Why do science hide the truth?

[Dan From Smithville]

What I believe and it is mine to believe however and when ever I want.

So I don't go long with the big bang theory, and that's all it is just someone's Theory.

A theory does not mean its real, it's a person theory of opinion on what they think what happened and nothing more.

It's when people takes someone's Theory of opinion and trys to make it as something that actually happened.

When a person said it's their theory of opinion how the big bang occurred.

That doesn't mean it actually happened. It's just their theory of opinion.

So if a person said, I have this theory of my opinion that a cow did jump over the moon.

So does this mean the cow actually jump over the moon?
Why of course not, it's just their theory of opinion.and nothing more.

You are free to believe as you choose. But it is a different story when you publicly make sweeping claims that are against the facts and observations.

You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is and do not seem interested in learning the facts of what scientific theories are.

I have and several others have already supplied you with good definitions of what a scientific theory is and it is not an opinion or what someone speculates. Ridiculous overtures to nursery rhymes in a bid to achieve false equivalence is not going to change the facts and diminish the validity, strength and explanatory power of a scientific theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's absolutely positively right.
Scientists did hid the truth, by not giving what exactly happened that caused the big bang.
And what ever caused the big bang to happen, what caused that to happen.

Scientists have not hidden any truth regarding the Big Bang. Is this the best you are capable of providing as an argument? False witness? Shame on you.

 

[gnostic]

But why do science sometimes not tell the full story? can it be because then they would show to the people that we have been fooled for ages? example is Egypt pyramid in Giza, Why do you think they said it was Tutankhamun burial site when it was never found any pharao within the pyramid?

What in the bloody nine hells are you talking about?

Who said any Tutankhamun being buried in Giza? Who has been telling you this nonsenses?

The pyramids of Giza were way before Tutankhamun’s time, from the 4th dynasty, between late 27th to 26th centuries BCE, and the largest is that of king Khufu.

Tutankhamun is from the late 18th dynasty, New Kingdom period, 14th century BCE. That’s more than a millennium later than the pyramids.

And second, lastly Tutankhamun’s tomb was found in the Valley of the Kings, 635 km south of Giza.

The pyramids has nothing to do with Tutankhamun. Don’t blame science that you couldn’t find a credible source.

It has nothing to do with science. People involved in Egypt history are historians and archaeologists and anthropologists, not scientists.

Where are you getting this strawman rubbish?

Your conspiracy theory link say nothing about Tut, so you did get your strawman, so I suspect that you invented this false accusation yourself. But the link itself is idiotic, do you actually believe nonsense posted in this article?

You are accusing science for getting Tutankhamun and Giza wrong, is nothing more than strawman. Plus, it isn’t science the problem, it is your pseudoscience source...don’t blame science for your incompetence of finding rubbish sources.

 

[MonkeyFire]

It's the skeptics amongst the gnostics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What in the bloody nine hells are you talking about?

Who said any Tutankhamun being buried in Giza? Who has been telling you this nonsenses?

The pyramids of Giza were way before Tutankhamun’s time, from the 4th dynasty, between late 27th to 26th centuries BCE, and the largest is that of king Khufu.

Tutankhamun is from the late 18th dynasty, New Kingdom period, 14th century BCE. That’s more than a millennium later than the pyramids.

And second, lastly Tutankhamun’s tomb was found in the Valley of the Kings, 635 km south of Giza.

The pyramids has nothing to do with Tutankhamun. Don’t blame science that you couldn’t find a credible source.

It has nothing to do with science. People involved in Egypt history are historians and archaeologists and anthropologists, not scientists.

Where are you getting this strawman rubbish?

Your conspiracy theory link say nothing about Tut, so you did get your strawman, so I suspect that you invented this false accusation yourself. But the link itself is idiotic, do you actually believe nonsense posted in this article?

You are accusing science for getting Tutankhamun and Giza wrong, is nothing more than strawman. Plus, it isn’t science the problem, it is your pseudoscience source...don’t blame science for your incompetence of finding rubbish sources.

I was amused by your reaction here. The sense of your words pretty much summed up my original thoughts when first reading the OP. He does seem to have some unusual and incorrect information that he is basing his claims on.

