And yet, it is commonly accepted as fact by the layman. Same with the big bang theory. These theories can become gospel according to the church of science. Until it is proven and measurably detected, fantasy is synonymous with hypothesis. Methodological doubt is the basis of the scientific method. Without it, well, have you paid your carbon taxes today?
The big bang theory is in fact a theory hence the word theory. When your opening line is verifiably false (in that it is a theory and not a fact) i dont need to refute anything else youve said. It may indeed be true that our observations seem to line up with the theory, but it is fallible from the onset as we are incapable of observing the entire universe. Its also a bit funny that you say i am zealous in my pursuit of truth, yet all i have stated is that theory is not fact. You are the one conflating the two to make your point, which to me seems to me like the behaviour if a "feelings over facts" leftist. Perhaps we can agree to disagree.
And yet, it is commonly accepted as fact by the layman. Same with the big bang theory. These theories can become gospel according to the church of science. Until it is proven and measurably detected, fantasy is synonymous with hypothesis. Methodological doubt is the basis of the scientific method. Without it, well, have you paid your carbon taxes today?
The big bang theory is in fact a theory hence the word theory. When your opening line is verifiably false (in that it is a theory and not a fact) i dont need to refute anything else youve said. It may indeed be true that our observations seem to line up with the theory, but it is fallible from the onset as we are incapable of observing the entire universe. Its also a bit funny that you say i am zealous in my pursuit of truth, yet all i have stated is that theory is not fact. You are the one conflating the two to make your point, which to me seems to me like the behaviour if a "feelings over facts" leftist. Perhaps we can agree to disagree.