Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 136 of 402 (474099)
07-05-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by NosyNed
07-05-2008 10:25 AM


Re: Staffing
NoseyNed writes:
There might be some involved with firms like GE that do the engineering and building but even that doesn't seem to be necessary at the actual plant design stage even.
Since nuclear power is one of the most devastating powers man has tried to harness I hope somebody knows what they are doing.
I live in Florida we have 3 nuclear plants producing 50% of our electricity. With the problem of fossil fuels we will see more new plants in the future.
I truly hope there are scientist that have looked at all the problems with TMI and Chernobyl and fixed all the problems for the future plants.
But these problems is what I was bring up as the basis for John 10:10's viewing true science as perfect.
When the statement evolution has been tried tested and reproduced is made over and over does not make it 100% true.
There are certain things that have been observed, tested and reproduced.
There are things that have not been observed, tested or reproduced but is accepted as a fact.
No one has been around the billions of years it would take to observe a water creature become a land creature or a land creature become a water creature. Neither has it been reproduced.
No one has observed some creature parenting offspring that evolved into apes on one side of the family and humans on the other side of the family. Neither has this been reproduced.
There is a lot of speculation concerning these events but they have not been observed, tested or reproduced.
They have been claimed to have been tested, observed and reproduced.
But claiming something does not make it so.
If I am not mistaken this is the point John 10:10 is trying to make.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by NosyNed, posted 07-05-2008 10:25 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by NosyNed, posted 07-05-2008 11:34 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 139 by Rrhain, posted 07-05-2008 11:42 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 153 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 7:19 PM ICANT has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 137 of 402 (474103)
07-05-2008 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by ICANT
07-05-2008 9:11 AM


Re: Running Power Plant
Sorry, I guess was not clear:
RUNNING A POWERPLANT IS NOT RESEARCH, IS IT?
What you described were disasters, not research. What is your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 9:11 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 11:45 AM Larni has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 138 of 402 (474104)
07-05-2008 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by ICANT
07-05-2008 10:59 AM


Observations
John 10 10 seems to have a common misunderstandings:
Namely that "observation" has to me "looking at with your eyes".
In actual fact we "observe", in that sense, almost nothing. In fact, what we personally "see" (let's use that word for being there and looking at something) is enormously limited and inaccurate.
Therefore you generally don't want information that is just from seeing. You want to observe (in the sense of capture, record, measure etc.) with better tools than your eyes.
He also seems confused about past events and "observing" them. Everything you "see" or "observe" happened in the past. Sometimes only nanoseconds ago however.
We "observe" things that happened in the past by looking for the effects that ripple out from them. If something is in the room with you it is, perhaps, the light coming to you. If it is down the block out of sight it might be the sound it makes that gets to you a second or two later (you are "hearing" into the past).
Most of the time, and I mean the vast majority of the time, we find other things to "observe". I "observe" the mess in the kitchen this morning and conclude that my son was up in the middle of the night again. If I can't have this kind of "observation" then I can conclude almost nothing about anything.
As others have noted not using this precludes most unwitnessed-crime investigations.
We "observe" the chain of fossil forms that are as clear as foot prints of an size 14 Adidas sneaker at a crime scene. With this observation (and many 1,000s of others) we arrive at the most reasonable conclusion we can.
He also (and you too) may be a bit careless with the word "fact". Most of us, most of the time think something is a fact or it is not a fact. Totally binary, totally black and white.
This is most often not the case. The mess in the kitchen might, some day, be due to a break-in. It is just so very, very likely to be true that we don't bother with nuances and call it a fact.
Scientific papers are about the only place where this nuance is commonly observed. They almost never state something categorically as fact.
Somethings may be only a pretty good guess -- say with a better than 50% chance of being true. Other things are pretty bloody sure of being true -- say 98 % and most of us, most of the time, would start to call it a fact.
The chains connecting water creatures to land creatures are solid enough to meet any common idea of the word "fact". The likelihood of the broad process being true is much higher than 98%. (Details need more work).
So we can observe the past, just as directly as we do most things in life. We can arrive at a degree of certainty so high that, while less than 100%, is still higher than for most things we would all be comfortable with calling "fact"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 10:59 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 7:30 PM NosyNed has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 139 of 402 (474105)
07-05-2008 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by ICANT
07-05-2008 10:59 AM


