Quote:
Originally posted by NIump50
Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
Next on Jerry Springer, "When Trolls Collide - the seedy underbelly of Troll arguments"
Let them ramble on, guys, this is going no where. You can't convince someone who is A) unwilling to believe that spin curves a ball, B) insists that because a ball thrown fast from 3rd to 1st doesn't appear to be affected by gravity, that it is in fact not affected by gravity, or C) believes the earth is 8000 years old in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise.
Let it die.
|
Last I heard big bang is a theory, evolution is a theory and it is impossible to prove the accuracy of carbon dating.
Since you are the resident "expert" in physics, can you please tell us all the difference between scientific theory and fact.
I suggest you pull out your high school freshman science book and read it over a few times so as to avoid misquoting.
|
Here is the mis-use of language; and it is yours, not mc's:
When scientists use the word "theory", they DO NOT use it as you and other "young earthers" are prone to do when "refuting" the "theory" of the big bang, evolution, and other scientific principles. Gravity is also a "theory" according to the scientists. As soon as you can experimentally drop a hammer and have it hit the ceiling, rather than the floor: come talk to us about "it's only a theory". Relativity [E=mC2] is also a "theory": I am sure that the folks in Hiroshima are glad to know that their city was flattened at the end of WWII by "only a theory". The accuracy of carbon dating [and remember, being scientists, they admit to a window of uncertainty: "10,000 yrs b.c.e, plus or minus ..." XYZ years] has been amply demonstrated [and in some cases made more precise] by comparison with tree-ring and historical evidence.
To the TOPIC of this misbegotten thread: the "theory" of the "rising fastball" has been disproven/debunked both experimentally [what you PERCIEVE is not experimental evidence, by the way, any more than what you believe: the only thing that counts is what you can demonstrate and measure in repeatable experiments] and mathematically/ logically. Which, by the way, is what separates scientific facts/ "theories" from ignorant blind "faith" in cherished myths [like, for instance, the "rising fastball" and the "8,000 year old earth"]: when science discovers that there is evidence which cannot be reconciled with theory, they admit that there is something wrong with the theory, and go looking for the answer/ solution. When mythologists are presented with evidence which disproves their beliefs, they insist that there is something wrong with the evidence, and go looking for nothing, since God, Bishop Usher, or Roger Clemens has already passed down the "truth".
RANT OFF!!