Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

KNOWING that things fall to the ground, doesn't have anything to do with knowing WHY they fall. They fall even if we don't know why.

In the case of gravity, if we want to know WHY gravity works, outside of being told why by someone who knows why, the scientific method might be the best way to find out why.

The WHY of it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it happens. If nobody wants to know WHY, and nobody uses any method to determine WHY, it still happens.

Right but you didn't answer the question, what system or method is better then, in your opinion to find out the truth about something specific?

Since I answered the question, but you just don't seem to understand the answer, look above for the answer.

[BADecker]

Is that all you can say? Come on and change your god from yourself to the real God, before it's too late for you.

My Jehovah witness buddy told me that same nonsense like 45 years ago...  So when exactly is "too late" ?

You pious folk just wont let it go. It's why I don't bother arguing with you. Waste of time.
More fun just mocking your silly superstitious delusions and having a chuckle.

I admire you that you have the fortitude to stay with your false religion as stupid as it is. Or would that be admiring stupidity?

Even with all the anti-aging stuff coming into being these days, neither of us will probably live much more than a hundred years or so. Then we sleep a dreamless sleep until the Judgment Day, when we will find out who is more correct.

[Astargath]

KNOWING that things fall to the ground, doesn't have anything to do with knowing WHY they fall. They fall even if we don't know why.

In the case of gravity, if we want to know WHY gravity works, outside of being told why by someone who knows why, the scientific method might be the best way to find out why.

The WHY of it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it happens. If nobody wants to know WHY, and nobody uses any method to determine WHY, it still happens.

Right but you didn't answer the question, what system or method is better then, in your opinion to find out the truth about something specific?

Since I answered the question, but you just don't seem to understand the answer, look above for the answer.

Right but then you don't accept the scientific method for evolution and you think the bible is better, why? What method did you use to determine the bible is better than the scientific method to determine the truth?

[BADecker]

KNOWING that things fall to the ground, doesn't have anything to do with knowing WHY they fall. They fall even if we don't know why.

In the case of gravity, if we want to know WHY gravity works, outside of being told why by someone who knows why, the scientific method might be the best way to find out why.

The WHY of it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it happens. If nobody wants to know WHY, and nobody uses any method to determine WHY, it still happens.

Right but you didn't answer the question, what system or method is better then, in your opinion to find out the truth about something specific?

Since I answered the question, but you just don't seem to understand the answer, look above for the answer.

Right but then you don't accept the scientific method for evolution and you think the bible is better, why? What method did you use to determine the bible is better than the scientific method to determine the truth?

I don't necessarily think the things that you say that I do just because you say that I do... especially since you contradict the things that you say at the same time that you say them. Rather, you suggest that you are a troll by interjecting ideas as you do.

[Astargath]

KNOWING that things fall to the ground, doesn't have anything to do with knowing WHY they fall. They fall even if we don't know why.

In the case of gravity, if we want to know WHY gravity works, outside of being told why by someone who knows why, the scientific method might be the best way to find out why.

The WHY of it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it happens. If nobody wants to know WHY, and nobody uses any method to determine WHY, it still happens.

Right but you didn't answer the question, what system or method is better then, in your opinion to find out the truth about something specific?

Since I answered the question, but you just don't seem to understand the answer, look above for the answer.

Right but then you don't accept the scientific method for evolution and you think the bible is better, why? What method did you use to determine the bible is better than the scientific method to determine the truth?

I don't necessarily think the things that you say that I do just because you say that I do... especially since you contradict the things that you say at the same time that you say them. Rather, you suggest that you are a troll by interjecting ideas as you do.

Badecker: evolution is not real and it's only a scientific theory

Badecker: The bible is true because....

What method did you use to say the bible is true when you yourself admit the scientific method works?

[BADecker]

Badecker: evolution is not real and it's only a scientific theory

Badecker: The bible is true because....

What method did you use to say the bible is true when you yourself admit the scientific method works?

Using the scientific method to prove the Bible works. Anti-Bible scientists that use science on the Bible, don't use science in a complete way, or they ignore some of the findings, or they quit prematurely because they find that science is proving the Bible to be reliable.

Note that there has been no proof of evolution theory evolution (ETE) ever having been found. This makes ETE to exist in theory only. In fact, the idea that ETE occurred over extended periods of time, makes it unable to ever be proven until we develop working time machines, and methods to examine the DNA of millions of past creatures from multitudes of time zones.

