The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: Like I stated,
Like I stated,
there is SOME element of faith and belief involved. But the theory itself is prone to change. I do believe the theory itself was modified several times and refined over time. New data may might still make it possible for the theory to be discarded altogether. But at the moment, data suggests it's the most reliable theory at the moment. It's not like they pull these theories out of their asses. They make computer simulations based on these theories based on their understanding of particle physics and compare it with telescope data.
The difference between a theory within science itself is vastly different from a regular theory in religion or common speech. A theory within science has been tested extensively before it even has a right to be called a theory. It's this extensive testing and verification that puts a scientific theory heads and shoulders above a normal theory from religious/normal people.
Replies to this comment: