Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the source of life
homunculus
Member (Idle past 5435 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 76 of 211 (495897)
01-24-2009 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by CosmicChimp
01-24-2009 10:13 PM


Re: coming up for air!
My apologies, I haven't paid much mind to that aspect.
I originally did not have the "biotic or primordial environment" bit inserted for thoughtlessness, I went back when realizing I failed to put it in there.
I will post reason for edit from now on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by CosmicChimp, posted 01-24-2009 10:13 PM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 77 of 211 (495898)
01-25-2009 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by homunculus
01-24-2009 10:17 AM


Attention Human Clueless
Your reply is not applicable to anything I, or anybody here has said.
Let's look at it, shall we?
lyx2no writes:
1 - 3% atmospheric CO2 on your planet. It's no wonder your thinking is askew. Have you ever tried thinking in English. All those fancy words, this coming from a guy who likes fancy word BTW, are not you friends. It's not the size of the word that gives it meaning.
Now why would I say this? Is it possibly because you, in message 25 said this:
the atmosphere is 'all too conveniently' some 75 - 77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1 - 3% carbon dioxide as well as other gasses in the atmosphere represent the ideal figures necessary for the survival of living beings, consequently separating earth's ecosystem from the vacuum of space.
As your error is only off by a factor of between 25 and 83 I suppose you can be forgiven. It's only a little error, and we don't like to speak ill of the dead. NIOSH will only allow us to stay on your planet for 10 minutes because at these concentrations we'd quickly get confused and do something stupid like not leave, and then, and then, and then we're dead ” I hate when that happens.
It is an example of your continued spewing of things you know nothing about. I would say that makes it relevant (Elephant ” because I know you missed it earlier, too subtle).
The bit about big words not being your friend was also important, but you paid that no heed either because only seven posts later (#50) you thanked Nighttrain for his supplication. Did you bother to look the word up, 'cause maybe you should.
What did I say next?
lyx2no writes:
"That puddle of water thing" isn't about you; therefore, it is a poor way of saying " . [you're] solely suggesting creation by stubbornly outlawing all other possibilities." so you've gotten one right on a technicality. Don't let it go to your head.
Because you said:
homunculus writes:
That puddle of water thing is a really poor way of saying I'm solely suggesting creation by stubbornly outlawing all other possibilities.
Seems applicable to something you said to me.
I then went on to explain:
lyx2no writes:
The puddle is about how life fits it environment not the environment fitting life. Have you ever noticed that there are no gaps between the edge of a puddle and the hole that it is in. That is not because the hole is malleable but because the puddle is. No matter what hole the puddle is put into, it will form itself to the hole. The same is true for life. It will adapt itself to the environment it is in without leaving gaps at the edges. If the extreme temperatures of an environment are 0C and 100C, life will adapt to fit that range. You'll find no life there that can not tolerate that range, nor life that can tolerate long periods of time much outside of that range (nothing that live comfortably at 100C is going to drop dead at exactly 101C).
I was thinking as I wrote this that I should add some explanation along the lines of this being in regards to your repeated claim that:
. earth houses life on a plain of pain staking balances.
But then I thought "No, he'll get it. Fool me once .
This also goes back to the "thinking in English" bit because of the odd sentence structure..
lyx2no writes:
I'm glad that's fine. Is it another one of your rulings? (per message 25 . "I'm ruling that 'living' organic provision is required") But it's your elephant (this bit was poking fun at your lexiconificationist pretensions) whether a scientist digs ” unless he's in of these digging type of sciences ” a hypothesis or not; if it is indicated it is indicated; If not, not.
was a response to:
homunculus writes:
Finally, I understand the lot of you don't dig creation, that's fine.
Again, directly applicable it seems to me.
lyx2no writes:
homunuculus writes:
But I would request, for what it's worth, consideration for what I'm saying.
I request that you consider what it is you are saying.
How can this not be self explanatory? Ah! Fool me twice .
me writes:
you writes:
I said only that life producing life is all that has been observed. That is a very unbiased, although I am biased for creation, neutral and immutable assertion, Saying the contrary is strictly speculation, no matter the favor.
I have never seen a single person taking a poop. I expect you all to explode any minute now.
I've never seen it so it can't happen . get it now? It's only speculation on my part that other people poop . now do you get it? You know . that whole parallel structure thing-a-ma-bob.
Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 10:17 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 8:55 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 78 of 211 (495900)
01-25-2009 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by CosmicChimp
01-24-2009 10:13 PM