ICANT writes:
quote:
Since nuclear power is one of the most devastating powers man has tried to harness I hope somebody knows what they are doing.
Indeed. Which means you don't want a nuclear scientist actually running the plant. Who would you rather have driving your high-performance racecar? An automotive engineer or a racecar driver? They're different sets of skills. Building a plant is not the same thing as running it.
quote:
I truly hope there are scientist that have looked at all the problems with TMI and Chernobyl and fixed all the problems for the future plants.
Right, because there is such a thing as "perfect."
Of course the scientists have looked at what happened with various failures at nuclear powerplants. In the case of Chernobyl, a great deal of it had to do with the actual running of the plant. A series of mistakes regarding the actual process of running a nuclear power plant led to the catastrophic failure. That wasn't the only issue, but that was the main process.
quote:
When the statement evolution has been tried tested and reproduced is made over and over does not make it 100% true.
Of course not. Like all things in science, evolution is the result of the observational process and as such, it is never declared to be so with 100% knowledge. We might have it 100% right, but we'll never know for sure because we can only make observations and it is impossible to observe everything.
quote:
There are things that have not been observed, tested or reproduced but is accepted as a fact.
Incorrect. If you haven't observed it, it isn't a fact.
Don't tell me you're about to say that because we weren't there to observe the evolution of life from the first organisms to the present, that means we cannot state that evolution is a fact, are you? Indeed, we weren't there.
But the organisms that left the fossils were. By observing the fossils, we observe what happened in the past. That is what allows us to say that life evolved.
But at any rate, you seem to be upset that science allows for the correction of mistakes. If everything has already been observed, if there is nothing more to learn, then the field dies. Why on earth continue to investigate something for which there is nothing there to discover?
But don't confuse the fact that we have more to learn about how life diversified on this planet with a claim that there is a fundamental question about the general process. There is a difference between two mathematicians arguing over whether the six-millionth digit of pi is a 2 and them arguing over whether or not pi is an integer.
quote:
No one has been around the billions of years it would take to observe a water creature become a land creature or a land creature become a water creature. Neither has it been reproduced.
(*sigh*) You are.
We don't have to have been there. The fossils were there. We can observe the fossils and achieve the same results. You seem to be saying that the only way to observe something is to do so directly.
Then by your logic, we only ever had any real proof of atoms within the past 20 years with the invention of the scanning-tunneling microscope to allow us to have pictures of atomic surfaces. Before then, there was no real evidence that atoms existed since we had never observed one.
Is there a reason why the fossil record is an insufficient observation? Be specific.
quote:
They have been claimed to have been tested, observed and reproduced.
But claiming something does not make it so.
Claiming that they haven't doesn't make it so, either. The difference is that those who claim that they have been tested, observed, and reproduced have published their results for all to see.
What do you have to justify your claim that they haven't?
You've made the exact same error that Behe did regarding "irreducible complexity." He claimed, in Darwin's Black Box, that there weren't any papers on biochemical evolution. Contrary to that claim, there were literally thousands. In fact, some of his examples in his book (the blood clot cascade, for example) had already been shown to have been evolved at the very same time he was saying nobody had ever published on them.
All he needed to do was a simple library search of the literature.
When was the last time you were in a science library doing a review of the literature?
If you can't recall, by what justification do you claim that evolutionary biology as not been "tested, observed, and reproduced"?
Edited by Rrhain, : Didn't realize that "John 10:10" was referring to a poster, not an actual quote from the Bible. Gotta read the whole thread....

