Jump to content

WalterP

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    646
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

WalterP last won the day on September 13

WalterP had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

275 Excellent

About WalterP

  • Rank
    Skeptic

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bdoWZbvXps

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Merry Olde England
  • Interests
    Cosmology
  • More About Me
    Armchair astronomer under marmalade skies.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Pantheory, We can break the impasse between us in a very simple way. By you citing examples where others actually declare that a given theory has been proved. Can you please do that? Your own say so, anecdotal examples, articles from the popular press and other imprecise sources wouldn't count. Peer-reviewed examples from the empirical sciences would. I'm taking a short break from Ex-C for a few days. I'm look forward to seeing what you can come up with. Thank y
  2. Thank you for the upvote Weezer. But it seems that I've failed to convey to you why I put in all the work I do. I don't do it for personal satisfaction. I do it because the discipline of science requires it and because it benefits those people in this forum who need the help I can give them. Thank you. Walter.
  3. Pantheory, You know I said that I was good at spotting inconsistencies and contradictions? The article you quoted contains them. If a theory that meets certain criteria is considered to be proven but is then improved upon, what status is it now given? Proven again? Proven better? Proven but still able to be proven better? And so on? That's the kind of mess you get if you relax the definition of proven from anything less then absolute. My point stands but your given example is unworkable. Walter.
  4. This post is for Pantheory, Weezer and anyone else who thinks I’m trying to get everything perfect as I see it.. First, I don’t decide how science runs itself. Scientists do that. So, if we want to discuss and debate science here we have to toe their line. Not mine. If you don’t want to toe their line, then don’t pretend that you’re talking science. You’re not. It’s quite simple. If you want to do science and talk science, then abide by its working practices and principles and then you’ll be doing and talking science. If you want to go your own way, fine.
  5. That's an interesting observation, Weezer. But would you have a problem with my attention to detail if I were in a debate with a Christian or some other kind of theist? Walter.
  6. Oh btw, Pantheory... Have you had any luck finding proofs in the scientific method? Walter.
  7. That's not quite it Pantheory. I'll explain when I'm ready. But I notice that you've changed your tune somewhat. Yesterday and today you believed that science did prove things. But as of an hour ago your belief is to present the evidence and the facts. Don't you still believe that science proves things? What's changed your mind in such a short space of time? Please explain your shift of position on this issue. Thank you, Walter.
  8. But do you know just what aspect of this forum I'm referring to, Pantheory? We could be talking at cross purposes. So, please explain what you think this aspect is, who it applies to and how it influences the content of the threads in this forum. Thank you, Walter.
  9. I don't know why you are pursuing this line, Pantheory. It's simply not within the remit of the empirical sciences to prove anything. That is not what science is for and not what it does. Proofs are used only in mathematics and in logic. Nowhere else. Btw, have you had any luck finding proofs in the scientific method? Anyway, beyond the epistemological requirement to use the word proof correctly and only in its proper context, there's another important reason for my position on this issue. A reason that has to do with the function of this f
  10. FYI, Pantheory. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Proof#:~:text="Proof" is something that the opponents of science,suggests that a claim has been proven 100%. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrP4o9uT4xfjj8AMnYM34lQ;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzMEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj?qid=20151216012204AAiMQon https://woofreezone.com/scientific-proof-evidence-and-the-scientific-method/ So, as outrageous as it may seem to you, this rule applies to all of science, all of the time. Meaning that science has not and cannot pr
  11. Pantheory, You are confusing facts with proof. A proof is absolute, but a fact is not. Therefore, it is a fact that the Earth rotates around the sun, but that fact cannot be proven in science. So the status of the Sun and the Earth remains unproven and unprovable by science. Walter.
  12. No Pantheory. That is false. This is a matter of epistemology, not semantics. Epistemologically speaking the only science that deals in proofs is mathematics. In every other branch of the sciences theories are either falsified or supported by the available evidence. They are never proven right, proven correct or proven wrong. I now have reason to doubt your claim to be a formal cosmological theorist. The reason for this doubt is that the Christians who visit this forum almost always display an ignorance of the workings of science. They usually (and fa
  13. Hello Pantheory. Just over a week ago, in the 'Did the Universe begin?' thread, you wrote... As a formal cosmological theorist myself, I do not believe in the Big Bang model and most of its tenets, such as dark matter, dark energy, Inflation, an expanding universe, the beginning BB entity, a beginning of heat, etc., but concur with a beginning to the universe similar but simpler to that described above concerning a beginning entity. Two hours ago, in this thread, you wrote... Many believe this idea has not been proven. We k
  14. Perhaps this will help, Fuego? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring The most persuasive aspect of scientific theory is when it makes a prediction that is confirmed with evidence. General relativity predicts that extremely massive objects will warp space in extreme ways. On this Wiki page the images and animations show examples of space being severely warped by massive objects like galaxies. These are just a few of the many confirmations of general relativity. Here are some others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens htt
  15. Ok, Chat. How do you understand when you are worshipping god in spirit and in truth? Can you explain that please? Walter.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.