40 Sikh lads defend themselves against Muslim sex predators?

[Carl the Llama]

If I had a pound for every time I'd heard this I'd be richer than Bill Gates.

Theory in science does not mean what it means in layman terms, a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. It is not a guess, it is one of the highest levels of validity achievable in the scientific community.

Paradigms shift, "highest levels of validity achievable" change. The world keeps on spinning (or does it?).

[Manwell Pablo]

Evolution is a proper head fvck as by believing it/accepting it as fact, is basically accepting we are nothing more than chance and luck, we are not special, nor miracles, we are just an accident, a mutation that thrived through adversity and have developed the ability of abstract thought consciousness of self that no other species has.

That is if you accept that we are purely a result of evolution.

Now some could argue that a higher power guided our evolution, or created evolution to allow us to reach this stage, and it would be impossible to prove them wrong, especially as our actual evolution is pretty fantastic, especially our mental capacity which is so far removed from any other animal that you could understand people having difficulty believing that we are just hairless apes, despite the physical and genetic similarities.

Not being an expert on the subject is there still the issue of the missing link? Are we still yet to discover evidence of a creature that bridges the gap between early humans and apes?

It's never stopped you before so I don't see the need to start now.

[The Doctor]

Paradigms shift, "highest levels of validity achievable" change. The world keeps on spinning (or does it?).

No they don't - in science the highest level of validity achievable for a hypothesis is a theory. If we were to change what the highest level of validity was, then those would change with it. If it became that the highest level of validity was the qazalap, then it would become the qazalap of evolution, or the big bang qazalap.

[Zingari]

From gravitons, an elementary particle that mediates gravity in the same way that a photon does for light and other electromagnetic forces. However it's a bitch to detect. About 75% of the stuff (mass) in our Universe that actually generates gravity hasn't been detected and identified by us yet. That's why people hark on about 'dark matter'.

A graviton is a "hypothetical elementary particle" right ?

So basically you could say it comes from anywere "hypothetically"

A "hypothetical God" would be just as good an explanation

You mean have faith?

[Webbo]

No they don't - in science the highest level of validity achievable for a hypothesis is a theory. If we were to change what the highest level of validity was, then those would change with it. If it became that the highest level of validity was the qazalap, then it would become the qazalap of evolution, or the big bang qazalap.

You're entitled to your qazalap and others are entitled to theirs.

[The Doctor]

A graviton is a "hypothetical elementary particle" right ?

So basically you could say it comes from anywere "hypothetically"

A "hypothetical God" would be just as good an explanation

Not really - the graviton is proposed as a result of the standard model of particle physics, it's got more behind it than a god.

[Captain...]

It's never stopped you before so I don't see the need to start now.

At least you have managed to pick me up on something I have actually said, rather than putting words in my mouth to disagree with.

[Zingari]

Not really - the graviton is proposed as a result of the standard model of particle physics, it's got more behind it than a god.

is it hypothetical or not ?

[leicsmac]

A graviton is a "hypothetical elementary particle" right ?

So basically you could say it comes from anywere "hypothetically"

A "hypothetical God" would be just as good an explanation

We've found evidence of every other elementary particle that govern/mediate the four fundamental forces, makes sense that there is one governing gravity too right?

Or did the Supreme Being decide to have a laugh and make gravity the one unexplainable force? Why not make all four inexplicable?

Look, I'm agnostic - I'm not saying that a God, Creator or whatever doesn't exist, but at the same time I've seen evidence with my own eyes (and through my own experimentation) that the visible Universe is around 14 billion years old (Michelson interferometry), and was at one time compressed into a state of extreme temperature and density (cosmic microwave background radiation). Those are facts which I have observed myself through experimentation, and I believe them as thousands of others have done the same procedures with the same result.

For me it's certainly possible a Creator triggered the Big Bang (I hate that name) and did the Godly equivalent of sitting back with the popcorn, but everything more than 10^-41 seconds after has at the very least a highly highly probable scientific justification.

[The Doctor]

is it hypothetical or not ?

Hypothetical yes, however supported by the standard model, far more support than a deity has.