The significance of this is that ETE scientists will always have their foot in the door regarding ETE, but they will never get in any further. The other significant point about this is, nobody will ever be able to use past DNA examinations to prove ETE is wrong.

This means that we will have to continue with the knowledge that adaptation, simple change, and like-begets-like have nothing to do with ETE... because we can't even prove that ETE exists/existed.

Further, it proves that you are not asking or commenting about evolution. How? By the fact that I have answered these things for you over and over, and you can't find any way to contradict what I say. This proves that you have other reasons for continuing to comment the way you do on the evolution subject. You are trying to harm me by attempting to get me to slip up in something that I say.

This proves that you are a person of bad faith.

[Astargath]

Badecker: evolution is not real and it's only a scientific theory

Badecker: The bible is true because....

What method did you use to say the bible is true when you yourself admit the scientific method works?

Using the scientific method to prove the Bible works. Anti-Bible scientists that use science on the Bible, don't use science in a complete way, or they ignore some of the findings, or they quit prematurely because they find that science is proving the Bible to be reliable.

Note that there has been no proof of evolution theory evolution (ETE) ever having been found. This makes ETE to exist in theory only. In fact, the idea that ETE occurred over extended periods of time, makes it unable to ever be proven until we develop working time machines, and methods to examine the DNA of millions of past creatures from multitudes of time zones.

The significance of this is that ETE scientists will always have their foot in the door regarding ETE, but they will never get in any further. The other significant point about this is, nobody will ever be able to use past DNA examinations to prove ETE is wrong.

This means that we will have to continue with the knowledge that adaptation, simple change, and like-begets-like have nothing to do with ETE... because we can't even prove that ETE exists/existed.

Further, it proves that you are not asking or commenting about evolution. How? By the fact that I have answered these things for you over and over, and you can't find any way to contradict what I say. This proves that you have other reasons for continuing to comment the way you do on the evolution subject. You are trying to harm me by attempting to get me to slip up in something that I say.

This proves that you are a person of bad faith.

''Note that there has been no proof of evolution theory evolution '' Prove it heh. Can you prove there has been no proof of evolution theory? Evolution theory exists thanks to the scientific method, saying there has been no proof of evolution is like saying there has been no proof of gravity, of course gravity doesn't knock out your imaginary god so you accept it.

[BADecker]

Badecker: evolution is not real and it's only a scientific theory

Badecker: The bible is true because....

What method did you use to say the bible is true when you yourself admit the scientific method works?

Using the scientific method to prove the Bible works. Anti-Bible scientists that use science on the Bible, don't use science in a complete way, or they ignore some of the findings, or they quit prematurely because they find that science is proving the Bible to be reliable.

Note that there has been no proof of evolution theory evolution (ETE) ever having been found. This makes ETE to exist in theory only. In fact, the idea that ETE occurred over extended periods of time, makes it unable to ever be proven until we develop working time machines, and methods to examine the DNA of millions of past creatures from multitudes of time zones.

The significance of this is that ETE scientists will always have their foot in the door regarding ETE, but they will never get in any further. The other significant point about this is, nobody will ever be able to use past DNA examinations to prove ETE is wrong.

This means that we will have to continue with the knowledge that adaptation, simple change, and like-begets-like have nothing to do with ETE... because we can't even prove that ETE exists/existed.

Further, it proves that you are not asking or commenting about evolution. How? By the fact that I have answered these things for you over and over, and you can't find any way to contradict what I say. This proves that you have other reasons for continuing to comment the way you do on the evolution subject. You are trying to harm me by attempting to get me to slip up in something that I say.

This proves that you are a person of bad faith.

''Note that there has been no proof of evolution theory evolution '' Prove it heh. Can you prove there has been no proof of evolution theory? Evolution theory exists thanks to the scientific method, saying there has been no proof of evolution is like saying there has been no proof of gravity, of course gravity doesn't knock out your imaginary god so you accept it.

Why would I want contradict myself by attempting to prove that there is no proof of evolution theory? Haven't I been talking about ETE? The fact that you are attempting to twist things around and skew the understanding of things we are talking about, proves that you are a person of bad faith.

Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real, but that evolution isn't known to be real, even though we have theories about both.

This shows that you try to disprove God from false premises when you talk the way you do. It also shows that you are a person of bad faith by the fact that you have a religion of atheism.

[Astargath]

Badecker: evolution is not real and it's only a scientific theory

Badecker: The bible is true because....

What method did you use to say the bible is true when you yourself admit the scientific method works?