 

[gnostic]

Strange it is called the tomb of the kings then, is it not, with the kings chamber, queens chamber and so on. when they was never there

You do understand that people robbing tombs for centuries in Egypt.

Yes, they steal gold and other artefacts, but sometimes they take bodies too...but I don’t think they keep the bodies, they would just leave them outside, so they are either destroyed and lost.

 

[gnostic]

I was amused by your reaction here. The sense of your words pretty much summed up my original thoughts when first reading the OP. He does seem to have some unusual and incorrect information that he is basing his claims on.

His accusation that science is hiding something and then use Giza and Tutankhamun as example, is clearly either ignorant attack or he is lying to us.

If he is lying, then he would have and should have given a better example than the one he did in the OP, so I suspect he was just simply ignorant.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You are free to believe as you choose. But it is a different story when you publicly make sweeping claims that are against the facts and observations.

You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is and do not seem interested in learning the facts of what scientific theories are.

I have and several others have already supplied you with good definitions of what a scientific theory is and it is not an opinion or what someone speculates. Ridiculous overtures to nursery rhymes in a bid to achieve false equivalence is not going to change the facts and diminish the validity, strength and explanatory power of a scientific theory.

Theory is just exactly that, it's a person theory on how something happened.

It doesn't mean it actually happened that way,
It's only their theory of opinion.
Not to be taken that it literally did actually happened.

What your doing, is taking someone theory and saying it actually happened that way.

Because someone has a theory, does not mean it actually happened.
It's just their theory.

Look I have this theory that tomorrow the sun is going to fall out of it's orbit,
It does mean it will happen nor did it happen that way.

It was only my theory

No more than to say, I have this theory that two planets collided which caused the big bang.
It doesn't mean it happened, it was only my theory what may haved happen.

It really seems people have a problem with what Theory actually means.

Theory doesn't mean it actually happened a certain way.
Theory means a person believes it may haved happen a certain way, without any evidence, it's just a theory.

It seems people don't have any idea what theory means, it's doesn't mean something actually happened.

Go get any dictionary and look up the definition of what Theory means.

It's just someone's Theory on how something may haved happen.

Without any evidence it's just someone's Theory of Opinion. As to how something may haved happen.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because someone has a theory, does not mean it actually happened.
It's just their theory.

Look I have this theory that tomorrow the sun is going to fall out of it's orbit,
It does mean it will happen nor did it happen that way.

Why are you just ignoring what you are being told? The everyday, colloquial meaning of "theory" is not the same as that used by science.

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. [my emphasis]​

 

[Faithofchristian]

Scientists have not hidden any truth regarding the Big Bang. Is this the best you are capable of providing as an argument? False witness? Shame on you.

Ok, what caused the big bang to happen.

Now whatever may haved caused the big bang to happen, what caused that to happen.
And then what caused that to happen
And then what caused that to happen
And ect-------------?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why are you just ignoring what you are being told? The everyday, colloquial meaning of "theory" is not the same as that used by science.

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. [my emphasis]​

You know what, As I see what is happening.
Scientists takes the word ( Theory ) and with a little twist, make it to mean that something actually did happened.

So what scientist are saying there's two
( Theory) one meaning that something actually did happened.

And the other ( Theory) meaning it's just a theory of someone's opinion.not to be taken it actually did happened.
Just a theory of opinion.

If to what scientist say 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.

Why not just say, this is what actually happened.
Therefore scientist will use Theory, so that no one can say, your saying this actually happened
And the scientist will say no, it's only a theory.
But then when a person question that, Then the scientist will say, what we considered to be a Theory isn't the way most people looks at the word Theory.


All scientist are doing is a play on words
So they are not box into anything.

To question a scientist Are you saying this actually happened that way.

Scientists no it's just our theory what may haved happen

So it's just your scientific of a theory. No it's our theory to say it did happen.

So your saying it did happen that way

No, we scientists are saying it's our theory that it may happened that way

So it all comes down to, whatever way scientist wants to use theory just to support their agenda.
So that they are not box in, it always gives them a way out. So without actually committing themselves. either way.

Thanks for bringing it all to my attention.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why are you just ignoring what you are being told? The everyday, colloquial meaning of "theory" is not the same as that used by science.

