Why do science hide the truth?

[Dell]

This isn't quite right.
To be 100% "proven" isn't possible because we cannot know there are no
other circumstances in which another theory could better explain things.
This happened when Newtonian mechanics became a special case of
general relativity. The best we can say about any theory is that after
solid verification, that it is the most "useful" to describe something.

Yes, 100% is too strong. I should have said until indisputable or best accepted, my bad. The point is science builds to the truth. as pointed out by you in your example of general relativity.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I'm not playing silly goal post shifting games with you. You said the Big bang was two meteorites or planets colliding (now you're saying comets. Do you even know the difference?) and that is not what the Big Bang was. You also made a demonstrably false claim about the Bible, which you know is false, and are now attempting to obfuscate and distract rather than address.

In my post #89, in number #5,

I said Scientists will say two planets or meteorites collided.

But upon my investigation, I found that now scientist changed from the Big Bang theory, That two meteorites or cosmos colliding into each other.

Forget the Big Bang Theory: Model suggests universe was born from two cosmos COLLIDING.

A Princeton University physicist claims that the universe was created when two 3D universe collided.

The theory, known as the ‘Ekpyrotic Model’, goes against the conventional Big Bang theory, which suggests that the universe began from a single point and has been expanding infinitely ever since.

While the Big Bang theory suggests that the universe began in a very hot and dense state, the Ekpyrotic Model dictates that it actually began extremely cold.

Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University who proposed the theory said: “Instead of beginning with nearly infinite temperature and density, the universe began in a very different state - cold and nearly vacuous.



If you had notice above the Big Bang theory and the cosmos colliding is nothing than someone's suggestion. Their opinion, which means, they have no actual evidence to support their Theory of option.

And why is that?

Because no one was actually there to give witness as to how it actually happened, that's Why.

So all it amounts to is someone's opinion and theory. Unto which Theory only means someones Opinion. No evidence just a person Opinion, Theory.

So now back to what the Thread is asking

( Why do science hide the truth? )

The truth is, That scientist have no actual evidence or proof, it's only their Theory of Opinion what may haved happen, but without any actual evidence or proof, it's nothing more than scientist Theory of Opinion and Suggestion.

 

[Dell]

Science is never "100% proven".

Yes, 100% is too strong. I should have said until indisputable or best accepted, my bad. The point is science builds to the truth. No hiding the truth.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, 100% is too strong. I should have said until indisputable or best accepted, my bad. The point is science builds to the truth. as pointed out by you in your example of general relativity.

It's never indisputable, either. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the idea that science establishes some sort of unassailable truth is a misunderstanding on BOTH sides. A fundamental strength of the Scientific Method is that no scientific claim is ever considered indisputable or beyond question. It is very important to realise also, of course, that just because all concepts and claims are subject to questioning and doubt, that doesn't make the concepts and claims inherently questionable, or doubtful, if you see what I mean. Like, the evidence for, say, evolution is very, very convincing, and extremely rigorously tested. That doesn't make it an "unquestionable fact", but it also doesn't mean it's extremely unlikely to be incorrect in any significant way.

Any scientific claim can be questioned, but when a claim is well supported by evidence, discrediting the claim, while possible, requires an appropriate high level of evidence to invalidate.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

In my post #89, in number #5,

I said Scientists will say two planets or meteorites collided.

But upon my investigation, I found that now scientist changed from the Big Bang theory, That two meteorites or cosmos colliding into each other.

Forget the Big Bang Theory: Model suggests universe was born from two cosmos COLLIDING.

A Princeton University physicist claims that the universe was created when two 3D universe collided.

The theory, known as the ‘Ekpyrotic Model’, goes against the conventional Big Bang theory, which suggests that the universe began from a single point and has been expanding infinitely ever since.

While the Big Bang theory suggests that the universe began in a very hot and dense state, the Ekpyrotic Model dictates that it actually began extremely cold.

Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University who proposed the theory said: “Instead of beginning with nearly infinite temperature and density, the universe began in a very different state - cold and nearly vacuous.



