But not a proof.
I loved making this video, physicists are so full of shit
- Thread starter David Jeffrey Spetch
- Start date
But not a proof.
Argument of the Stone fallacy. Word stuffing. Inversion fallacy. No argument presented.
Insult fallacy.
Lie.
No. It was Fred Hoyle that coined the term 'Big Bang'. Lamaitre didn't call it that.
Only religions use supporting evidence.
Because you are believing a religion.
Word stuffing. I never said any such thing.
Word stuffing. I never made any such argument.
You don't get to choose what is 'credible' for everybody.
Word stuffing. I never cited any bible verse.
You deny logic, science, mathematics, and history.
Only religions use supporting evidence. You actually typed that. It is amazing. You really need help. Your grasp on logic is at best tenuous.
Hoyle was an advocate of the steady-state universe. He called the theory of Lamaitre and others the "big bang" derogatorily. He was not on board.
Last edited:
That is correct.
You find someone typing something to be amazing??
Inversion fallacy.
Irrelevant.
He coined the term.
American Man
Verified User
You're ignorant. Best for you to keep quiet.
He thinks that is genius. It is so wrong that it is borderline humor. The laughs are stopped because he is serious.
He coined the term.
No. Religions are based on a circular argument (by itself that is not a fallacy). It is also known as the Argument of Faith.
All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that.
Example:
Christianity's initial circular argument is that Christ exists and that He is who He says He is (namely, the Son of God). ALL other arguments extend from that initial circular argument, or argument of faith.
The Church of No God's initial circular argument is that no god or gods exist. ALL other arguments stem from that initial circular argument, or argument of faith.
It is not possible to prove any god or gods exist or do not exist.
It is not possible to prove the Big Bang happened or didn't happen. It is not possible to go back in time to see what actually happened (if anything).
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It has NO theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. Such theories therefore remain the circular arguments they started out as.
Like what schools do today?
All religions use supporting evidence. They are, after all, based on a circular argument as a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument.
You have mentioned some supporting evidence for the Church of the Big Bang.
Supporting evidence for Christianity is the presence of the Bible, other writings through the ages, the ability to consider Earth itself and life as intelligently designed, prayers that are 'answered', etc.
Supporting evidence is NOT proof of any argument or theory. Science doesn't use it. Religions do.
Attempting to prove a circular argument either True or False produces the circular argument fallacy. It is not possible to prove a circular argument either way. Attempting to do so is what a fundamentalist does. You are a fundamentalist in the Church of the Big Bang.
Nah. That would be YOU. I am not trying to prove any religion True or False. YOU are. Inversion fallacy. You can't lay YOUR problems on someone else. They are YOUR problems.
Argument of the Stone fallacy. Insult fallacy. No argument presented.
Denial of philosophy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented.
There is no mfing church of the big bang. You are so ignorant of how science works. There are other possible beginnings postulated. However, the evidence shows the big bang is the most likely. There is a constant debate among physicists about how it works. They are a constant and relentless series of experiments to discover derive more information. The many, many they have conducted show it is the best answer. If an experiment's results do not corroborate the hypothesis, and the experiment is proven proper, the hypothesis is changed or discarded.
That is not how religion functions. You are as wrong about religion as you are about science.
You and your game of opposites. You are such a waste of pixels.
That is not how religion functions. You are as wrong about religion as you are about science.
You and your game of opposites. You are such a waste of pixels.
There certainly is. You are a True Believer in it. A fundamentalist.
Not science.
None of them are theories of science.
Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do.
Many physicists are religious.
What information?
Science doesn't use supporting evidence. Only religions do.
You have it the wrong way around. A hypothesis comes out of a theory, not a theory out of a hypothesis.
You are trying to use supporting evidence to prove your religion True. That is the act of a fundamentalist.
Denial of philosophy.
Chant. There is no game of opposites.
Science has no proofs. Science does not use supporting evidence.
You can't prove your religion True. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
Nope. Means nothing. It is not a proof. Attempted proof by circular argument.
Not a proof.
Not at all. It's exactly what you are doing.
Yes you are. You are trying to call a religion 'science'.
Science isn't evidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
'Expert' worship. Void reference fallacy. Science isn't a credential, degree, license, certificate, or any other Holy Blessing from any university or the government.
I am not making a claim. YOU are.
I am not making a claim. YOU are.
I know you are a fundamentalist in the Church of the Big Bang, a fundamentalist in the Church of Green, a fundamentalist in the Church of Global Warming, a fundamentalist in the Church of Covid, and a fundamentalist in the Church of Karl Marx.
I know you have no clue what science is or why it is defined the way it is.
I know you have no clue what religion is or why it is defined the way it is.
So? Science doesn't use supporting evidence. Only religions do.
Religion.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
What? I thought it was repeatable experiments.
Nope. Just a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
Experiments are used to try to break a theory.
Science makes no use of supporting evidence. Only religions do that. It is not possible to prove ANY theory, scientific or otherwise, to be True. It IS possible to show a theory of science to be False. It is NOT possible to show a nonscientific theory to be False.
Some experiments are used to try to formulate a new theory, but a new theory can come from literally anywhere...even from dreams.
As long as the theory can be tested to see if it's false, and it continues to survive, it is automatically part of the body of science. It will remain so until it is falsified.
There is no voting bloc, no consensus, no peer review, no license or degree or credential, no government blessing of any kind, no politics, and no religion. Not even people. It is not any scientist or group of scientists. It is not any society or academy.
It is just the set of falsifiable theories themselves.
To be falsifiable, a theory must be able to be tested for it's null hypothesis (how can I break this theory?). The test must be definable, available, practical to conduct, specific, and produce a specific result. The theory itself must be tested.
Science has no theories about past unobserved events. There is no way to travel back in time to see what actually happened. No amount of supporting evidence will ever prove any theory True. Mountains of it mean absolutely NOTHING in the face of a single piece of falsifying evidence.
There are a couple of rules (not methods or procedures).
The first is called the internal consistency check. A theory is an explanatory argument (whether scientific or otherwise). No theory may contain or be based upon a fallacy. It must be a valid argument.
The second is called the external consistency check, and only involves theories of science (not nonscientific theories). No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. One or both MUST be falsified.
The only thing that uses supporting evidence is a religion. Science is only interested in falsifying evidence.
For example:
One theory of science is the 1st law of thermodynamics. Typically expressed as E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (force over distance). In other words, it is not possible to create energy out of nothing or destroy energy into nothing. You can only increase energy through work.
If, someday, someone is able to show that you can indeed create energy out of nothing (without performing work), than the 1st law of thermodynamics would be falsified. There are no partials here. The theory is utterly dead at that point.
One theory of science that was falsified was the theory that Earth was the center of the Universe, and that everything orbited around a stationary Earth. That was falsified by Galileo, who pointed a telescope at Jupiter and saw it's moons going around Jupiter. The idea that Earth was the center of everything was falsified. It is no longer a theory of science. Anyone with a decent telescope can check this observation for themselves.
Note that this does NOT prove the Copernican model to be True. It only shows the Aristotle model to be False.
BTW, the Copernican model (that everything orbits a stationary Sun) was falsified, by Newton and Kepler. Planets, the Sun, and the various moons orbit each other, around a point called the barycenter. Each pair has a barycenter.
A new theory took it's place, created by Einstein. It simply says that there is no such thing as an absolutely stationary object. What you consider 'stationary', or zero speed, is strictly up to you. It's all relative. Even the barycenter is moving, relative to some other point you call 'zero speed'.
It is in this way that science progresses. A new theory is thought up, and it is tested to try to break it. If it survives, it is science until someone finds a way to break it.
Last edited: