Is Pseudoscience a theorical premise by a real scientist  ,or even layman, but requiring Proof?
535243
No.\n\nA pseudoscience is a belief system which claims to be scientific or to have some relation to reality (other than contradiction) but which does not use the scientific method.
37661
One of the characteristics of any scientific hypothesis is that it is refutable. That is, once you propose a conjecture (as Popper called them), it's not the facts that support your hypothesis what matters, but rather the facts that refute it. You may have accumulated any number of favorable data, but any new data that contradict the original proposal will lead to its reexamination, discussion, correction and/or rejection.\nSo yes, any hypothesis should be refutable. That does not mean that it WILL be refuted! \nThe theory of evolution by means of natural selection is not a single hypothesis but rather a group of interrelated statements. None of them have been refuted by evidence.
41518
Yes. All theories exist. When a theory is proven, it becomes a law or a fact.
674533
No and neither do you are anyone else.\n\nWhen people try to prove it what they find is that as they tighten up the experiment the ESP disappears which is a common characteristic of things which don't exist.
1137564
In physical sciences there is no such thing as a proven theory. The best thing a theory can do, is to undergo innumerable tests of which not a single one contradicts it (example: the second law of thermodynamics). Then we speak of it as a reality.\n\nI'm far away from being an expert, but since there are so many different "Big bang theories"  (cosed universe, open universe...) I would say, that none is very close to being "proven" (because the appropriate experiments are not yet possible or found). \n\nHowever I think that the idea of an early universe which was very hot and dense (one of the model's crucial ideas) is widely accepted. Facts pointing in that direction are the observations of  redshifts by HubbleSpaceTeescope or the detection of an isotropic cosmic microwave background (in it's own rest-frame!)
1130770
So, what's your problem?\n\nThe text you pasted supports evolutionary science.  Every year more discoveries by archaeologists and paleontologists add more content to support the principles of evolution.\n\nA "theory" is a proposition put to test by empirical study.  In science, very little is considered hard and fact TRUTH - today's truth is usually tomorrow's error.  Evolution is in this sense theoretical, but the evidence all supports it.  And the quote you delivered says that the writer strongly endorses evoltionary science.\n\nThere is NO evidence for alternative concepts, especially that mythology out of some "holy book."\n\nWork on your reading and critical understanding.  You're trying, but you aren't there yet.
1080350
If you think religion has all the answers - good for you, Just don't use pseudoscientific theories with HUGE logical lacunae to try and disprove anything even remotely scientific alright?
1073493
How can something that is unproven itself be proof of something else?  On the other hand, the two theories could be compatible.
263399
well scientifically people do but actually we can't prove that
1160835
There are certainly some scientists who believe that, but they are a very small minority. You aren't actually wrong for believing that to be the case, but you should be aware that it is considered unlikely by most scientsists.
41103
No, it does not have any manner of scientific foundation whatsoever.  It is PC-BS that tries to mis-apply the term "intelligence" to things that the term "intelligence" was never intended to be applied to.\n\nThe entire thing stems from a social agenda where someone is responding to the tendency of people to treat intelligence--especially intelligence as measured by IQ tests--as the end-al-be-all of human worth.  In an attempt to manufacture apologetics to give credit to people with low IQ, things like physical agility or creativity are given the misapplied label of "intelligence."\n\nQuite frankly, I can appreciate the motivation for making such a theory in that it is patently absurd to treat intellect as the sole human virtue--and undoubtedly many people throughout the last hundred years have been making such claims, and committing many atrocities in the name of intellectual zealotry.  But if you want to attack pseudoscince of psychometrics for being agendized pseudoscience, then do so in unambiguous terms.  Don't dirty yourself by engaging in agendized counter-pseudoscience.  That's what Howard Gardner did when he made his theory of "multiple intelligences," and it is also what Daniel Goleman did when he decided to describe "emotional intelligence"--they stooped to the level of the unscientific BS artists with their own BS crusades.  And science suffers for it.\n\nA better critique of intelligence and IQ tests was put forward by the late Staphen Jay Gould.  But if you closely examine his arguments about the absurdity of reifying these quasi-mathematical entities that come from dimensional analysis, you can see that they apply equally well to Gardner's theories of multiple intelligence and Goleman's "emotional intelligence."\n\nThe field of psychology is at that place where many filed have been before--the scientists and the pseudoscientists are indistinguishable to laymen, and they work side-by-side.  It happened with astronomers and astrologers around the Renaissance, it happened with alchemists and chemists a few hundred years after that.  Now, the behavioral scientists and neurologists are stuck with too many psychoanalysists and sociologists, who are, quite frankly, the astrologers and alchemists of the present time.\n\n"Emotional intelligence" is not intelligence--if it were, we would have no need to reassign the word to this new purpose.  If you want to say that intellect and wisdom are different, then by all means, do--there's a good basis for that.  But it will never be science, because it does not fit into the framework of the scientific method--it does not give us any testable hypotheses to say "emotional intelligence," and it is not a theory that can be falsified.