Re: coming up for air!
Speaking of which, a couple of years ago there was a member that eventually lost his editing privileges. The reason for that was everytime someone refuted a claim he made, he'd go back, edit his post beyond recognition, and declare victory. I actually can't remember his name.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by CosmicChimp, posted 01-24-2009 10:13 PM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

  
homunculus
Member (Idle past 5435 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 79 of 211 (495901)
01-25-2009 1:02 AM


definition(s) of evolution
I would like to address the multi-defined word "Evolution".
I understand that Evolutionists (someone who believes in evolution) definition currently is:
"change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection."
source; Evolution - Wikipedia
But, originally, evolution has a conducive nature of principles. This "theory of evolution" unites several theories, later distinguished. These theories are: Cosmic Evolution, Organic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Macro Evolution and Micro evolution.
The definitions of each are as follows:
-Cosmic Evolution-
Cosmic evolution is the scientific study of universal change. It is an intellectual framework that offers a grand synthesis of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe. While engaging the time-honored queries of who we are and whence we came, this interdisciplinary subject attempts to unify the sciences within the entirety of natural history”a single broad scientific narrative of a possible origin and evolution of all material things, from an inferred big bang to humankind. (Closely related subjects include epic of evolution, big history, and astrobiology).
They forgot to mention it is was a theory.
-Organic Evolution- (from 'the free dictionary')
organic Evolution - (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
This would be where the "distinguished" term abiogenesis falls into. With the presumption organic material inevitably incorporates the inorganic. While it is true organic material is derived from inorganic matter in composition, it is exclusively organic compounds that are required for reproduction and adaptation. subject to, again, decay. Again failing to mention it is not even close to a fact.
-Chemical Evolution-
Chemical evolution may refer to:
* Nucleosynthesis of the chemical elements in the universe following the Big Bang and in stars and supernovas.
* Abiogenesis, the study of how life on Earth may have emerged from non-life.
Again, entirely theoretical. This would incorporate nucleic acid instability with the perpetual "polymerization" and "morphogenesis" in abiogenesis.
-Macro evolution-
Macro evolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macro evolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with micro evolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.
Again, Theory. This would be "speciation". Now the trouble starts. It is a fact that living things change and vary over a period of time, through adaptation and reproduction. But it has never been proven or observed that animals change into new 'kinds' of animals.
-Micro evolution-
Micro evolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.
Yes, things change in variation over time due to adaptation and reproduction.
Since it's already considered the theory to unite these principles, saying that it is only Variations and adaptation is very partial and down playing. Macro evolution is speculation, micro evolution is observed. Emphasis on Macro evolution being theory. For the life of me, no one has ever seen an animal turn into a different animal.
In conclusion, all but micro evolution are theoretical. They are Not true, Guessing. See the perpetual communication is establishing Evolution as adaptation and varying, or the theory to unite facts with speculation. When I say Evolution, I mean the theory that incorporates abiogenesis, old age presumption, common ancestry and big bang speculation.thanks

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2009 3:39 AM homunculus has replied
 Message 81 by Huntard, posted 01-25-2009 3:54 AM homunculus has replied
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 01-25-2009 8:25 AM homunculus has not replied
 Message 83 by Modulous, posted 01-25-2009 9:06 AM homunculus has replied
 Message 84 by Coragyps, posted 01-25-2009 9:47 AM homunculus has replied
 Message 91 by Blue Jay, posted 01-25-2009 7:10 PM homunculus has replied

