Barney indicated that science is all guess work etc.
In another thread I also posted this:
The terms "
hypothesis
", "
model
", "
theory
" and "
law
" have different meanings in science than in colloquial speech. Scientists use the term model to mean a description of something, specifically one which can be used to make predictions which can be tested by
experiment
or
observation
. A hypothesis is a contention that has not (yet) been either well supported nor ruled out by experiment. A physical law or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations.
Most non-scientists are unaware that what scientists call "theories" are what most people call "facts". The general public uses the word theory to refer to ideas that have no firm proof or support; in contrast, scientists usually use this word to refer only to ideas that have repeatedly withstood testing. Thus, when scientists refer to the theories of
biological evolution
,
electromagnetism
, and
relativity
, they are referring to ideas that have survived considerable experimental testing. But there are exceptions, such as
string theory
, which seems to be a promising model but as yet has no empirical evidence to give it precedence over competing models.
Especially fruitful theories that have withstood the test of time are considered to be "proven" in the scientific sense ? that it is true and factual but of course can still be falsified. This includes many theories, such as universally accepted ones such as
heliocentric theory
and controversial ones such as
evolution
, which are backed by many observations and experimental data. Theories are always open to revision if new evidence is provided or directly contradicts predictions or other evidence. As scientists do not claim absolute knowledge, even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be incorrect if new data and observations contradict older ones.
Newton
's
law of gravitation
is a famous example of a law falsified by experiments regarding motions at high speeds and in close proximity to strong gravitational fields. Outside of those conditions, Newton's Laws remain excellent accounts of motion and gravity. Because
general relativity
accounts for all of the phenomena that Newton's Laws do, and more, general relativity is currently regarded as our best account of gravitation.
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Many an article was written by some of Barb Anderson's former collegues at Awake! that purposely mis-use or demonize science - just like a lot of Young Earth Creationists do. The fact is science is not a "cult" and helps us, in a very independent way, understand processes and mechanisms.
Alan F. is one of the best to help guide a lot of you guys through this stuff. He has been trying for many a year to make a lot of people aware of the flaws in the Watchtower articles and with Young Earth Creationists. On another thread, I posted a link to some common inappropriate work done by Young Earth Creationists and how they are refuted by the actual science.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/85513/1.ashx
Try clicking and reading a few of those links that I give on this site and on the above noted post in this thread. They deal with a wide variety of subjects on the age of the earth to evolution. And as always, just don't take my word or the word of these internet sites for it. Apply those "critical thinking and reading" skills that you have learned since you took the rose coloured glasses off. You will be amazed and interested.