1143322
yes as many religious zelots do not want to apressiate the way science works...         scientists dont just read in a book like its dogma...    they come up with a theory or hypothosys, and then test it.   skepticism is what rules science...   if you have something you want to prove, you need lots of evidence..  and then others also have to gather evidence and present it before it becomes proven as a law.   The reason evolution is still a theory goes to show the true beauty of the scientific prosses, untill it is difinativly proven it will stay as that.   Religon on the other hand just tells...  they dont test, they dont scrutinize, they say tell how it is...    how is that a more trustworthy system?   sure I could say that a majical lepricon that lives in the trees makes the oxigen we breath, but I would be totally wrong,   why becuase I just made it up!!!  I didnt test the idea, and no one else independantly verified my findings...    yes evolution has some holes, but don't come along and say that a majical white robed man in the sky is a better explination!   evolution is the best theory out there, and it has been verified in many ways that lead alot of scientist to beleive its true...  and again the true beauty of science is that if somthign better comes along, it will be soon adopted, unlike religious zelots who will not change their mind if the truth was right in front of their face!\n\n\nand to the man that said evolution violates laws!  it does not violate laws of thermodynamics you douch!  damn you fools piss me off!  If it clearly violated a law it would have been rejected long ago, unless there was evidence as to why this was true.....dont use science to back up your claims of religon you make yourself sound like an idiot!    GOD violates the laws of thermodynamics!
1076950
Scientific methodology and evidence.
653177
******\nRudy Can't Fail\nHawking's theory (and that's ALL it is) did nothing to disprove the existence of God or the Bible and in fact, \nSTILL has NOT shown how to make SOMETHING from NOTHING!\n\nMaking Hawking's cosmology nothing more than fodder for the COSMOpolitan magazine
554313
Albert Einstein stated something along the lines of; "There may not be a single history (regarding the earth coming into existence) as we may have supposed. Rather, every possible history with some probability." Or in other words, there are many possible ways to explain the fact that we are here and living right now. Some of those ideas are more probable than others and some explanations are more likely than others. Bottom line is, when a hypothesis is brought forth and has physical evidence to support itself without being intelligently refuted, the hypothesis becomes theory. Only those unwilling to explore the realm of possibility close their minds to the many other intelligent theories concerning our existence which can be found in the world today.
342516
I'm an atheist.  I'll be the first person to admit that I could be wrong.  Science is constantly changing as we learn more about our reality.  That may be why scientists are reluctant to state more than "I believe, it is possible, I claim that", etc.\n\nFor what it's worth... you shouldn't be convinced of your hubbie's arguments without proof (or at least a solid rational/logical framework).  That's what is so great about science!  You can prove every aspect.  If you find evidence that contradicts a theory, you are more than welcome to come up with a new theory that explains all the evidence!!\n\nFor what it's worth, young earth creationism is not science and does not explain all the evidence.
1022238
That's an old fundamental problem.  Mathematicians and physicists tend to disbelieve their own observations and replace their experience with empirical results and tautological proofs.