Using the scientific method to prove the Bible works. Anti-Bible scientists that use science on the Bible, don't use science in a complete way, or they ignore some of the findings, or they quit prematurely because they find that science is proving the Bible to be reliable.

Note that there has been no proof of evolution theory evolution (ETE) ever having been found. This makes ETE to exist in theory only. In fact, the idea that ETE occurred over extended periods of time, makes it unable to ever be proven until we develop working time machines, and methods to examine the DNA of millions of past creatures from multitudes of time zones.

The significance of this is that ETE scientists will always have their foot in the door regarding ETE, but they will never get in any further. The other significant point about this is, nobody will ever be able to use past DNA examinations to prove ETE is wrong.

This means that we will have to continue with the knowledge that adaptation, simple change, and like-begets-like have nothing to do with ETE... because we can't even prove that ETE exists/existed.

Further, it proves that you are not asking or commenting about evolution. How? By the fact that I have answered these things for you over and over, and you can't find any way to contradict what I say. This proves that you have other reasons for continuing to comment the way you do on the evolution subject. You are trying to harm me by attempting to get me to slip up in something that I say.

This proves that you are a person of bad faith.

''Note that there has been no proof of evolution theory evolution '' Prove it heh. Can you prove there has been no proof of evolution theory? Evolution theory exists thanks to the scientific method, saying there has been no proof of evolution is like saying there has been no proof of gravity, of course gravity doesn't knock out your imaginary god so you accept it.

Why would I want contradict myself by attempting to prove that there is no proof of evolution theory? Haven't I been talking about ETE? The fact that you are attempting to twist things around and skew the understanding of things we are talking about, proves that you are a person of bad faith.

Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real, but that evolution isn't known to be real, even though we have theories about both.

This shows that you try to disprove God from false premises when you talk the way you do. It also shows that you are a person of bad faith by the fact that you have a religion of atheism.

''Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real, but that evolution isn't known to be real, even though we have theories about both.''

''Many people think that if scientists find evidence that supports a hypothesis, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory and if the theory if found to be correct, it is upgraded to a law. That is not how it works at all, though. In fact, facts, theories and laws — as well as hypotheses — are separate parts of the scientific method. Though they may evolve, they aren't upgraded to something else.

"Hypotheses, theories and laws are rather like apples, oranges and kumquats: one cannot grow into another, no matter how much fertilizer and water are offered," according to the University of California. A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon; a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon. A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept, according to Kennesaw State University.

"There are four major concepts in science: facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories," Coppinger told Live Science.

Though scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data, accepted by the majority of scientists within that area of scientific study and help to unify it, they are not the same thing.

"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work, said Coppinger.

Coppinger pointed out that the Law of Gravity was discovered by Isaac Newton in the 17th century. This law mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. However, Newton's law doesn't explain what gravity is, or how it works. It wasn't until three centuries later, when Albert Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity, that scientists began to understand what gravity is, and how it works.

"Newton's law is useful to scientists in that astrophysicists can use this centuries-old law to land robots on Mars. But it doesn't explain how gravity works, or what it is. Similarly, Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment describes how different traits are passed from parent to offspring, not how or why it happens," Coppinger said.

Another example of the difference between a theory and a law would be the case of Gregor Mendel. Mendel discovered that two different genetic traits would appear independently of each other in different offspring. "Yet Mendel knew nothing of DNA or chromosomes. It wasn't until a century later that scientists discovered DNA and chromosomes — the biochemical explanation of Mendel's laws. It was only then that scientists, such as T.H. Morgan working with fruit flies, explained the Law of Independent Assortment using the theory of chromosomal inheritance. Still today, this is the universally accepted explanation (theory) for Mendel's Law," Coppinger said.

The difference between scientific laws and scientific facts is a bit harder to define, though the definition is important. Facts are simple, basic observations that have been shown to be true. Laws are generalized observations about a relationship between two or more things in the natural world. The law can be based on facts and tested hypothesizes, according to NASA.

For example, "There are five trees in my yard" is considered a fact because it is a simple statement that can be proven. "The apples fall down from the tree in my back yard and not up" is a law because it describes how two things in nature behave that has been observed in a certain circumstance. If the circumstance changes, then the law would change. For example, in the vacuum of space, the apple may float upward from the tree instead of downward.''

Read more at: https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

[BADecker]

^^^ All those words without any point for them. Why not post more?

Oh, yes. There's a limit to how many words the forum allows in one post.

Nothing wrong with posting a bunch of words. It's fun.

