveries, but so far no evidence whatsoever has been shown to deny any basic principle of the theory of relativity.

Yes, science works on the logical fallacy of induction, but it works on the principle of mass induction, and exhausting counterclaims. By proving that gravity never fails to come in to effect, we get as close as we can to proving that it works as we model it. In addition to this, Einstein proposed a rational model method in which the principles of what we know are taken, and used along with logic to come to conclusions. The theory of relativity was created with this principle, using only the premises that the speed of light in a vaccum is absolute and that everything else is relative to an observer. Interestingly enough, his rational conclusions, despite having no scientific grounds, were later proven to be functional. When you can use your discoveries to accurately predict the future, you are taking science to its highest level. It would be irrational to deny the fact that science is as close to the truth as we can get, and using the word "theory" as an argument against science is perhaps one of the most foolish claims that can be made, and it's almost suggesting that somehow you think you know better than every scientist in the world. Not a good path to go down.

Einstein's theory of general relativity calls for a universe which had a beginning, and Einstein actually wanted to believe that the universe was in an ever existing state, and then constructed a fudge factor to go along with the theory. A few years later another man had found a problem with the fudge factor, and drastically improved the reliability of general relativity (Einstein had divided something by 0 in the fudge factor).

So of course I believe that the universe had a big bang, but what I don't know is enough about all the world religions in order for me to choose one. I can't base my life on a certain religion if I don't know what my religion isn't. So for now, with what I've studied and gone through, I know that there is a god and I bet it is the Christian god. Like I said, I really just don't know yet.

And yeah for those who remember my hovind retorts, erm.. I don't really like hovind at all anymore. I have moved on to read much more reliable and accredited debates and research.

As for why I believe in a god, well.. A short answer to that would be: No atheistic theory holds up to scrutiny well enough, and it is so easy to win arguments against atheists and for Christianity. I argue a lot on other sites, and in my own school on this topic, and the Christian apologist arguments have not been beaten yet. I only argue on the topic of whether god exists or not sort of as security to my own beliefs. If nobody can beat the apologist arguments then I will most likely choose to follow Christianity, if someone beats them in debate or with a book then I will disown Christianity.

Science is not Mathematics

In mathematics things are proven with... oh, what? things called proofs. this goes so that beyond a shred of a doubt we know the relation is true.

A theory (in the field of science) is not always 100 percent. Science doesn't try to find exact values, but rather practical... and usable... relationships that give us knowledge and help explain our world. So many people say that evolution "is just a theory". But through our understanding of the theory of evolution, many new ones have risen. It doesn't matter that science doesn't generate absolutes... it gives us something useful.

Gravity - Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElyqKDRU4gg&feature=related

There is not Hierarchy as he says with FACT siting right above THEORY.

You mean they have not been 100% disproven yet?

I'm sure it's easy to win arguments against high school atheists. I'm sure that many of them, themselves, are not completely sure why they've chosen to think the way they do. Either it just "feels" more logical to them, or they've gone against religion out of spite without truly thinking of good reasons to do so. The never ending paradox in existential debate is that science cannot know every tiny bit of information there is to know (although the cover more ground every day) and the religious side of the argument insists that the unknown information must be God at work. Since there are things that science does not yet have a concrete understanding of, they (being the professionals that they are) hold off on judging what the real reasons might be due to lack of evidence, and the (always tactlessly) overconfident religious side does not hesitate to provide an explanation (even if it will be dis proven at a later time) based off of primitive text and the claims of celebrity evangelicals.

Putting all scientific debate aside, I think the reason a lot of people refuse to give up belief in something is because of their own vanity. Of course, I doubt most of you would own up to an accusation of vanity because your religion likely teaches you to be "humble" and "good", or at least appear to be so in exchange for a reward after death. I might be projecting my own old reasoning onto others, but I doubt it's that uncommon. I know it stings at first to think that there is probably no deity out there; or if there is one, it doesn't give a flip about you. You've been conditioned by, perhaps, the parenting you received as a small child where wanting something = having it, without you understanding why yet. Or maybe your parenting wasn't so great and the prospect of an all knowing sky-fairy that will give you anything you want, if you simply recognized it, sounded appealing. Regardless, you now know why a hungry baby gets a bottle, even if the baby doesn't understand the process.

