It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Name 1 valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 04:32 PM
this is a simple thread, i just want someone to find a valid, well accepted scientific theory that has NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE and only supports itself by poking holes in the competition.

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:01 PM
Ok, I'll bite. Here's one:

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:15 PM
So fossils...
they were just gods little joke huh?

evolution- scratch... too much proof...

lets try Creationism

or even ID...
but really those dont count, becuase they aren't theories due to lacking evidence...
Opps, forgot the bible...
like I said... they are lacking reputable evidence

how about einsteins speed of light equations? does that qualify as a theory?

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 04:31 AM
Sub-atomic particles (well, most of them). Particle or wave nature?

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 05:01 AM
The Big Bang Theory

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Valhall
The Big Bang Theory

Good point. The ultimate in accepted theory, with no backing evidence. I love how it gets readapted every time there's an advance in optical resolution.

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 05:45 AM
It's the nature of science to constantly refine and rethink its theories based upon new evidence and new understandings of the world. I've been surrounded by scientists almost my whole adult life at various universities, and I have never met one, even the most strident atheists, claim that a particular theory is the rock solid unarguable truth about anything. I think those who are critical of science, or particular scientific theories, have some sort of other axe to grind, since it's not part of science itself to put forward unalterable truth.

There may indeed be scientists who are dogmatic about their religious or spiritual (dis)beliefs. Richard Dawkins comes to mind. But this is a function of a poor philosophical scrutiny of the issues, not of his being a scientist, or doing science.

If the community of scientists hold a theory to be largely "correct", all that means is at this time, that theory explains a set of natural phenomena, and how that undestanding synthesizes with other more or less established theories, in a way that other ideas have not been able to do.

There's no need to throw out the scientific baby with the metaphysical bath water. There are an order of questions that science as a discipline is not in a position to answer with clarity. That does not mean an individual scientist cannot have any opinion at all, it just means there is an order of human experience that demands alternative ways of examing our experience.

However, on the front of understanding how our world works as a physical reality, I can't think of another mechanism for understanding outside modern science that does such a good job. I'm not denying there could be other ways, I'm just saying they don't have the explanatory and predictive capabilities that many scientific theories have.

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 05:55 AM
Gravity. Newton's theory is not as widely accepted as it once was. There's the nonsymmetric gravitational theory from John Moffat for one. Eh, for what it's worth.

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:00 AM
No one's throwing anything out, Toromos. Just answering the original poster's question.

I'd like to add to the list another theory that is now treated as a "science commodity", being used in a myriad of earth sciences as a means to validate other theories, has not been proven itself, and is based on a theory that also has not been proven (i.e. the Big Bang theory) and that's Carbon-14 dating. It's baseline is a double-edged sword with no proven blade:

1. That there was a Big Bang
2. That we know how much carbon was present at the moment of the Big Bang.

Since both 1 and 2 are without proof, Carbon-14 dating is a fool's game. Again - not trying to throw anything out, just trying to point out that there are certain valid ways to employ these theories - and that would be with a fair measure of uncertainty.

[edit on 8-24-2006 by Valhall]

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:00 AM

Name 1 valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence

All of them.

Every one of the current scientific theories started out as just a thought in someones head. Then they search for evidence to back them up.

Not exactly what you were asking for huh?

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:01 AM
One of my favorite absolute facts that could never be violated is breaking the sound barrier. Not to mention manned flight.

Science is not absolute, but rather an application of theories that produce a substantial effect.

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:14 AM
I guess I didn't get the horizon of understanding for the question. First, we would need to consider the meaning of the term "proof." I can understand how one can usher arguements and evidence to support a position, but outside, perhaps, mathematics and logic, I can't think of what scientific "proof" would be.

As an aside, even if a scientific theory is eventually found lacking, we cannot infer that it's opposite is true. (I'm not saying anyone in this thread holds this view.)

