Pretty damn good.
Funny how he had to repeat himself like 5 times. It's hard to make a point to retarded theists.
Wow, this is incredible. The OP needs to post this EVERYWHERE.
So String Theory is an explanation of observable facts? What are they?
Jerome.. String Theory is basically what's referred at a Grand Unified Theory. And attempts to tie together both Einstein's Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory. So those observations you asked about would pertain to both those theories, while also pertaining to String Theory.
I think I'm going to start asking creatards if 'Music Theory' means music never happened.
Thanks for the response. So "String Theory is basically what's referred at a Grand Unified Theory. And attempts to tie together both Einstein's Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory." My understanding is that no current GUT (of which there are several) is commonly accepted, which would seem to indicate that theories can be disputed. Also, "attempts to tie together" theories would not seem to qualify as an Explanation of facts, but as conjecture of what might explain those facts. It seems any definition of the word theory includes a certain amount of conjecture, which is what would be expected but does not really fit the bill of rock-solidness that is being suggested here.
@Jerome - you are correct in stating that there is no currently accepted GUT. All the observations that lead to Relativity and Quantum theory are just what they are - observed facts. Both Relativity and Quantum theory give us predictive utility that allows us to anticipate future observations.
In the case of a GUT, to date, no theory has suitably tied together all of those observations into one eloquent explanation - thus there does not exist a Grand Unified Theory. String Theory is an attempt at a GUT that has yet met the mark, and has not been represented as having done so.
I'm not certain what sort of 'rock solidness' you are seeking. Music theory doesn't imply that music does not exist. It is not complete, and will likely never be complete. It's predictive utility doesn't fail, however. If we found that it did, then we would have to rethink it. Is there a particular theory that you are having trouble wrapping your mind around?
Uhm, NOT yet met the mark - I wish we could edit our posts here.
@Jerome - You are misunderstanding Rob's response (perhaps because he didn't explain it well - sorry Rob). String Theory is an accepted (though extremely hard to understand) theory regarding quantum physics. It is a *CONTENDER* for the GUT or TOE (Theory of Everything). There is still a lot of work to do to work out how everything works together.
Also, you missed the main point. All Theories are “contended”. Even Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is constantly under scrutiny. That doesn't mean that most scientists have any doubt that it's right, it’s just the "tao of science", so to speak. Many xians look at the fact that all Theories are constantly being tested and any Theory can be thrown out the window if evidence rules against it as a weakness. But in reality, that is science's strength. It means that anything that is considered a Theory by the scientific community is absolutely valid *considering the evidence that we currently have*. It means that Theories are as close to absolute truth as our feeble minds can get to right now.
Compare this to the "theory" of creationism where the term "theory" means "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge, a conjecture, abstract reasoning, or speculation". One big problem with religion is that it is so conceited that no matter how much evidence is presented to dispute it, the religious either just ignore this evidence or make up any fairy tale that they can think of to sidestep the evidence while at the same clinging to any sliver of evidence and take it as far out of context as they need to in order for it to fit into their delusions.
A really good example of this is the Great Flood. It is amazing how the religious will use sea shells on mountain tops as "evidence" of the flood, despite the fact that this evidence does nothing of the sort and, when viewed in its entirety, actually *disproves* the Flood. When asked "where did all the water come from and where did it go?" They always answer where the water came from with some fairy tale that they had to make up (because there is no evidence at all to support any of these "theories" and is a logical fallacy) and ignore any questions that they can only come up with an answer that even they can’t chew on.
Science is not allowed to ignore any facts, no matter how distasteful. Pure science MUST take into account ALL facts. This doesn't mean that science can't be manipulated, as we constantly see with the medical sciences or other junk sciences such as man-made global warming, because any time money is involved, you have to take a very close look at what people are pushing and what people are trying to suppress, but as a general rule, science is the pure, impassive, rational search for the truth.
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
December 23, 2013 from 7pm to 11:45pm – Spartanburg Event Center Cleveland Park
April 13, 2014 all day – Anywhere that one might find a glass of Johnnie Walker Black
Started by Reg The Fronkey Farmer in Biology and Medicine. Last reply by David Smith 1 minute ago.
Posted by Owen Hayes on December 10, 2013 at 12:20am
Added by Dan
Added by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp
Why do diesels produce more torque than petrol engines?
Why does looking at this picture hurt your eyes? (Giz Gad Warning: Don’t click if you get headaches easy)
How do pirates crack games without access to the source code?
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.