If you had notice above the Big Bang theory and the cosmos colliding is nothing than someone's suggestion. Their opinion, which means, they have no actual evidence to support their Theory of option.

And why is that?

Because no one was actually there to give witness as to how it actually happened, that's Why.

So all it amounts to is someone's opinion and theory. Unto which Theory only means someones Opinion. No evidence just a person Opinion, Theory.

So now back to what the Thread is asking

( Why do science hide the truth? )

The truth is, That scientist have no actual evidence or proof, it's only their Theory of Opinion what may haved happen, but without any actual evidence or proof, it's nothing more than scientist Theory of Opinion.

So not planets or meteors, like I said. And you'll find there's a lot more going on here than "opinion", these ideas are built on rigorous mathematical models, calling it "opinion" is a strawman almost as blatant as claiming the Big Bang theory involves colliding planets or meteors. It's also one scientist proposing the model, it isn't "scientists". But anyway.

Do you know what a "cosmos" actually is? Or meteorite?

 

[Dell]

It's never indisputable, either. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the idea that science establishes some sort of unassailable truth is a misunderstanding on BOTH sides. A fundamental strength of the Scientific Method is that no scientific claim is ever considered indisputable or beyond question. It is very important to realise also, of course, that just because all concepts and claims are subject to questioning and doubt, that doesn't make the concepts and claims inherently questionable, if you see what I mean. Like, the evidence for, say, evolution is very, very convincing, and extremely rigorously tested. That doesn't make it an "unquestionable fact", but it also doesn't mean it's extremely unlikely to be incorrect in any significant way.

Any scientific claim can be questioned, but when a claim is well supported by evidence, discrediting the claim, while possible, requires an appropriate high level of evidence to invalidate.

Ok, how about indisputable at the time, or best convincing evidence, or best answer to the question, or making most sense... which do you prefer? But hiding the truth is absurd. The process of getting to the truth is impossible to hide regarding science. Somebody is going to expose you.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Because it surpasses that of scientist will say, that about 4.5 Billions of years ago as to when things started to happen.
For this to be true, where is their evidence of proof,

The evidence is things like red shift and the Cosmic Microwave Background. Maybe you should look to see if there is any evidence before claiming there isn't any.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Ok, how about indisputable at the time, or best convincing evidence, or best answer to the question, or mast most sense... which do you prefer? But hiding the truth is absurd.

Hiding the truth is an absurd claim, sure. I'm just trying to be accurate. Think of scientific understanding as generally asymptotic. It isn't "fact",, it never will be fact, but over time it generally approaches closer and closer to what the facts are.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm having flashbacks to times I encountered the legendary Carico, who refused to accept that the Sun was a star or that Earth was a planet. We're experienc8ng that level of fractal wrongness.

 

[ratiocinator]

That because people can not handle the absolute facts, that scientist do not know what happened back, without any actual proof of evidence of what actual happened.

I can handle what science does and doesn't know just fine, thank you.

Buy at lease My God does know what happened all those trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago.
alot more than your so called scientist knows.
I would rather rely on one that does know, than one that doesn't know.

So where is there even the hint of a smidgen of a scintilla of evidence for for this god, of which you speak?

If you had notice above the Big Bang theory and the cosmos colliding is nothing than someone's suggestion. Their opinion, which means, they have no actual evidence to support their Theory of option.

There is plenty of evidence for the universe having expanded from a hot, dense state about 13.5 billion years ago.

The truth is, That scientist have no actual evidence or proof, it's only their Theory of Opinion what may haved happen, but without any actual evidence or proof, it's nothing more than scientist Theory of Opinion and Suggestion.

The fact is that you have no actual evidence or proof of you favourite deity....

 

[ratiocinator]

Forget the Big Bang Theory: Model suggests universe was born from two cosmos COLLIDING.

That is not the standard big bang model. You really should stop trying to pretend that you understand the science - it's blindingly obvious that you don't.