 

[Vod]

It's a pity that we can't live all peacefully

And THAT is why atheists hate religion. 

[BADecker]

It's a pity that we can't live all peacefully

And THAT is why atheists hate religion. 

So you don't like peace, eh? Who do you think you are? God?

 

[Astargath]

^^^ All those words without any point for them. Why not post more?

Oh, yes. There's a limit to how many words the forum allows in one post.

Nothing wrong with posting a bunch of words. It's fun.

 

You said: ''Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real, but that evolution isn't known to be real, even though we have theories about both.'' Directly implying that if something is not a law, it means it's not know to be true which is simply false and wrong as shown in my post.

A law and a scientific theory are two different things and  one is not better than the other. A scientific theory can and will use, laws, facts and hypothesis to explain certain phenomena, you simply don't understand this, again, you are proven wrong.

[BADecker]

^^^ All those words without any point for them. Why not post more?

Oh, yes. There's a limit to how many words the forum allows in one post.

Nothing wrong with posting a bunch of words. It's fun.

 

You said: ''Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real, but that evolution isn't known to be real, even though we have theories about both.'' Directly implying that if something is not a law, it means it's not know to be true which is simply false and wrong as shown in my post.

A law and a scientific theory are two different things and  one is not better than the other. A scientific theory can and will use, laws, facts and hypothesis to explain certain phenomena, you simply don't understand this, again, you are proven wrong.

Why do you think I don't understand this? The part you left out was that no matter how many facts/laws/pieces-of-reality a science theory has, it is still not known to be factual or true... except that it is a theory, of course.

The law of gravity is the observation that gravity is real. The theory of gravity is the observation that we don't know why gravity works in the ways it does, but that we are trying to figure these ways out.

There isn't any law of ETE (evolution theory evolution). This is because ETE is not known to be real. In this case evolution theory is trying to prove that evolution is real by finding some of it. So far none of it has been found that does not fit other things better, and should be called one of those other things rather than "evolution." Why? Because the evolution that we are searching for and talking about is ETE, which hasn't been proven.

We know that what we are observing is gravity. We don't know that what we are observing is ETE.

Why do I say ETE? Because the word "evolution" fits all kinds of things, like how the Model T became the many lines of Ford cars that are out there. If ETE isn't clear enough, then maybe we should start saying "the ETE regarding Darwin's survival of the fittest, or regarding his tree of life" or something similar, so that we are on the same page.

ETE isn't known to exist. Most deep-thinking students and teachers of ETE know this, or at least suspect it. When they suggest or imply that ETE is known to be factual evolution by proof, that's when evolution is a hoax.

Since much of science acts like this, it's time to look at the fact that God exists.

[Isalrzky03]

In my opinion, atheists do not completely hate the existence of a religion. this means, every human being has a conscience and in every religious teaching has a focus on maintaining conscience in terms of living life.
So, according to atheist affection is not hate against religion, but he believes more in the teachings or principles of life that are formed in the environment in which he lives.

[Astargath]

^^^ All those words without any point for them. Why not post more?

Oh, yes. There's a limit to how many words the forum allows in one post.

Nothing wrong with posting a bunch of words. It's fun.

 

You said: ''Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real, but that evolution isn't known to be real, even though we have theories about both.'' Directly implying that if something is not a law, it means it's not know to be true which is simply false and wrong as shown in my post.

A law and a scientific theory are two different things and  one is not better than the other. A scientific theory can and will use, laws, facts and hypothesis to explain certain phenomena, you simply don't understand this, again, you are proven wrong.

Why do you think I don't understand this? The part you left out was that no matter how many facts/laws/pieces-of-reality a science theory has, it is still not known to be factual or true... except that it is a theory, of course.

The law of gravity is the observation that gravity is real. The theory of gravity is the observation that we don't know why gravity works in the ways it does, but that we are trying to figure these ways out.

There isn't any law of ETE (evolution theory evolution). This is because ETE is not known to be real. In this case evolution theory is trying to prove that evolution is real by finding some of it. So far none of it has been found that does not fit other things better, and should be called one of those other things rather than "evolution." Why? Because the evolution that we are searching for and talking about is ETE, which hasn't been proven.

We know that what we are observing is gravity. We don't know that what we are observing is ETE.

Why do I say ETE? Because the word "evolution" fits all kinds of things, like how the Model T became the many lines of Ford cars that are out there. If ETE isn't clear enough, then maybe we should start saying "the ETE regarding Darwin's survival of the fittest, or regarding his tree of life" or something similar, so that we are on the same page.

