Hey,

First off, I'd like to agree with Shando69. Although not perfect, we do manage to keep the discussion on a much better level than what we all witness everyday under youtube comments and other much more juvenile forums, which is why I'm happy to contribute here and listen to what people have to say. Then again, believing that we'd come to a unanimous scientific result from a forum discussion is ludicrous so I don't expect the impossible. As a forum I think we're doing alright here and I cherish the community we have.




I beg to differ.. I think that the literal stories of the Bible have been the MOST researched and tested hypothesis EVER, by scientists and non-scientists alike. Every story in it that could somehow be validated today has been exhaustly researched in order to find a faint of proof in them. For the story of Noah and the Arc we found that there indeed has been frequent floodings of the Eufrat river (i doubt i've spelled that right..) using geological evidence. For the story of Moses, there is still undergoing research on trying to find any evidence at all that thousands of people walked across the desert for 40 years. For the story of the sea splitting in half for the Jews to walk through, we've been scourging the dead sea for Pharao's Chariots that supposively drowned (we have found 1 chariot, although people were expecting thousands of them. It's not proof one way or another i'm just saying we've been looking..) Again with Sodoma and Gomora being punished and being turned into columns of salt(i'm doing a literal translation from greek), we've looked and we indeed found traces of salt. I'm not saying something is proven or not, i'm just saying that humans have indeed been looking... a LOT.

Science will always investigate everything, no matter how crazy it sounds. Do you know that the CIA actually had a program were it investigated Remote Viewing (telepathy) and what benefits it would ripe from it? 8 million dollars of US tax payers money went into this. After they found no proof on this concept, telepathy leaked into the rest of the world and is now used by Mediums and Cold Reader scummers. But the point is that if you are familiar with a term, be it a miracle from the Bible, or telepathy, telekinisis or whatever, chances are that Science has already tested this a lot of years ago.



Evolution is being tested everyday and as I've said, if someone manages to disprove it there's a Nobel Prize and 1 million dollars waiting for him, so the incentive is there but no one has been able to do so for 150 years. But saying that people believe 100% in evolution is very wrong. Ask me, I'm a strong advocate of evolution and have actually based my career on it by focusing on a similar model on IT. Am I 100% sure evolution is correct? Of course not.. Until 1905 everyone believed in Newton's theory of relativity until Einstein came along and corrected it. Scientists never believe in anything 100% which is why maybe the "word" theory got its bad name from. I've only known religious people that believe in something 100%.




Hello mp_developer,

You still seem to be a bit confused about law and theory, but I can't blame you ; Most people are, and I was too before I was corrected by a scientist.

This is what you mean i think... Since, if we drop an object and it falls, we can OBSERVE gravity at work, you call this a law. And everything else we can OBSERVE, like the earth moving around the sun, that's also a law in your mind, but if we are to speculate something then that's a theory until it can be proven.

There are many things wrong with the above paragraph. First of, a theory can NEVER be proven. That's why I said before, scientists are never 100% about anything. Now, the effect that if we drop an object it will fall down, this is an observation; a fact if you will. The problem is that this observation does NOT explain anything. It's just data to scientists. It does NOT explain why it falls, IF it will fall in any place on the planet, if it would fall 4 billion years ago and if it will fall 4 billion years from now. It's only an observation.

If you were to explain WHY the object falls, then you make a hypothesis "it falls because the planet acts as some sort of a magnet..". After exhausting testing and debate, if your hypothesis stands then it becomes a theory. Forget laws, they don't matter.. They are just subparts of theories. A theory can NEVER upgrade to something better than a theory. A Law is not above a theory, it's just part of it.

So, while the fact that some objects fall down has never been disproven (you can't really disprove facts, as I said they're just data), Newton's theory of Gravity, and in derivation, Newton's LAW of Gravity have been disproven by Einstein's own theory of Gravity that it's not the planets themselves that act on the object but time and space which skew around the planet.




This is all very correct until your last sentence. It should read like this:

Report the results, if results are right, the hypothesis is made into a theory


I checked your references. They seem to got it right, I think it's you who are confusing the terms. I think what you want to say is "The fact of gravity", meaning the phenomenon where if we drop something like an apple, it will fall to the ground. We certainly cannot dispute that, but the questions WHY it falls down, or HOW we humans were created will always be subjects for dispute.

Now the reason why a fact is not important whereas a theory is, is that a fact only shows that object X falls down when dropped in location Y, with conditions Z, whereas a theory tries to explain the phenomenon universally. I hope this is clear.




Actually E=MC² was developed in just a couple of months. And sure, you can't prove if you can travel back in time or not, but you can make predictions using Einstein's theories and successful predictions is what give theories weight. If the Bible made accurate and scientifically testable predictions as well, I'm sure it would also carry a lot more weight than it carries now.

Here's a quote from one of my Einstein books:



If Einstein's theory had failed to predict the position of that star, we wouldn't even know his name today. Still, that does not prove that General relativity is 100% correct, because even though it made an accurate prediction that could not have possibly be luck, it still may only be partially true. You can't prove a theory, ever.

About the atomic bomb and Einstein, what happened was, Einstein was worried that Facist Germany might develop an atomic bomb using Einstein's latest contributions to the scientific world. So he wrote a letter to Roosevelt warning him about it, resulting in what we all already know. Einstein had no further involvement in the development of the atomic bomb other than that letter.




True, but since we can measure the shape of our planet using instruments, we can also call the Earth being round as a Fact. People prefer to use the word fact on things we can measure since they are more absolute than the word theory. Yet, the fact that the Earth is round which can be measured as data today validates Pythagoras's theory that the Earth is round when he predicted it 2600 years ago.


Cheers,
Aris