[Manwell Pablo]

Men created god in their own image.

[Vacamion]

is it hypothetical or not ?

It is.

It has to be, as nothing smaller than an atom has been veiwed, even by electron microscopes.

The graviton hypothesis is based on replicatable experiment and observation (more than can be said for any supernatural phenomenon) but so is the postulation of every subatomic particle, from electrons and atomic nuclei down to quarks and other subatomic particles.

These other sub atomic particles (like the graviton) are postulated based on observation (or their effects if not of the particles themselves) and replicatable experiment.

It's best science can do at present, but it kicks the shit out of any iron age religious book, in which the wheelbarrow was best technology could do.

[Carl the Llama]

No they don't - in science the highest level of validity achievable for a hypothesis is a theory. If we were to change what the highest level of validity was, then those would change with it. If it became that the highest level of validity was the qazalap, then it would become the qazalap of evolution, or the big bang qazalap.

You misunderstood my point. Let me put it this way: We no longer believe that the world is flat. We no longer believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. We no longer believe that we're nearly at the end of the need for scientific research. We no longer believe that Dinosaurs were featherless creatures until Archaeopteryx. Had you challenged those beliefs at the peak of their prevalence people would have told you that you're stupid and to go watch Jurassic Park. Mankind has a history of being overconfident in his beliefs (which is what the theories you're staunchly defending are). Whilst you are welcome to your assumptions, you would do well not to make the same mistakes as those earlier men since we can only know the knowledge available to us and that is not a great deal. I believe.

[The Doctor]

You misunderstood my point. Let me put it this way: We no longer believe that the world is flat. We no longer believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. We no longer believe that we're nearly at the end of the need for scientific research. We no longer believe that Dinosaurs were featherless creatures until Archaeopteryx. Had you challenged those beliefs at the peak of their prevalence people would have told you that you're stupid and to go watch Jurassic Park. Mankind has a history of being overconfident in his beliefs (which is what the theories you're staunchly defending are). Whilst you are welcome to your assumptions, you would do well not to make the same mistakes as those earlier men since we can only know the knowledge available to us and that is not a great deal. I believe.

Well then they wouldn't be theories anymore, they'd have been falsified and no longer considered correct.

[Zingari]

It is.

It has to be, as nothing smaller than an atom has been veiwed, even by electron microscopes.

The graviton hypothesis is based on replicatable experiment and observation (more than can be said for any supernatural phenomenon) but so is the postulation of every subatomic particle, from electrons and atomic nuclei down to quarks and other subatomic particles.

These other sub atomic particles (like the graviton) are postulated based on observation (or their effects if not of the particles themselves) and replicatable experiment.

It's best science can do at present, but it kicks the shit out of any iron age religious book, in which the wheelbarrow was best technology could do.

I've no doubt it is , but being the best at the moment is a long way short of being absolutely right .

Religious doctrines were at one time " the best explanations", but it seems that being best in one age equates in some peoples minds as the unshakable truth.

Basically all scientists have to do is invent "hypothetical particles" to explain stuff in the same way shamen invented gods.

I reckon i could answer any question in the world if all i had to do was invent some hypothetical manifestation.

it really is no different to a hypothetical god except the esoteric language is more complex.

I've no doubts that what we believe to be true today will become risible to future generations and so will they in turn.

It seems impossible to put across that some things are beyond comprehension and will always remain so, and no best religious or scientific explanation or angels or hypothetical particles will make it any less so.

[Manwell Pablo]

I've no doubt it is , but being the best at the moment is a long way short of being absolutely right .

Religious doctrines were at one time " the best explanations", but it seems that being best in one age equates in some peoples minds as the unshakable truth.

Basically all scientists have to do is invent "hypothetical particles" to explain stuff in the same way shamen invented gods.

I reckon i could answer any question in the world if all i had to do was invent some hypothetical manifestation.

it really is no different to a hypothetical god except the esoteric language is more complex.

I've no doubts that what we believe to be true today will become risible to future generations and so will they in turn.