But that same infantile reasoning lasts well into adulthood. You may be subconsciously conditioned to think that wanting something, and letting that want be known to a massive authority figure, will result in you getting it. That's not the case, and I'm sure you're all intelligent enough to see why. If you want something, you have to figure out the process you will need to go through in order to get it. Even then, your attempts may not succeed, but it is not because some deity was interfering with your life. Either you failed to plan properly, or someone that's better (or perhaps more connected or simply luckier than you) beat you to it, or both. Religion (or pop-spirituality, a movement I'm growing to loathe) is especially effective at moments of confusion and painful want, such as after the death of a loved one, or a tragedy, or a heartbreak. Odds are, you've fallen for a too-good-to-be-true religious promise. You may get some momentary delusional peace, but they really win here, because now you'll be putting money in the plate, tithing your income, and spreading the word to other desperate people. The truth is, things just happen. Sometimes we don't like them. But the best way to ensure future peace is to figure out exactly what went wrong (if possible) and use that understanding in the future. If you don't, sooner or later you will find yourself screwed again and wondering if you didn't quite ask God (or the universe) in just the right way. Or worse, you're thanking the sky-fairy for success deprivation because you need to believe you're humble so that future requests might fare better.

I've rambled a bit, but I wanted to say that I've recently moved from agnostic to atheist. That lingering suspicion that there might be a "design" to everything has finally been allowed to square off with my overwhelming doubt, and the doubt won. I must say, I've never felt more at peace within. Letting go of trying to please God or The Universe (or whatever) is truly liberating. The turn in this direction did sting at first, but now I know that my future success is up to me and not my ability to please the unseen. Rather than constantly playing catch-up with science, or trying to find any (assuredly temporary) chink in science's armor sounds like a losing game. Just let it go. The non-existent God doesn't care. Your life will be just as good (and I suspect better) once you lay that reasoning to rest.

Perhaps it has something to do with religion allowing the mind to construct for itself a state in which apparent chaos and disorder can be organized, and from the order, a base of operations is established. The constructor can then feel assured that they will not simply explode or come to some other horrible state of being, and from this they can then be happy. Perhaps the subjects in question cannot rely on faulty scientific explainations (due to our lack of having empirical data about the entire universe) and as such resort to some other method in which they feel comfortable in existing.

Such a construct is very similar to science, in terms of its rational and orderly manner, and need to explain the universe, though not in terms of observation.

On the other hand, perhaps Doodan and others like him have become uncomfortable with the notion of an all powerful being, despite there being no evidence to explicitly disprove such an existence, and as such they construct a similar state for themselves in which such an existence is refuted so they can in turn exist in comfort. Such people may not be satisfied with the faults in religious texts which clash with their observtions, and as such resort to some other method in which they feel comfortable existing.

I hope the parrallels are observed

Edit: Doodan, if you find this offensive in any way I will certainly remove it. I just think mentioning you (since you posted previous to mine) makes it slightly more effective.

Are you saying that people revert to Faith because we can't say everything about the universe?

I would say that it is not this reason that people chose faith over a scientific explanation.
Perhaps people in question cannot rely on faulty faith based explanations as well. (That whole glass house argument..)

No the reason people convert to something over something else is because they choose not to accept the reasons given. There may be logical reasons, for any faith or scientific view, but you can't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced.

Perhaps.


One argument among many.

Unless you're prepared to say that every person who converts to something over something else does so for this reason, I would suggest you throw a "Perhaps" in there, instead of a "No"


Maybe you can. Read 1984, by Orwell. Then think about things like the media, the crusades, electro-shock-therapy, ect.

That last point is a good one, let me rephrase.

To convince someone of something, they must believe you are on their side, or have legitimate authority signifying that you can convince them. If they do not believe in this authority, then they will not listen to you. This is because the person who your trying to convince does not want to be convinced by you. (Or anyone in your position.)

I never pay attention to most anything American news has to offer, because I don't consider most of them to truly express an unbiased opinion. (BBC is better, heck Wikinews is better.)

This is why a lot of people hate the preacher that passes out new testaments at my college.