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


Message 80 of 211 (495907)
01-25-2009 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by homunculus
01-25-2009 1:02 AM


Re: definition(s) of evolution
But it has never been proven or observed that animals change into new 'kinds' of animals.
So? Neither "proof" nor "personal observation" are required for a scientific theory. The only folks who require such a level of documentation are creationists who wouldn't accept even that--as their beliefs do not depend on evidence, but on revelation and scripture.
In conclusion, all but micro evolution are theoretical. They are Not true, Guessing.
"Theoretical," "not true," and "guessing" are not the same. Using sophistry to equate these very different terms is not honest, nor is it accurate.
When I say Evolution, I mean the theory that incorporates abiogenesis, old age presumption, common ancestry and big bang speculation.thanks
Oh, you do,eh? If this is the way you are going to define terms you shouldn't plan on discussing any of these subjects with scientists. Scientists define the terms of their fields, not laymen. It is up to laymen to learn the language of science lest their comments reveal them to be either uneducated in science, or deliberately misrepresenting these terms. In either of these cases what a layman thinks or does means nothing. To claim otherwise would be akin to the fleas on a dog thinking that they own the dog and dictate its direction.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by homunculus, posted 01-25-2009 1:02 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by homunculus, posted 01-25-2009 11:20 AM Coyote has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 81 of 211 (495909)
01-25-2009 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by homunculus
01-25-2009 1:02 AM


Re: definition(s) of evolution
Hello again Homunculus.
Homunculus writes:
But, originally, evolution has a conducive nature of principles. This "theory of evolution" unites several theories, later distinguished. These theories are: Cosmic Evolution, Organic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Macro Evolution and Micro evolution.
This is not true. The theory of evolution has always and only referred to one thing, biological evolution, in your examples "macro" and "micro" evolution.
Further, you don't seem to know what a theory means in science. It does not mean "guess" or "nice thought" it means that it is supported by facts, and no experiment has yet refuted it.
For the life of me, no one has ever seen an animal turn into a different animal.
Of course not. This is not what evolution says is happening. Evolution says that change on such a level will take a long time, far longer then we can observe.
There is one thing that bothers me here. Did you get this definition from Hovind? If you did, go to this youtube channel and watch the videos on him: ExtanDodo. They have 8 videos about him, 6 shorter, and 2 longer ones. You probably won't like what they are saying, but please watch them. Everything they say is supported by facts and experiments. You can go there if you didn't get the list from Hovind, of course, it's always good to learn new things. You can also think of it in this way, if you find that what they are saying is not true, and you can demonstrate this, you will have taken out one of Hovind's best debunkers.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by homunculus, posted 01-25-2009 1:02 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 9:06 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 82 of 211 (495942)
01-25-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by homunculus
01-25-2009 1:02 AM


Re: definition(s) of evolution
homunculus writes:
When I say Evolution, I mean the theory that incorporates abiogenesis, old age presumption, common ancestry and big bang speculation.thanks
Evolution does not include cosmology or the big bang. There's a separate forum for that: [forum=-2].
Evolution also does not include geology, there's a forum for that, too: [forum=-7].
Evolution also does not include the origin of life, there's a forum for that, too: [forum=-13]
Please use the standard definition of the biological concept of evolution. You cited the Wikipedia article on Evolution. If you give it another look you'll see that cosmology, geology and abiogenesis are not part of evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by homunculus, posted 01-25-2009 1:02 AM homunculus has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 83 of 211 (495949)
01-25-2009 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by homunculus
01-25-2009 1:02 AM