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 10:59 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 7:39 PM Rrhain has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 140 of 402 (474106)
07-05-2008 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by ICANT
07-05-2008 10:17 AM


Nuclear Engineering
The engineering error was a failure to introduce an independent means of determining the level of coolant in the core, itself.
This would be tangental to the topic but that you raise the "scientists don't always get it right" blather, and didn't get it right yourself.

Kindly
Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.
‘—

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 10:17 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 141 of 402 (474107)
07-05-2008 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Larni
07-05-2008 11:33 AM


Re: Running Power Plant
Larni writes:
What you described were disasters, not research. What is your point?
You are probably right that they were not doing research because if they had been they could have prevented those disasters rather than research it for the last 20 years.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Larni, posted 07-05-2008 11:33 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Larni, posted 07-05-2008 12:03 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 160 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 7:55 PM ICANT has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 142 of 402 (474108)
07-05-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ICANT
07-05-2008 11:45 AM


Re: Running Power Plant
'Doing their job' would have been being professional in their role as nuclear technicians.
Nothing to do with conducting scientific research.
When I'm conducting and recording interviews (and and transcribing -don't forget bloody transcribing!!!!) then coding and analysing the information, that is scientific research.
When I'm doing therapy I'm doing therapy, not science.
Do you see the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 11:45 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 143 of 402 (474109)
07-05-2008 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Rrhain
07-05-2008 10:33 AM


Re- Science
Rrhain writes:
Nuclear power plants are run mostly by technicians.
FPL needs a NUCLEAR PSA in Juno Fl. The requirements are a Bachelor's degree in science and 12 years in Nuclear experience.
Isn't that just a bit above a technician?
Rrhain writes in Message 139
John 10:10: The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
I was referring to the poster John 10:10 not the Bible text.
Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. If you haven't observed it, it isn't a fact.
I did not say it was a fact. I said they were ACCEPTED as a fact. Big difference.
Rrhain writes:
But at any rate, you seem to be upset that science allows for the correction of mistakes.
No I am not upset that science allows for correction of mistakes.
I just don't like to be told something is 99% true and later it be proven false. Why not wait until you are actually 100% sure and then claim it as a fact? That is my problem.
I will quote you, "Right, because there is such a thing as "perfect." Why can I not expect things to be that way?
Rrhain writes:
We don't have to have been there. The fossils were there. We can observe the fossils and achieve the same results. You seem to be saying that the only way to observe something is to do so directly.
Rrhain there is only one complete fossil record of any length of time that I know of. Foraminifera have been around for some 500 million years. There is a record for the last 100 million years with the foraminifera going through an extinction event and us having a complete record of the last 66 million years. During which time 330 different speciation events occurred. At the end of the 66 million year perfect record of foraminifera they were still foraminifera.
Rrhain writes:
When was the last time you were in a science library doing a review of the literature?
Just a few moments ago when I made sure of the foraminifera data.
Rrhain writes:
Are we reading the same passage?
Rrhain do you ever read a thread before you start posting. Everything I have posted in this thread has come after reading several posts by a retired nuclear engineer with the posting name of John 10:10. His last message was Message 119.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Rrhain, posted 07-05-2008 10:33 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by NosyNed, posted 07-05-2008 4:53 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 150 by Rrhain, posted 07-05-2008 5:08 PM ICANT has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 144 of 402 (474111)
07-05-2008 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Organicmachination
07-04-2008 7:26 PM


Re: Johnboy the Ape
You continue to deflect. This is the third time I will ask, and if you don't answer, this entire board will know that you have conceded that your own views are not truly scientific and don't have a place in the classroom just as much as you claim evolution doesn't.
It is you that deflects the truth that the evolutionary model from start to finish has not been proven to be truly scientific by any standard of measure, nor ever will be. By quoting this mantra over and over again, along with the 72 Nobel winners saying so, does not make it so either.
Show us the laboratory where the evolutionary model has been shown to be true from start to finish. If you can't do this, the evolutionary model does not belong in a science classroom.
Until then, the creation model belongs just as much in a science classroom as the speculation evolutionary model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 7:26 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Coyote, posted 07-05-2008 1:28 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 148 by Organicmachination, posted 07-05-2008 2:24 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 151 by Rrhain, posted 07-05-2008 5:18 PM John 10:10 has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 145 of 402 (474114)
07-05-2008 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by John 10:10
07-04-2008 5:34 PM