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. [my emphasis]​

That only shows that scientist takes Theory and with a little twist, make into meaning two different things.

So depending on which way scientist wants to use Theory just to support their agenda.
So that their not box in.

So in other words, to ask a scientist, are you saying this actually happened.

Scientists no, were saying it's our theory how it may haved happen.

So it's your theory how it may haved happen.
Scientists, no, it's our theory that it did happen that way.

You see it's all a play on words.
So that ( Theory) can be used in whatever way, So that scientist will not box themselves in.
Always will have a way out.

 

[gnostic]

You know what, As I see what is happening.
Scientists takes the word ( Theory ) and with a little twist, make it to mean that something actually did happened.

So what scientist are saying there's two
( Theory) one meaning that something actually did happened.

And the other ( Theory) meaning it's just a theory of someone's opinion.not to be taken it actually did happened.
Just a theory of opinion.

If to what scientist say 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.

Why not just say, this is what actually happened.
Therefore scientist will use Theory, so that no one can say, your saying this actually happened
And the scientist will say no, it's only a theory.
But then when a person question that, Then the scientist will say, what we considered to be a Theory isn't the way most people looks at the word Theory.


All scientist are doing is a play on words
So they are not box into anything.

To question a scientist Are you saying this actually happened that way.

Scientists no it's just our theory what may haved happen

So it's just your scientific of a theory. No it's our theory to say it did happen.

So your saying it did happen that way

No, we scientists are saying it's our theory that it may happened that way

So it all comes down to, whatever way scientist wants to use theory just to support their agenda.
So that they are not box in, it always gives them a way out. So without actually committing themselves. either way.

Thanks for bringing it all to my attention.

Spoken like a person who has never study science beyond Year 7 high school science.

Are you a 13-year old?

You of all people should different disciplines will have different word usage and different contexts, even it looks like the same word being used.

If you are going to focus your topic on science, then you should the correct terms as being used in science. You would do the same for mathematics, engineering, arts, history, religion, politics, law, military, sports, etc.

Sometimes the same words will have the same meanings, but sometimes they will different meanings, and they all depends on what topics and contexts people they are trying to communicate.

Sports, especially team ball games used similar languages, like strategy, tactics, maneuver, attack, defense, etc, except sports doesn’t involve actual physical violence and combat. Attackers and defenders are not soldiers or warriors.

Take the word, hero, for example. Originally it means demigod (as in offspring of deity and human) in Ancient Greek, and then the meanings would include people who fight in war or fight creatures, or adventure that save life or lives. In the modern contexts, hero has degenerated to mean the main character of any story including non-heroic stories, or to a sportsperson, particularly winner of competition.

Like I said, the same word can have different meanings, which are dependent on the topic or the focus of topic.

Only ignorant and biased creationists will ignore the definition scientific theory. When it comes to science, it is creationists who hide the truth, lie or twist words to suit their agenda. Well, that sounds like you, Faithofchristian. It is creationists like you that give Christianity a bad name, cannot be trusted to be honest.

 

[ecco]

So what scientist are saying there's two
( Theory) one meaning that something actually did happened.

It isn't scientists that are saying that. It is the people who write dictionaries.

There are many words in the English language that have two different meanings. They are called Homographs or Heteronyms:
READ
BELIEVE
FAITH
THEORY

Here are some more

• agape – with mouth open OR love
• bass – type of fish OR low, deep voice
• bat - piece of sports equipment OR an animal
• bow – type of knot OR to incline
• down – a lower place OR soft fluff on a bird
• entrance – the way in OR to delight
• evening – smoothing out OR after sunset
• fine – of good quality OR a levy
• learned – past tense of learn OR knowledgeable
• minute – tiny OR unit of time
• moped – was gloomy OR motorcyle
• number – more numb OR numerical value
• row – line OR argument OR propel a boat
• sewer – drain OR person who sews
• wave – move the hand in greeting OR sea water coming into shore
• wound – past tense of wind OR to injure

But let's not stop there...

“"Set" has 464 definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Run" runs a distant second, with 396. Rounding out the top ten are "go" with 368, "take" with 343, "stand" with 334, "get" with 289, "turn" with 288, "put" with 268, "fall" with 264, and "strike" with 250.”

