For all of you geometry nerds like me, and for those of you who do not know what a postulate is, it is a rule of mathematics which cannot be proven, yet cannot/has not been disproven. I feel that God feels under this rule. No one can prove His/Her/It's existence, yet no one can really disprove it. I would like to see other peoples' thoughts on this.
That may be well in good in mathematics, but this is in an inertly different realm. This is science. In science, we have something called "The Burden Of Proof", which states that for something to be credible in the first place, you must prove it. In other words, you have to prove it exists before it can be argued.
For example, lets say I said a galactic teapot was just floating around in space, while being unobservable and full of unicorns, would you believe me? I hope not. But you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong, since I don't have any proof in the first place.
Ah yes, but then so many scientific theories wouldn't be plausible then, because no one could prove it. Such as the Theory of Evolution. I believe in it, but it is still not yet certainly proved. We are getting there, but we are still not at the finish line yet.
Ah yes, but then so many scientific theories wouldn't be plausible then, because no one could prove it. Such as the Theory of Evolution. I believe in it, but it is still not yet certainly proved. We are getting there, but we are still not at the finish line yet.
Evolution has been proven, what are you talking about? It is a well observed fact. That is why it is a "theory" and not a "hypothesis". We have past the finish line a long time ago and are now just sitting on the sidelines laughing at the creationists run in the opposite direction. So pick an actual theory that is not based on observation or facts. (Do to the fact that there is none, you will be looking for a while)
I am not disputing this. I am just saying that for something to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it has to have absolute evidence with absolutely nothing to discredit it. As of now, scientists don't have absolute evidence (the Missing Link), so it can only be called a theory.
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
That is the definition of theory in science. It is generally accepted, yet not completely proven.
For example, lets say I said a galactic teapot was just floating around in space, while being unobservable and full of unicorns
Yes, but you have no proof for that, so it is unbelievable. Darwin's Theory of Evolution has proof, but the Missing Link keeps it from being undisputed fact.
You talk about missing links and that might be acceptable if we didn't have any transitional fossils whatsoever, we have a number of fossils that are proven and some that are highly likely to be fill in the gaps in our evolutionary knowledge, look here for a list of transitional forms.
I feel that God feels under this rule. No one can prove His/Her/It's existence, yet no one can really disprove it. I would like to see other peoples' thoughts on this.
god in general is a very broad spectrum that we really can't say anything bout on way or another. Specific gods on the other hand we can disprove, at least to a degree.
Ah yes, but then so many scientific theories wouldn't be plausible then, because no one could prove it. Such as the Theory of Evolution. I believe in it, but it is still not yet certainly proved. We are getting there, but we are still not at the finish line yet.
A scientific theory has to remain falsifiable, as such it can't be proven.
You talk about missing links and that might be acceptable if we didn't have any transitional fossils whatsoever, we have a number of fossils that are proven and some that are highly likely to be fill in the gaps in our evolutionary knowledge, look here for a list of transitional forms.
Why does everyone on this site link to Wikipedia? It is highly unreliable. On topic, most "missing links" were actually proved to not be related to humans at all.
Why does everyone on this site link to Wikipedia? It is highly unreliable.
Its actually quite reliable, the way to tell is the sources. Also he linked to rantionalwiki, not wikipedia.
On topic, most "missing links" were actually proved to not be related to humans at all.
I have never heard of this, even with all of the people arguing against evolution. I also find it interesting how you complain that avrone's source is unreliable and provide none of your own.
I am not disputing this. I am just saying that for something to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it has to have absolute evidence with absolutely nothing to discredit it. As of now, scientists don't have absolute evidence (the Missing Link), so it can only be called a theory.
A theory is a fact, in case you are unfamiliar with the terminology. I think they covered the "Missing Link" myth quite fully.
That is the definition of theory in science. It is generally accepted, yet not completely proven.
You mean like the "Theory Of Gravity"? Theory is fact, with mountains of evidence piling up behind it. You would have a better chance of hitting the moon with a one inch punch from the sun than them being wrong.
Yes, but you have no proof for that, so it is unbelievable. Darwin's Theory of Evolution has proof, but the Missing Link keeps it from being undisputed fact.
The "missing link" is a myth as we had stated. So you don't believe in the intergalactic teapot without proof, why would you believe in Yahweh without proof?
â"noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
From dictionary.com
note the word "regarded" in the second definition. that means that it is accepted as the truth, but not yet fully proven.
What about things in science like the Higgs Boson and parallel dimensions and/or other universes. None of them have been proven to exist yet they are still debated on by people in the scientific field.
Those are theoretical(can't think of a better word really, maybe hypothesis(well its plural)), they are not scientific theories and are still being researched.