Re: definition(s) of evolution
But, originally, evolution has a conducive nature of principles. This "theory of evolution" unites several theories, later distinguished.
You might find it causes unnecessary confusion to equivocate over terms, or use terms that very few people use, during a debate. It'll just end up becoming a semantic debate over those terms and the argument will get lost. For evidence: see this thread.
I suggest you either find a new term, or create one. How about 'Universal Evolution', or to avoid confusion with Teilhard's theory, "The modern interpretation of Universal Evolution". This will still cause some confusion no doubt, but it might make things a little better.
I mentioned a similar thing in your other thread:
quote:
Well, let's not get confused over evolution/big bang and all that. Let us simply say that according to the physicalism metaphysics and the conclusions of science based on methological {sic} naturalism...
the principles of world view. Did you lose interest in that one?
But, originally, evolution has a conducive nature of principles. This "theory of evolution" unites several theories, later distinguished.
Conducive? Is that the word you meant to use? As to what evolution originally meant, we can look it up:
quote:
1641, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" (see vulva). Evolution (1622), originally meant "unrolling of a book;" it first was used in the modern scientific sense 1832 by Scot. geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by homunculus, posted 01-25-2009 1:02 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 1:29 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 84 of 211 (495952)
01-25-2009 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by homunculus
01-25-2009 1:02 AM


Re: definition(s) of evolution
But, originally, evolution has a conducive nature of principles. This "theory of evolution" unites several theories, later distinguished. These theories are: Cosmic Evolution, Organic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Macro Evolution and Micro evolution.
You omitted the source of this statement: I'm almost certain that it's the tract Big Daddy ? by Jack T. Chick.
Chick.com: Big Daddy?
Not, shall we say, a terribly respected authority on either etymology or science.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by homunculus, posted 01-25-2009 1:02 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 01-25-2009 10:28 AM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 152 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 9:18 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 85 of 211 (495953)
01-25-2009 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Coragyps
01-25-2009 9:47 AM


Chick vs Hovind
You omitted the source of this statement: I'm almost certain that it's the tract Big Daddy ? by Jack T. Chick.
That Jack T Chick tract came out in 2002. I think Chick took it from one of Hovind's seminars or from his infamous $250k challenge:
Taken from here - I am fairly sure they predate 2002.
Hovind is hardly a stellar (heh) source either though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Coragyps, posted 01-25-2009 9:47 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
homunculus
Member (Idle past 5435 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 86 of 211 (495957)
01-25-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Coyote
01-25-2009 3:39 AM


Re: definition(s) of evolution
So you believe a tired eyed, chin scratcher with a 6 year degree of thinking too much, can dictate our world view?
If you choose to believe that because I said, these are theories and life producing life is the only thing we have observed, I applaud your Lack of objective thought.
You apparently believe that because I Think its possible for supernatural intercession to have played a part in our existential (standing open for the pursuit of investigation), no matter the contempt, that I am attacking science, scientists and objective thought. See its apparent to me that opposites are being played here. I am old school. I believe If you have a theory, you test it. Then until your theory is observed and proved, you can't call it science, truth or authority, Even if it is held dear in your hearts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2009 3:39 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by bluescat48, posted 01-25-2009 11:39 AM homunculus has replied
 Message 88 by Larni, posted 01-25-2009 12:22 PM homunculus has not replied
 Message 89 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-25-2009 1:05 PM homunculus has not replied
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2009 1:42 PM homunculus has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 87 of 211 (495958)
01-25-2009 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by homunculus
01-25-2009 11:20 AM


Re: definition(s) of evolution
I am old school. I believe If you have a theory, you test it. Then until your theory is observed and proved, you can't call it science, truth or authority, Even if it is held dear in your hearts.
Until you understand what a theory is, you will still be wrong about it.
What you consider a theory is at best a hypothesis. No theory is ever proved. It is science because it is done with science, by the scientific method:
1) Propose a hypothesis
2) Test the hypothesis
3) Does the hypothesis seem sound
if yes, write paper for peer review (beginning the theory acceptance process)
If no return to 1) with new hypothesis.
As with a theory, the main goal of science is correctness which is why even tho a theory is excepted a robust, it can sitll be falsified if newer evidence is found which is one thing that scientists do.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by homunculus, posted 01-25-2009 11:20 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 1:02 AM bluescat48 has not replied