Adam and the Apes
Yes, our cells have damage that occurred from our ancestors, Adam & Eve, again not simian.
OK, I'll bite. If endogenous retroviruses are the legacy of Adam and Eve, why are the very same ERV's present in chimps?
This damage can be reversed for those who choose to come to their Creator and yield their lives to Him.
Um, what are you suggesting here? That saved Christians do not display these ERV's? That really would be something and very easy to test as well. Care to back it up with some data? Otherwise, perhaps you would care to clarify what you actually mean by this strange statement.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by John 10:10, posted 07-04-2008 5:34 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 8:06 PM Granny Magda has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 146 of 402 (474115)
07-05-2008 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by John 10:10
07-05-2008 1:19 PM


Re: Johnboy the Ape
Show us the laboratory where the evolutionary model has been shown to be true from start to finish. If you can't do this, the evolutionary model does not belong in a science classroom.
Until then, the creation model belongs just as much in a science classroom as the speculation evolutionary model.
Show us where in the laboratory the creationist model has been shown to be true from start to finish. Or even that there is any scientific evidence for it! If you can't do this, the evolutionary model (by your own logic) does not belong in a science classroom.
Face it, there is a huge amount of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, but no scientific evidence for creationism.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 1:19 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 8:11 PM Coyote has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 147 of 402 (474117)
07-05-2008 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Organicmachination
07-04-2008 7:55 PM


Re: Projects
In no science can people show phenomena on such a large scale as evolution occuring from beginning to end. If you choose to disregard evolution as speculation on these grounds, then you might as well also trash plate tectonics, all of geology, and all of astronomy.
Now you are finally beginning to understand why the evolutionary model is not true science. Plate tectonics, geology, and astronomy are phenomena that we can observe today and prove many aspects of these sciences with reasonable accuracy as God's creation unfolds before us. What has happened in the past with the speculation evolutionary model cannot be observed and proved with any reasonable accuracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 7:55 PM Organicmachination has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by subbie, posted 07-05-2008 7:24 PM John 10:10 has replied

Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5710 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 148 of 402 (474121)
07-05-2008 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by John 10:10
07-05-2008 1:19 PM


Re: Johnboy the Ape
Every response you give shows you more ridiculous than in the past. I asked you to prove that creationism was "true science" and belongs in the classroom, but like a little child, you continue to run away.
It should be said; you repeating that evolution is not truly scientific will never make it so either.
Did you watch that video on ERVs that bluegenes posted? If so, you have been introduced to one of the strongest cases for evolution ever presented. Other than that piece, there are thousands of other seperate evidences for evolution that would take hundreds of pages to compile and lay before your eyes. If you're really interested in this, pick up any college level textbook and read the chapters on population genetics and evolution. If you are too lazy to do this, then there is not much we can teach you. If we try to give you links to complicated websites, you'll come back with silly strawman arguments proving you didn't understand anything said, so the only way for you to truly understand what we are talking about is to pick up a textbook on your own.
Also, you completely misunderstood what I said about plate tectonics, astronomy, and geology. What I said was that if you truly believe that evolution is not truly scientific, than you must also believe that those three former fields aren't either. If you truly do believe that the three former fields are not truly scientific, than you must be a lunatic with no sense of what science really is.
If you are ready to argue with thousands of the world's smartest scientists, than you must have some familiarity with the topic at hand; it has become abundantly clear you don't. So, again, I will repeat, pick up a textbook or two and sit down for a few hours and read. You might understand what evolution really says and how many different lines of evidence have been revealed in support of it.
On the other hand, there are absolutely no scientific pieces of evidence revealed in the support of intelligent design or creationism, but you continue to conveniently ignore that fact. You think that creationism belongs in schools, when, by your own logic, it should never even be mentioned in a classroom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 1:19 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-07-2008 10:31 AM Organicmachination has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 149 of 402 (474125)
07-05-2008 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by ICANT
07-05-2008 12:33 PM


