Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: tpanther
BroJoeK: "Look, I only know what I read, and I read Scientific American regularly..."

tpanther: Which is undoubtedly part of the problem. It's akin to counting on NBC for the definition of what is or isn't journalism.

BroJoeK: "theories (confirmed hypotheses)."

tpanther: really?

Like string theory and multiverse theory have been "confirmed"?

If I understand your words, you're trying to tell us that all of "mainstream science," is just bunk, right?

And I'm supposed to believe this on the grounds that they won't publish your "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design" "scientific results," right?

Sorry, but I don't think so...

As for your cogent point about "string theory" and "multiverse theory," I couldn't say how much "confirmation" they have. But I would readily agree that the popular press is far too eager to label every young scientist's intellectual wet dream a "theory." No doubt some of these "theories" are more accurately called "hypotheses."

1,457 posted on 01/26/2009 3:54:49 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1444 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK

Uh-huh and how many string and multiverse theorists have been dragged to sourt to be shut up?

It’s a simple problem really, godless liberal fascists insecure about their cult and with myriad hang-ups with God treat evolution like a cult, not a theory.


1,469 posted on 01/26/2009 8:17:25 AM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1457 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson