It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by evilution
The Big Bang theory, as well as other theories formulated by the scientific community, are also supported with the word science, but scientific theories are also 'speculation', educated guesses or opinions @ best, nothing more. The word 'theory' is synonymous to the word 'speculation, so let us not forget that fact.
Originally posted by backtoreality
Originally posted by evilution
The Big Bang theory, as well as other theories formulated by the scientific community, are also supported with the word science, but scientific theories are also 'speculation', educated guesses or opinions @ best, nothing more. The word 'theory' is synonymous to the word 'speculation, so let us not forget that fact.
Theory and specualtion are closely related. In the scientific world, however, 'speculation' infers the absence of sufficent evidence, whereas 'theory' implies that sufficient evidence has been found in order to make an assumption plausible.
Another key characteristic of scientific theory is peer review. A theory is not accepted until the results can be verified by more than the source making the claim. The Big Bang theory is much more than an 'opinion' as there are numerous data from many different branches of science to support it.
This is the difference I was referring to.
An expanding universe, the microwave background radiation and nucleosynthesis—these are the three key elements of the Big Bang model that seem to be very well verified observationally. They set a standard for any competing model (as quoted in Peterson, 1991, 139:232).
Truth be told, however, none of these concepts is without its own set of problems, and as a result, many scientists have acknowledged a number of critical flaws in the scenario you have just read. Hoyle stated the matter quite succinctly when he wrote:
As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the big bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome. ...I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers (1984, 92:[5]:84, emp. added).
If the Big Bang did occur, it was a unique, non-repeatable happening. It was not an observed event. Therefore, it cannot be studied by the scientific method. It cannot be duplicated and tested over and over by means of direct experimentation. It is a mathematical construct, an artificial model using mathematics.
Originally posted by backtoreality
The point is, statements are made claiming the have knowledge of alien DNA, alien sexual preference, and their ability to alter time (all statements made within the past week). Yet, if proof of the existence of aliens is still lacking, then how can these claims be made? They can't. You can't claim to know the behavior of something that doesn't exist. And until bullet proof evidence arises, all these claims are merely speculation--lacking any kind of proof whatsoever.
Originally posted by Alexander Tau
Everyone knows that there are some people who would not admit to the existance of Aliens no matter what you put in front of them. [...] Will there ever be a time when everyone accepts their existance, nope, not a chance.
But you see I feel that each person that gets onboard for the search puts us that much close to getting that proof.
Originally posted by backtoreality
Evilution,
I'm still failing to see the connection between a scientifically accepted theory and personal opinion backed by unproven 'science'.
The point is, statements are made claiming the have knowledge of alien DNA, alien sexual preference, and their ability to alter time (all statements made within the past week). Yet, if proof of the existence of aliens is still lacking, then how can these claims be made? They can't. You can't claim to know the behavior of something that doesn't exist. And until bullet proof evidence arises, all these claims are merely speculation--lacking any kind of proof whatsoever.
So...back on track now, let's try and debate the points for which the thread was created. Defining 'speculation' and 'theory' is just swell, but it won't help to answer the important question: just how many aliens can fit on the head of a pin?
Originally posted by Alexander Tau
BackToReality,
You seem to have 2 skills, misunderstanding what people are trying to say, and then mocking them for it.
What is so hard to understand about the idea that the more people looking the better our chances of discovering some truths?
And frankly, if I did have proof I would not bother showing it to you.
Sad too, you have a brain and I wish it were trying to help rather than just being contrary.
I respect your point of view, too bad you cannot seem to do the same.
Originally posted by 2ndSEED
So stop whining, oh we don't have any proof. Duh!!!!
Obviously your looking into these threads for something and the truth is out there and in here its all around you. You can't escape reality.