It seems impossible to put across that some things are beyond comprehension and will always remain so, and no best religious or scientific explanation or angels or hypothetical particles will make it any less so.

Nobody was ever burnt, blown up, tortured persicuted or shot for not believing in science.

[Zingari]

Nobody was ever burnt, blown up, tortured persicuted or shot for not believing in science.

wtf has that got to do with whether or not science can explain anything and everything in the universe ?

But surely science (or the misuse of it) has resulted in more deaths than religion . I don't want to get sidetracked by all that rubbish though .

[Carl the Llama]

Well then they wouldn't be theories anymore, they'd have been falsified and no longer considered correct.

You need to be more humble in your assertions is all I'm saying bloke. Unless you can prove the theories you hold dearly to, you shouldn't be so stubborn in promoting them. Who knows when or how the next paradigm shift will occur?

[Webbo]

Nobody was ever burnt, blown up, tortured persicuted or shot for not believing in science.

Religious people were persecuted in the atheist old Soviet Bloc, Buddhists are persecuted in atheist China.

[Manwell Pablo]

wtf has that got to do with whether or not science can explain everything everything in the universe ?

Sceince can't but religion is not a plausible alternative, it is flawed in nearly every way. Science cannot be proven however it can also not be disproven. It is quite easy to disprove religion as the effects is has against the human race goes against everything it stands for in the first place.

[Carl the Llama]

Sceince can't but religion is not a plausible alternative, it is flawed in nearly every way. Science cannot be proven however it can also be disproven. It is quite easy to disprove religion as the effects is has against the human race goes against everything it stands for in the first place.

If religion was so easy to disprove, it wouldn't exist anymore...

[Manwell Pablo]

Religious people were persecuted in the atheist old Soviet Bloc, Buddhists are persecuted in atheist China.

Fair play.

Although I'm not a massive fan of Commies either though to be honest!

[Vacamion]

I've no doubt it is , but being the best at the moment is a long way short of being absolutely right .

Religious doctrines were at one time " the best explanations", but it seems that being best in one age equates in some peoples minds as the unshakable truth.

Basically all scientists have to do is invent "hypothetical particles" to explain stuff in the same way shamen invented gods.

I reckon i could answer any question in the world if all i had to do was invent some hypothetical manifestation.

it really is no different to a hypothetical god except the esoteric language is more complex.

I've no doubts that what we believe to be true today will become risible to future generations and so will they in turn.

It seems impossible to put across that some things are beyond comprehension and will always remain so, and no best religious or scientific explanation or angels or hypothetical particles will make it any less so.

The first chapter of the Gribbin book I posted about earlier explains the difficulties involved in using different models.

We use models to help us visualize the often counterintuitive stuff that goes on at unobservable levels. We say that the Hydrogen aton is like a sun and planet solar system. At the same time we say that electrons aren't actually a single dot, but a cloud of where probability says they are. Then we say that some entities behave like particles some of the time and waves at other times.

The important thing is that the conclusions which can be drawn from such models - say for example quantum physics - are mathematically verifiable to many deciimal places. The maths works.

To compare the postulations of mainstream science models with those of religion is therefore, utterly disingenuous.

It goes without saying that mainstream science is based on principles and models being falsifiable, so if better evidence, or better observations or better maths were put forward, science would be open to accepting these. Accepting progress in ideas is, I would suggest, more typical of science than religion.

[Captain...]

Sceince can't but religion is not a plausible alternative, it is flawed in nearly every way. Science cannot be proven however it can also be disproven. It is quite easy to disprove religion as the effects is has against the human race goes against everything it stands for in the first place.

The mis-practices of religions is not proof there is no god or higher being, only that there are hypocrites that claim to believe in god and use it as an excuse.

[Manwell Pablo]

If religion was so easy to disprove, it wouldn't exist anymore...

It's pathetically easy to disprove if you actually think about it. There are parts of the Koran and the Bible that are easy to disprove completley. But people believe because it makes them happy.

I believe the arguement that a man with faith is happier than man without holds no more weight than a man who is drunk is happier than one that is sober. But there we are.