It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Valhall
The Big Bang Theory
Name 1 valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence
Originally posted by Toromos
carbon 14, etc. are offered as evidence for holding some sort of ID type theory as being true.
Accretion disc jets
Why do the accretion discs surrounding certain astronomical objects, such as the nuclei of active galaxies, emit relativistic jets along their polar axes?
Is the Peccei-Quinn theory (i.e. mechanism) the solution to the strong CP problem? What are the properties of the predicted axion?
Arrow of time
Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past, resulting in the distinction between past and future and the second law of thermodynamics? Why does time flow in one direction at all, on macroscopic scales, when there does not seem to be an arrow of time on the scale of fundamental interactions?
Are these glowing, floating objects real? How can they be explained?
Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the universe?
The difference in mass is expelled as energy and is carried to the surface of the Sun, through a process known as convection, where it is released as light and heat. Energy generated in the Sun's core takes a million years to reach its surface.
The star FG Sagittae breaks all the rules of accepted stellar evolution. FG Sagittae has changed from blue to yellow since 1955! It, quite recently, has taken a deep dive in luminosity. FG Sagittae, is the central star of the planetary nebula (nova remnant?) He 1-5. It is a unique object in the sense that for this star we have direct evidence of stellar evolution but in a time scale comparable with the human lifetime. [CCD Astronomy, Summer 1996, p.40.]
Originally posted by krax
1+1=2, apart from putting two apples together it isn't scientifically proven, it hasn't really got any supporting evidence...
[edit on 24-8-2006 by krax]
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
what i'm trying to demonstrate is that scientific theories must be proven instead of propents of said theory simply disproving the other alternative(s) that we know of and using inductive reasoning to claim that it is true