Best layman's explanation for Scientific Theory I have ever seen.

Best layman's explanation for Scientific Theory I have ever seen.

Views: 113611

Albums: Science

Comment by Dave G on July 21, 2012 at 2:59pm

Pretty damn good.

Comment by kOrsan on July 21, 2012 at 3:06pm

Funny how he had to repeat himself like 5 times. It's hard to make a point to retarded theists.

Comment by Bridget Rice on July 22, 2012 at 2:24pm

Wow, this is incredible. The OP needs to post this EVERYWHERE.

Comment by Doc Feral on July 24, 2012 at 12:56am

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. 

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on July 24, 2012 at 9:05am

I think I'm going to start asking creatards if 'Music Theory' means music never happened.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on July 24, 2012 at 2:15pm

@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?

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on July 24, 2012 at 2:16pm

Uhm, NOT yet met the mark - I wish we could edit our posts here.

Comment by Dienekes on July 24, 2012 at 10:22pm

@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.

Comment by gene roush on July 25, 2012 at 2:27pm

Truth is personal and while I am not faithful to a god I am faithful to my journey for Truth. I have encountered too many people on both sides of this issue that fail to see faith as a journey and are of the belief that they have arrived at a destination. So they close their door to the possibility that another's Theory might be a truth.

We have thousands of laws and theories that organize the world around us into predictable patterns. Those patterns supply us with security among the chaos of life.

Paise the mathematician.

The more I study physics the more I realize faith.

Comment by Dienekes on July 25, 2012 at 3:41pm

It seems to me that the worst offenders of being closed minded are those that claim that "truth is personal".  Truth is not personal.  If it were, every inmate in every mental ward would have just as valid of a grasp on reality as anyone else.  You can't claim 2+2=16 and say that is just as valid as 2+2=4 because it is a "personal truth".  There is "personal speculation" and with that I have no issue with.  Is it possible that a "god" or "gods" exist? My *personal speculation* is no. Do I claim that as any sort of "truth"? Of course not. Anyone who is open minded allows that there just *might* be a being out there somewhere, someplace that could be considered a "god" by someone's definition.  But it is *NOT* a "personal truth" that one exists unless and until there is evidence to support (and ESPECIALLY no evidence to disprove) that that god exists.  It is nothing but personal *speculation*. 

When those "personal speculations" are forced only other people is when that belief system opens itself to attack.  If someone insists that I live under their "moral code" which is based on their *personal speculation* (read: delusional superstition) that some "god" has "laid down the law", that is when we have the right to demand evidence and proof of that super sky fairy.

I suspect that there are almost no atheists that are closed minded to religion. Unless you consider "closed minded" to be of that mind that you have to provide extraordinary evidence (or really ANY evidence) to support extraordinary claims.  Making the assertion that supposition and speculation is not "evidence" is also not being closed minded.  Another thing that is not being closed minded is capitulating to a logical fallacy, such as the Great Flood.  There is no evidence to support such nonsense, and especially the nonsense that such an event could have happened within the last few thousand years.  Not accepting someone else's crazy assed delusions is NOT being closed minded.

It amazes me when xians start begging that we all just "let each other believe as we wish", since that is exactly what all atheists want.  But the xian attitude is belied when they try to force "creation science" (again, that may be a "personal speculation" on someone's part, but it certainly is in no way a "truth") into our classrooms or claiming that we have gained ANY knowledge from a 1500 year old that has obviously be re-written multiple times to suit the powers that be at the time.

I have said it multiple times and will say it over and over again: I don't care what crazy nonsensical fairy tales you want to believe.  Just don't try to legislate laws to restrict the civil rights of others based on those delusional superstitions and we'll get along just fine.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

Lynx - the lynx

Posted by Brad Snowder on March 18, 2017 at 11:17pm 1 Comment

© 2017   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service