Now that you have been educated, perhaps you can stop confusing the two THEORYs and stop blaming other people for your, how to put this politely, misunderstanding.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Spoken like a person who has never study science beyond Year 7 high school science.

Are you a 13-year old?

You of all people should different disciplines will have different word usage and different contexts, even it looks like the same word being used.

If you are going to focus your topic on science, then you should the correct terms as being used in science. You would do the same for mathematics, engineering, arts, history, religion, politics, law, military, sports, etc.

Sometimes the same words will have the same meanings, but sometimes they will different meanings, and they all depends on what topics and contexts people they are trying to communicate.

Sports, especially team ball games used similar languages, like strategy, tactics, maneuver, attack, defense, etc, except sports doesn’t involve actual physical violence and combat. Attackers and defenders are not soldiers or warriors.

Take the word, hero, for example. Originally it means demigod (as in offspring of deity and human) in Ancient Greek, and then the meanings would include people who fight in war or fight creatures, or adventure that save life or lives. In the modern contexts, hero has degenerated to mean the main character of any story including non-heroic stories, or to a sportsperson, particularly winner of competition.

Like I said, the same word can have different meanings, which are dependent on the topic or the focus of topic.

Only ignorant and biased creationists will ignore the definition scientific theory. When it comes to science, it is creationists who hide the truth, lie or twist words to suit their agenda. Well, that sounds like you, Faithofchristian. It is creationists like you that give Christianity a bad name, cannot be trusted to be honest.

As for every where I ask for the definition for the meaning of Theory it always comes up the same.
It's people who can't handle, That no matter how hard it is, Theory will always mean the same thing.
Just someone's Theory, not real, just a theory

 

[Faithofchristian]

It isn't scientists that are saying that. It is the people who write dictionaries.

There are many words in the English language that have two different meanings. They are called Homographs or Heteronyms:
READ
BELIEVE
FAITH
THEORY

Here are some more

• agape – with mouth open OR love
• bass – type of fish OR low, deep voice
• bat - piece of sports equipment OR an animal
• bow – type of knot OR to incline
• down – a lower place OR soft fluff on a bird
• entrance – the way in OR to delight
• evening – smoothing out OR after sunset
• fine – of good quality OR a levy
• learned – past tense of learn OR knowledgeable
• minute – tiny OR unit of time
• moped – was gloomy OR motorcyle
• number – more numb OR numerical value
• row – line OR argument OR propel a boat
• sewer – drain OR person who sews
• wave – move the hand in greeting OR sea water coming into shore
• wound – past tense of wind OR to injure

But let's not stop there...

“"Set" has 464 definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Run" runs a distant second, with 396. Rounding out the top ten are "go" with 368, "take" with 343, "stand" with 334, "get" with 289, "turn" with 288, "put" with 268, "fall" with 264, and "strike" with 250.”

Now that you have been educated, perhaps you can stop confusing the two THEORYs and stop blaming other people for your, how to put this politely, misunderstanding.

That's right, and everyone of them is a theory, meaning not real, just a theory that the spaghetti monster might be real, it's just a theory

 

[SomeRandom]

As you said above ( Sometimes things just happen) As to how do you know that for sure, Without any certain proof of evidence. Explain exactly how you know that for sure.

You also said ( But to speculate on the cause of the explosion of expansion is really no different to suggest that god did it)
At lease God was there to see it happening.
Where's your evidence that someone was there to see it happening.
So all a person has is, speculation,theory, opinion, suspect, suggestion, without any certain proof of evidence. that someone was there to actually see it happening.

Therefore at lease I can produce someone actually being there. So what proof do you have of someone actually being there?

So prove it. Put forth your scientifically, peer reviewed objective evidence. Scientists have gone out of their way to present theirs. There are countless books for laymen to peruse at their leisure, millions of sites a mere click of the mouse away, ready instantaneously (depending on your internet speed, I suppose.)
So it shouldn't be that difficult for you.

Also and I quote" :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. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

You can't just redefine professional language just because you don't like the definition.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I dont say science always hide truth
But why do science sometimes not tell the full story? can it be because then they would show to the people that we have been fooled for ages? example is Egypt pyramid in Giza, Why do you think they said it was Tutankhamun burial site when it was never found any pharao within the pyramid? can it be because they did not want us to know that egypt 5000-2500 years ago was actually a lot more advanced then we think? because WOW it would be strange that previous times was more advanced then we are today, right?