ETE isn't known to exist. Most deep-thinking students and teachers of ETE know this, or at least suspect it. When they suggest or imply that ETE is known to be factual evolution by proof, that's when evolution is a hoax.

Since much of science acts like this, it's time to look at the fact that God exists.

''"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. ''

''Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment describes how different traits are passed from parent to offspring, not how or why it happens," Coppinger said.

Another example of the difference between a theory and a law would be the case of Gregor Mendel. Mendel discovered that two different genetic traits would appear independently of each other in different offspring. "Yet Mendel knew nothing of DNA or chromosomes. It wasn't until a century later that scientists discovered DNA and chromosomes — the biochemical explanation of Mendel's laws. It was only then that scientists, such as T.H. Morgan working with fruit flies, explained the Law of Independent Assortment using the theory of chromosomal inheritance. Still today, this is the universally accepted explanation (theory) for Mendel's Law," Coppinger said.''

There are in fact many laws that are directly related to evolution and are used to prove it. You are wrong again. Also there are a ton scientific theories that have no laws.

For your peanut brain, A SCIENTIFIC THEORY DOESN'T NEED TO BE A LAW TO BE TRUE.

''it is still not known to be factual or true..'' Your god is not know to be factual or true and yet you still believe  in him.

[af_newbie]

^^^ All those words without any point for them. Why not post more?

Oh, yes. There's a limit to how many words the forum allows in one post.

Nothing wrong with posting a bunch of words. It's fun.

 

You said: ''Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real, but that evolution isn't known to be real, even though we have theories about both.'' Directly implying that if something is not a law, it means it's not know to be true which is simply false and wrong as shown in my post.

A law and a scientific theory are two different things and  one is not better than the other. A scientific theory can and will use, laws, facts and hypothesis to explain certain phenomena, you simply don't understand this, again, you are proven wrong.

Why do you think I don't understand this? The part you left out was that no matter how many facts/laws/pieces-of-reality a science theory has, it is still not known to be factual or true... except that it is a theory, of course.

The law of gravity is the observation that gravity is real. The theory of gravity is the observation that we don't know why gravity works in the ways it does, but that we are trying to figure these ways out.

There isn't any law of ETE (evolution theory evolution). This is because ETE is not known to be real. In this case evolution theory is trying to prove that evolution is real by finding some of it. So far none of it has been found that does not fit other things better, and should be called one of those other things rather than "evolution." Why? Because the evolution that we are searching for and talking about is ETE, which hasn't been proven.

We know that what we are observing is gravity. We don't know that what we are observing is ETE.

Why do I say ETE? Because the word "evolution" fits all kinds of things, like how the Model T became the many lines of Ford cars that are out there. If ETE isn't clear enough, then maybe we should start saying "the ETE regarding Darwin's survival of the fittest, or regarding his tree of life" or something similar, so that we are on the same page.

ETE isn't known to exist. Most deep-thinking students and teachers of ETE know this, or at least suspect it. When they suggest or imply that ETE is known to be factual evolution by proof, that's when evolution is a hoax.

Since much of science acts like this, it's time to look at the fact that God exists.

''"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. ''

''Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment describes how different traits are passed from parent to offspring, not how or why it happens," Coppinger said.

Another example of the difference between a theory and a law would be the case of Gregor Mendel. Mendel discovered that two different genetic traits would appear independently of each other in different offspring. "Yet Mendel knew nothing of DNA or chromosomes. It wasn't until a century later that scientists discovered DNA and chromosomes — the biochemical explanation of Mendel's laws. It was only then that scientists, such as T.H. Morgan working with fruit flies, explained the Law of Independent Assortment using the theory of chromosomal inheritance. Still today, this is the universally accepted explanation (theory) for Mendel's Law," Coppinger said.''

There are in fact many laws that are directly related to evolution and are used to prove it. You are wrong again. Also there are a ton scientific theories that have no laws.

For your peanut brain, A SCIENTIFIC THEORY DOESN'T NEED TO BE A LAW TO BE TRUE.

''it is still not known to be factual or true..'' Your god is not know to be factual or true and yet you still believe  in him.

I think an interesting question is why does he believe in his God, not Zeus or Allah?

I propose two 'religion laws':

Law I: "A human primate most likely believes in God that he/she was indoctrinated into as a child."
Law II: "A fully grown human primate is less susceptible to religious indoctrination than a young human primate unless that specimen is psychologically weak."

No wonder we are always 'born into the right religion'.