qualifications
FPL needs a NUCLEAR PSA in Juno Fl. The requirements are a Bachelor's degree in science and 12 years in Nuclear experience.
I have a BSc in physics. That does not, not nearly, make me a research scientist. Any number of years running a plant does not make me one bit more a physicist.
This sounds exactly like a technician to me but I'd want to know what is meant my "nuclear experience".
As Rrhain pointed out you probably don't want a research physicist running the plant anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 12:33 PM ICANT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 150 of 402 (474126)
07-05-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by ICANT
07-05-2008 12:33 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
FPL needs a NUCLEAR PSA in Juno Fl. The requirements are a Bachelor's degree in science and 12 years in Nuclear experience.
Isn't that just a bit above a technician?
No. Just what do you think a "nuclear technician" is? We're back to my original statement:
I guess we need to clarify what you mean by "nuclear scientist."
It is clear that you don't mean the same thing that we mean. As I directly stated in my original post:
Nobody here is saying that you can be a complete novice with regard to nuclear physics.
Does that sound like I think that anybody with six months training at DeVry would qualify? Of course not. But there is a difference between theory and practice. Developing a nuclear reactor is not the same as running one. While there will be common skills and background knowledge, a person trained to do one cannot be substituted for when you need the other.
quote:
I was referring to the poster John 10:10 not the Bible text.
Yes, and I immediately corrected that as soon as I saw the next post.
quote:
I did not say it was a fact. I said they were ACCEPTED as a fact. Big difference.
And even then, you're wrong. The reason why it is accepted as fact is because we can observe it.
When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. That's observation. Therefore, it is accepted.
quote:
No I am not upset that science allows for correction of mistakes.
I just don't like to be told something is 99% true and later it be proven false.
You do realize that those two sentences contradict each other, yes? If you don't care that there is a self-correcting process in science, then you necessarily must be OK with the concept that we can be as sure as science can be about the state of the world and then throw it all out tomorrow when a new observation comes along that tells us that everything we thought we knew was wrong.
That's how science works. And when you do that, when you overthrow the dominant paradigm, they give you the Nobel Prize. That's what everybody's striving for: To find something new that completely changes the way we think about how the world works.
quote:
Why not wait until you are actually 100% sure and then claim it as a fact?
Because other than raw observation, nothing is 100% sure.
I'm reminded of one of the silly jokes I picked up as an undergrad:
An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are all on a train. As it passes a field, the engineer says, "Look, there's a goat in that field!"
The physicist looks and says, "Yes, there's a white goat in that field."
The mathematician looks and says, "Yes, there is a goat in that field and the side that is facing us is white."
Do you understand the point? The only thing that we know for sure is the most limited, raw observational data. When I release a ball from my hand, it drops to the ground. Current thinking is that the reason it does so is because of gravity. Not the "invisible rubber band" hypothesis but rather an unseen force based upon the mass of the two objects exerts a pull upon them both toward each other which, due to the ball's significantly smaller mass, especially within the reference frame of the earth, makes it appear that the ball falls to the ground though the more accurate description is that they both move toward the center of gravity...it's just that the center of gravity is so close to the surface of the earth that you'd never notice without the most sensitive of equipment.
Now, suppose that tomorrow we develop a new mechanism for observing fields and it turns out that there is, indeed, what could reasonably be called "invisible rubber bands." That would completely change everything we thought we knew about how gravity worked.
But you know what doesn't change? When I release a ball from my hand, it drops to the ground. None of our observations change. It still falls at a rate proportional to the mass of the two objects and the square of the distance between them. Removing the air from the scenario still means we don't get any terminal velocity. All of that remains the same.