You should also acknowledge your source when you cut and paste.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That is not the standard big bang model. You really should stop trying to pretend that you understand the science - it's blindingly obvious that you don't.

You should also acknowledge your source when you cut and paste.

I like the way he thinks it's just a casual speculation, as though the science reporter is relating all the information involved in the theory. I'd pay literal real money to watch him try to read the actual academic article the report is referring to. It's bad enough trying to explain advanced and nuanced concepts to someone with no basic grounding in the subject, it's worse when they actively want to disbelieve you, and practically impossible when they smuggly think themselves smarter than you.

You would literally find it easier getting a dog to comprehend the details of why he shouldn't eat chocolate

 

[Faithofchristian]

I can handle what science does and doesn't know just fine, thank you.



So where is there even the hint of a smidgen of a scintilla of evidence for for this god, of which you speak?



There is plenty of evidence for the universe having expanded from a hot, dense state about 13.5 billion years ago.



The fact is that you have no actual evidence or proof of you favourite deity....

My evidence of proof all lays within God's word,. unto which again, you can't handle

All because God's word defeats, how scientist Theory, Opinion, Suggestion, without any actual proof of evidence

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That is not the standard big bang model. You really should stop trying to pretend that you understand the science - it's blindingly obvious that you don't.

You should also acknowledge your source when you cut and paste.

the cut and paste that still doesn't mention coliding meteors...

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

My evidence of proof all lays within God's word,. unto which again, you can't handle

All because God's word defeats, how scientist Theory, Opinion, Suggestion, without any actual proof of evidence

The God's word that talks about trillions of years that you can't quote, right?

 

[Faithofchristian]

That is not the standard big bang model. You really should stop trying to pretend that you understand the science - it's blindingly obvious that you don't.

You should also acknowledge your source when you cut and paste.

Well it's evidence that this scientist thinks they know,
Why don't you take it up them, seeing how this scientist is disputing the Big Bang theory

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

JohnR7 was another one. He was the crazy who insisted every word of the Bible was literally true, and his evidence was that they bulldozed a hill into a harbour to make an airport. That was seriously the mainstay of his argument.

 

[ratiocinator]

My evidence of proof all lays within God's word,.

So where is the actual evidence? Some old books are not evidence of a god, if that's what you mean.

All because God's word defeats, how scientist Theory, Opinion, Suggestion, without any actual proof of evidence

There is plenty of evidence for scientific theories (the term 'theory' in science means that there is). Here is some for the standard BB model:

Evidence for the Big Bang
Observational evidence

 

[Polymath257]

Because it surpasses that of scientist will say, that about 4.5 Billions of years ago as to when things started to happen.

The current expansion phase began 13.7 billion years ago. The *Earth* formed 4.5 billion years ago. The Earth is only about 1/3 the age of the universe.

For this to be true, where is their evidence of proof, without providing any evidence of proof, it only comes down to the scientist Theory of Option.

Forget the Big Bang Theory: Model suggests universe was born from two cosmos COLLIDING.

A Princeton University physicist claims that the universe was created when two 3D universe collided.

The theory, known as the ‘Ekpyrotic Model’, goes against the conventional Big Bang theory, which suggests that the universe began from a single point and has been expanding infinitely ever since.
.

First, this is *very* speculative.

Second, it is in the context of a multiverse model of quantum gravity. But it is far from being the only such model. At this point, we cannot test between the models we have. Some models have stuff prior to the Big Bang. Others do not. Which is why I asked if you have proof there was anything prior to the Big Bang.

Third, it in NO way impacts the Big Bang model for the last 13.7 billion years.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well it's evidence that this scientist thinks they know

It's actually a hypothesis about what caused the big bang - no evidence as yet.

Why does it even matter to you? What do you think an unknown in science is supposed to make people think? What science does and doesn't know, and to what degree of confidence, isn't a secret. Nobody who knows about science is going to be surprised.

And why the glaring double standards? Why can't you provide even a hint of any evidence for your god?