[BADecker]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg50483476#msg50483476
^^^ And for your peanut brain, all I have been saying all along is that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.

A science theory might absolutely be right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. The reason it is a theory is that nobody KNOWS that it is "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc." There is reason to think that it might not be "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc."

A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that a law can never be refuted by bringing to light some fundamental way in which the whole understanding about the law is wrong.

Why don't you read what I have been saying rather than attempting to put words into my mouth? Oh that's right! Your main reason for being here is to maintain that which is the standard, even if it is actually wrong.

So, I thank you. Buy twisting things around you show that you don't have a straight-forward answer for them. This indicates that you and standard science don't know much of anything. Now thank me for acknowledging that you are important enough that you can stand for standard science.

All you are showing is that your understanding of science is a religion. So, it's easy to understand why you would hate religion. You can't get away from it, and yours is kinda false.

[Astargath]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg50483476#msg50483476
^^^ And for your peanut brain, all I have been saying all along is that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.

A science theory might absolutely be right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. The reason it is a theory is that nobody KNOWS that it is "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc." There is reason to think that it might not be "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc."

A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that a law can never be refuted by bringing to light some fundamental way in which the whole understanding about the law is wrong.

Why don't you read what I have been saying rather than attempting to put words into my mouth? Oh that's right! Your main reason for being here is to maintain that which is the standard, even if it is actually wrong.

So, I thank you. Buy twisting things around you show that you don't have a straight-forward answer for them. This indicates that you and standard science don't know much of anything. Now thank me for acknowledging that you are important enough that you can stand for standard science.

All you are showing is that your understanding of science is a religion. So, it's easy to understand why you would hate religion. You can't get away from it, and yours is kinda false.

''that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.'' And again, that's simply wrong, where are you getting your definitions from? Read the definition of scientific theory vs law, nowhere it mentions that a law is true and a scientific theory is not, NOWHERE.

''A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real'' No it's not, again you are simply making up definitions here.
The definition is: ''The laws of science, also called scientific laws or scientific principles, are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.''
Scientific theory: ''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.''

[BADecker]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg50483476#msg50483476
^^^ And for your peanut brain, all I have been saying all along is that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.

A science theory might absolutely be right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. The reason it is a theory is that nobody KNOWS that it is "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc." There is reason to think that it might not be "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc."

A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that a law can never be refuted by bringing to light some fundamental way in which the whole understanding about the law is wrong.

Why don't you read what I have been saying rather than attempting to put words into my mouth? Oh that's right! Your main reason for being here is to maintain that which is the standard, even if it is actually wrong.

So, I thank you. Buy twisting things around you show that you don't have a straight-forward answer for them. This indicates that you and standard science don't know much of anything. Now thank me for acknowledging that you are important enough that you can stand for standard science.

All you are showing is that your understanding of science is a religion. So, it's easy to understand why you would hate religion. You can't get away from it, and yours is kinda false.

''that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.'' And again, that's simply wrong, where are you getting your definitions from? Read the definition of scientific theory vs law, nowhere it mentions that a law is true and a scientific theory is not, NOWHERE.

''A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real'' No it's not, again you are simply making up definitions here.
The definition is: ''The laws of science, also called scientific laws or scientific principles, are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.''
Scientific theory: ''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.''

The word "theory" shows that a science theory might not be true. The term "science theory" self-defines. The only KNOWN facts about a science theory are:
1. Some or all of the parts of the ST may be known to be factual, individually, or when combined in ways other than the way stated in the particular ST;
2. The ST is know to factually be a ST;
3. The "object" that the ST is trying to "prove" is known to not be known to be factual in every circumstance.
Your definition of a ST, above, doesn't get into it deep enough to express it nearly completely. Read my explanation, again to see that we are not disagreeing about a ST. You simply are not describing it entirely.

As for a science law, all it is, is an observation that is so prevalent in the way that it appears to act or exist, that it is deemed to be absolutely certain the way it is described. This doesn't mean that all the observations are absolutely correct observations. Millions of people can make the same mistake in their observance of a SL. So, we are both right if we say that a SL might be wrong.

But a ST is absolutely known to not be known to be factual, even though it appears to act factually correct in many cases.

The key words in the definitions are the words "law" and "theory."

When someone thinks that something that is not known to be factual is factual, he is starting a religion for himself. This means that all people are religious beings, because none of us know the fact about everything. That's why atheists hate religion if they do... because they don't KNOW that God doesn't exist. This makes their atheism a religion. They hate not knowing.