The Great Pyramids' true purpose has now been revealed - NTD Inspired

I don't find the explanation of a cover up to be very likely. Far less likely than other explanations, such as human error.
And what motive would there be for them too keep such a knowledge from us? What would it serve? Science exists to be proven wrong. On a regular basis we learn new things that prove old ideas incorrect. That isn't something to cover up. When a person admits they are wrong and changes their position, we call it acting mature.
And the ancient Egyptians most certainly were not more advanced than us. A few cultures of past ages have been more advanced than what most people think and realize, but it's only still fairly recently that we've harnessed and mastered electricity to the extent we have fire. Harnessed electricity on its own is an entire "game changer" as was the ability to harness fire. And because of it our technology has reach all new and staggering heights never seen before. And then there was also Tesla, who lived in modern times and paved the way for contemporary communication technology and electricity transmission. And, of course, no one put a satellite in space before Soviet Russia launched Sputnik. And we didn't have the rocket technology for it until the Germans figured it out over the course of WWII and assisted America in developing their design after the war. WWII was also the dawn of DARPANET, which was roughly similar to email, and allowed for research scientists to rapidly communicate with each other over a great distance (the intention was if one lab was attacked, they would lose one lab and one scientist instead of losing all of the scientists and all of their work). We don't know how the pyramids or Stonehenge was built, but it definitely wasn't with a computerized hydraulics system (Hydraulics didn't exist until Da Vinci invented it).

 

[Polymath257]

You know what, As I see what is happening.
Scientists takes the word ( Theory ) and with a little twist, make it to mean that something actually did happened.

So what scientist are saying there's two
( Theory) one meaning that something actually did happened.

And the other ( Theory) meaning it's just a theory of someone's opinion.not to be taken it actually did happened.
Just a theory of opinion.

Many subjects have technical words that differ in meaning from the common usage.

If to what scientist say 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.

Why not just say, this is what actually happened.

Because our ability to verify and test changes over time. It is possible that some new test will force a reconsideration for parts of the theory. This has happened many times in physics, for example.

Therefore scientist will use Theory, so that no one can say, your saying this actually happened
And the scientist will say no, it's only a theory.
But then when a person question that, Then the scientist will say, what we considered to be a Theory isn't the way most people looks at the word Theory.

If it is a scientific theory, we are saying that is how it happened.

All scientist are doing is a play on words
So they are not box into anything.

To question a scientist Are you saying this actually happened that way.

Scientists no it's just our theory what may haved happen

So it's just your scientific of a theory. No it's our theory to say it did happen.

So your saying it did happen that way

No, we scientists are saying it's our theory that it may happened that way

So it all comes down to, whatever way scientist wants to use theory just to support their agenda.
So that they are not box in, it always gives them a way out. So without actually committing themselves. either way.

Thanks for bringing it all to my attention.

Well, it seems you aren't paying attention.

For example, when we say that the Big Bang theory is a scientific theory, we mean that the essential ideas (expanding universe, how dense beginning, cosmic background formation, etc) have been tested and verified.

Now, are there aspects that have not been tested? Yes. For example, the basic theory is based on general relativity, which has been extensively tested in realms other than cosmology, but which 'predicts' a lack of time prior to the start of the expansion. That is an aspect we don't know how to test yet. Other hypotheses allow for time to exist prior to the start of the expansion. These other hypotheses agree with general relativity in those cases we have been able to test. Which is correct and which is not, we do not know (because we haven't been able to test). So, on that subject, the BB description is still not verified even though we have a generally well tested theory.

Perhaps you miss the concept that science continues to test its ideas in new ways, with new equipment, and with new hypotheses. The ultimate judge of 'truth' is, however, observation and testing.

 

[ecco]

That's right, and everyone of them is a theory, meaning not real, just a theory that the spaghetti monster might be real, it's just a theory

Ignorance is sad but understandable. Wilful ignorance is abominable.



ETA: For the fundamentalists:

Adam and Eve sacrificed much to gain knowledge. People who disparage knowledge disparage Adam and Eve. For shame.