New observations do not change old ones. They cannot. If we suddenly realize that everything we thought we knew about gravity was wrong, apples do not suddenly hover in mid-air waiting for us to make up our minds about how they're supposed to fall. Our new understanding is incapable of warping time and space and making all previous observations change to fit the new paradigm. The new theory must explain everything we saw before.
When kinematics progressed from Aristotelian to Newtonian to Einsteinian, it had to account for the observations that led to the previous theories. As Aristotle observed, objects in motion come to rest. Every single observation of an object in motion on the earth showed that it came to rest. So where did Newton get off saying that no, objects in motion remain in motion?
Simple: Newton introduced the idea of inertia and friction and all those forces that act upon an object that bleed it of its motion and eventually cause it to come to rest. Objects in motion remain in motion until acted on by an outside force.
Well, that's fine and dandy, so what's up with this Einsteinian notion of "relativity"? Every observation showed that velocity was linear. Where did Einstein get off saying that no, nothing can move faster than the speed of light?
Simple: Our measuring devices were not sensitive enough. Newtonian physics, in the reduced form such as "F = ma" is wrong at every level, every speed, always. However, at the speeds you'd see in everyday life using the measuring tools available in the 18th century, you'd never be able to detect the discrepancy between the actual velocity and predicted velocity assuming a linear kinematics. Force is not equal to mass times acceleration. Instead, you have to go back to what Newton first calculated:
F = dp/dt
Force is the derivative of momentum with respect to time. And the solution to that derivative is not linear.
Do you see? All the new developments have to be able to account for all the observations that were made before. That's the point I'm trying to make when I say that as an observational process, science can never be certain. Our understanding of gravity may be spot on, 100% correct...but we'll never know because there is always the possibility that we'll observe something new that will change everything. It is impossible to observe everything.
quote:
I will quote you, "Right, because there is such a thing as "perfect." Why can I not expect things to be that way?
Because no physical process is perfect. Science is the study of physical processes. That study is observational in nature which is also a physical process. Because no physical process is perfect, science can never state something with 100% certainty...even if you have it 100% correct.
You'll never know.
quote:
Rrhain there is only one complete fossil record of any length of time that I know of.
And when was the last time you were in a science library doing a review of the literature to make sure you were up to date on the state of the science?
Have you considered the possibility that the reason you don't know of any others is because you haven't done your homework? Nobody is an expert on everything. Are you seriously trying to claim to have a profound working knowlege about the entire field of paleobiology?
quote:
During which time 330 different speciation events occurred. At the end of the 66 million year perfect record of foraminifera they were still foraminifera.
Why is that a problem? And by the way, you just contradicted yourself. If there were speciation events, then you don't have the same thing as what you started with.
Do you understand the cladistics involved? Foraminifera is higher up the taxonomy than the species level. They're a phylum. You seem to be upset that they didn't create a new kingdom in the process. Why do I get the feeling that if they had, you'd be complaining that they didn't develop a new domain.
Exactly what is it about a speciation event that is insufficient? You seem to be about to say something about "kinds." What exactly are you expecting?
Be specific.
quote:
Just a few moments ago when I made sure of the foraminifera data.
So you wrote your post from the library? An internet search is insufficient, ICANT. You need to actually leave the computer behind and go to the stacks, pull down the books and journals, and read them.
I posted my message at 8:42 AM, PDT. You responded at 9:33 AM, PDT. I seriously doubt you were capable of doing anything approaching a thorough survey of the literature in just under an hour.
quote:
Rrhain do you ever read a thread before you start posting.
Yes, I do. If you notice, I corrected my post in less than five minutes. I read your post and the preceding one, but apparently I didn't go back far enough. NosyNed's comments made me realize that I didn't do as thorough a survey of the thread as I should have.
Have you learned something from this lesson? Do you really think you did a thorough survey of the literature regarding paleobiology in under an hour? Using only the internet?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 12:33 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 8:40 PM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024