Discussion Forums > The Lounge

An individual who screws up the term, "Theory"... / "Proof"?

(1/13) > >>

fohfoh:
Ok... chatting on another forum and an individual starts throwing around that the Big Bang Theory and Evolution does not need proving. It's fact. Ok fine. But the reason they don't need proving is that they are "theories".

I politely asked if he felt evidence from the LHC would aid his Big Bang Theory argument for which he replied with something along the lines of, "You don't need to prove the Big Bang Theory and Micro vs Macro Evolution is crap cooked up by creationists to try and disprove of the fact of Evolution."

Now, let's not discuss Big Bang theory and Micro vs Macro evolution. That is meant elsewhere and not on bkbt forums. (ie: A scientific discussion or something irl) I've already spoken about the difference between scientific law and scientific theory... any thing I should add to try and get this person back on track before he spews another load of crap?

I mean in all seriousness, it's some idiot who is trying to use Evolution and Big Bang to try and say, "All religious people are morons!" but any intelligent individual with half a brain can easily see that even at a scientific level or secular level, that this person has totally screwed up their understanding of a scientific concept.

Amirite? or am I really lacking sleep and thinking crazy thoughts?

mizore:
Errr... that's way too vague, tbh.   To formulate any type of opinion I would have to see some evidence of an educated discussion.  If, however, you are saying that he was intentionally avoiding just that, then I would make with the lol's.

Working for CERN is exactly what I want to do, btw.  Seriously unnerving that the LHC can only operate at about half its potential due to the damage previously incurred... I wonder if it was sabotage?

fohfoh:

--- Quote ---And by the way, stating that the Big Bang Theory and Evolution are awaiting to be proven, would make you the laughing stock in higher education circles.

--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---What do you mean by proof of the Big Bang Theory? Asking for a proof of the Big Bang Theory is like asking for a proof of the Theory of Gravity. The Big Bang Theory is an explanation that is consistent with most scientific observations on the universe, its expansion, trajectory, etc. Are you asking for the proof that the explanation is correct? Well, it is consistent with all the evidence we have. You cannot do better than that! A scientific theory is not something that needs to be proven to be true. It IS true (by definition) with the evidence we have observed.

The same applies to the Theory of Evolution. Furthermore, there is not such thing as micro and macro evolution. These are terms coined by creationists to artificially create a barrier (which they can't even define precisely) to make it seem like you can't get "runaway micro evolution". Let me ask you this. Why can't you run a mile if you can run a yard? If mutations can accumulate over time, why can't new species appear in evolution? What other evidence do you need besides transitional fossils to "prove" evolution? The Theory of Evolution is consistent with observations in all fields of biology, from molecular biology to physiology (if you choose to disregard transitional fossils).

--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---I will tell you one more time. The Theory of Evolution and The Theory of the Big Bang do not need to be proven. Saying so makes me question your understanding of what a scientific theory is. Until you understand that definition, there is no point in me trying to educate you about Evolution. And by the way, punctuated equilibrium IS evolution. Please do not misrepresent it as an alternative theory to evolution.

I do not have any problems with people believing in fairy tales, but I have a problem when they go out of their way, pretend to talk about topics as if they were experts, and their opinions are outright wrong or misrepresentations of what we know.
--- End quote ---


Have your lols. I think this guy is being serious. I on the other hand can't fully think through the ideas and discuss with him since I'm too tired atm.

And I'm talking about general understanding of theory which this person seems to misunderstand greatly. "Theory of gravity"? I thought gravity was law... though after a quick check it seems to be a "law" by name only and is mentioned as a theory. So he might not be fully wrong overall. (Though I still disagree with the Evolution etc. comments personally not needing proof) 

mizore:
Yes, lol's ensued. 

Einstein's theory of the curvature of space is somewhat controversial currently considering the exponentially increasing redshift seen at the edges of the universe... well, as far as we have the ability to see, anyway.  The lensing effects seen while observing are a particularly prominent indicator that the behaviors aren't as currently understood.

JoonasTo:
I lolled.  :D

The guy's true believer alright. Just not in god. In science theories. I always wondered if there were such people...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page