Let's take the big bang theory. Let's call this theory A. Even if we were to come up with evidence to question it, we could not therefore hold another view as being correct, just because it is not-A. Why? Because there could be theories B,C,D, etc. Hence, I'm a little concerned when criticism of a particular theory is offered as evidence for another. The only reason I bring this us is, given the forum we are in, that sometimes criticism of the big bang, carbon 14, etc. are offered as evidence for holding some sort of ID type theory as being true.

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:36 AM
Hmmm.. on the big bang, I thought they were supposed to have discovered the residual emissions from the big bang? I'm a bit vague on this, but what alternate ideas have been proposed for this radiation?

And, personally, although I'm no creationist, Darwinism has always seemed rickety to me.

Let me repeat that: I'm NO CREATIONIST or champion of intelligunt desine... if you think Darwinism's creaky, you always get lumped in with the other lot [sigh].

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Toromos
carbon 14, etc. are offered as evidence for holding some sort of ID type theory as being true.

Just to be clear - no, I wouldn't entertain such a non sequitur leap. BUT - there are the same type non sequiturs that are occurring in trying to "prop up" the Big Bang theory.

Band-aids that, well, verge on violations of the scientific method. In fact, I would proffer that it is the Big Bang theory, and an almost obsession of "making it stick" that was the intiation of the appearance that the scientific method has been abandoned. It's the first major theory (that I'm aware of) in which the scientific community decided to abandon the principles of "try to prove yourself wrong" and instead have lept through every mental hula hoop they can find to try to explain away the observed contradictions.

oops - there's not enough matter in the universe for the Big Bang Theory!

That's because there's hidden matter, yeah, that's it, just enough hidden matter to make it all work.

oops - there's not enough hidden matter in the universe for the Big Bang Theory!

Well, we probably just calculated how much we needed wrong...we'll get back with you.

oops - the expansion rate of the universe seems to be slowing down!

That's because we're a repeating Big Bang - we expand and contract - like a big squishy ball.

...and it goes on and on. And I have no problem with the thought experiments that lead us in directions to investigate - they are marvelous tools of the mind that can help us discover things we otherwise would have been blind to. What I take issue with is our scientific community speaking of those thought experiments as if they are fact. Or them being taught as fact. It is disingenuous.

[edit on 8-24-2006 by Valhall]

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:53 AM
As far as I know, all of these are looking for proof/answers...

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?

Ball lightning
Are these glowing, floating objects real? How can they be explained?

Baryon asymmetry
Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the universe?


Just to name a few... There's about 38 similiar questions... Yep. Scientists have their work cut out for them...

And maybe Dark Matter got crossed of the list?

Edit: Structuring

[edit on 24-8-2006 by Gemwolf]


posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 07:29 AM

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.

Bolded mine.

This my friends is a joke. On top of this is the idea stuff takes millions of years to do a thing, yet we have seen stars that change within the human lifespan.


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.]

HD 12545, a beautiful star that defies us.

Constellation: Triangulum
Distance: 1076 light-years
Spectral class: K0
Visual magnitude: 8.41
Mass: 2 * Sun
Diameter: 10 * Sun

Mainstream science is baffled but Electric Star Modle expects this.

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 07:57 AM
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]

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:57 PM
In the most base sense...

You dont know for certain that anything actually exists...
that any scientific laws exist
that in fact, you might be in a coma right now, imagining this whole thing...

or maybe hooked into the matrix?

did you take the blue or red pill?

it is only thru a relative observer that anything truly exists...

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 05:11 PM

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]

that's MATH

i'm looking for SCIENCE

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

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:04 PM

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

And you're just choosing to ignore all the other responses to your OP? Could it perhaps because the thread didn't go as you planned, and people actually mentioned accepted scientific theories that they believe are not backed by evidence.

It's a shame really. You can't get much help in debunking something that should be pretty easily debunked.

Have you been to the Panda's Thumb?

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in