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


Message 88 of 211 (495963)
01-25-2009 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by homunculus
01-25-2009 11:20 AM


Re: definition(s) of evolution
that I am attacking science, scientists and objective thought.
What you are doing is attacking a stawman.
I believe If you have a theory, you test it.
Putting aside that ToE has been put to the test (as every good secondary school kid would know), what do you consider to be a good falsification of ToE?
Then until your theory is observed and proved,
Science does not deal in proof: you are thinking of maths.
Look Homunculus, it really seems that your perception of science is at odds with what science really is. Why do you think this is?
Even if it is held dear in your hearts.
Why do you think people do research? Supporting previous peoples work is much less fun that discovering something new.
Edited by Larni, : Spellink

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by homunculus, posted 01-25-2009 11:20 AM homunculus has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 89 of 211 (495966)
01-25-2009 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by homunculus
01-25-2009 11:20 AM


Re: definition(s) of evolution
Homes,
So you believe a tired eyed, chin scratcher with a 6 year degree of thinking too much, can dictate our world view?
Starting with an ad hominem is not generally the best policy, here or elsewhere. It is especially not prudent when linked to a straw man. Evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology, and the other disciplines you seek to conflate are descriptions of various aspects the physical world. They are not world views.
I believe If you have a theory, you test it. Then until your theory is observed and proved, you can't call it science, truth or authority, Even if it is held dear in your hearts.
The problem seems to be that even after all the effort that has been put into attempts to educate you, you are still unable to grasp even the most basic definition of "theory". You don't start with a theory, you end up with one after prediction and testing. Rather than wasting time trying to bafflegab words like evolution and theory as you have been doing, perhaps it would be better if you explored the usage of the word "observed" as used in science. (hint: it is related to "prediction", not eyesight.) And, as mentioned many times before, "proved" does not enter into the picture. Nor do "truth" or "authority" as you seem to interpret them.
I suspect that this post is a waste of time, since your thinking on the subject is betrayed by your phrase "...held dear in your hearts." You are projecting your own emotions onto others. That sort of emotional commitment to an idea has had no place in the arguments presented to you. It has, however, characterized your own flopping about on the deck, attempting to untangle yourself from a net of ideas by redefining the words used to express them instead of considering the reality of the string. A reality that has, I'm sad to say, led to your claims residing on a pile of fried potatoes, battered and doused in malt vinegar.
I found that Semantics 101 was helpful in my own science education. It helped me to recognize when I was thinking about (or arguing about) words themselves, rather than the ideas or things which they are attempting to represent. It served me well as a BS detector as I examined my own creationist beliefs. You could stand to use this kind of careful introspection to clarify what you really mean by words like "life" and "world view", and why they are important to you. You might find that by defining words more carefully you could separate out your relationship with whatever deity you seem intent on worshiping from the physical reality of the universe in which he caused you to exist.
To reiterate: attempting to argue a technical subject by redefining well understood professional language simply makes you look like a fool.
Capt.
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : edit code typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by homunculus, posted 01-25-2009 11:20 AM homunculus has not replied

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


Message 90 of 211 (495968)
01-25-2009 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by homunculus
01-25-2009 11:20 AM


Re: definition (again
So you believe a tired eyed, chin scratcher with a 6 year degree of thinking too much, can dictate our world view?
I have no idea what that means; it is certainly not appropriate to a scientific argument.
If you choose to believe that because I said, these are theories and life producing life is the only thing we have observed, I applaud your Lack of objective thought.
I have no idea what that means.
You apparently believe that because I Think its possible for supernatural intercession to have played a part in our existential (standing open for the pursuit of investigation), no matter the contempt, that I am attacking science, scientists and objective thought.
I have no idea what that means. But as for you attacking science, you are unarmed. To debate matters scientific you have to understand them. You have not shown that you have either the knowledge nor the understanding to compete in the realm of science.
See its apparent to me that opposites are being played here. I am old school. I believe If you have a theory, you test it. Then until your theory is observed and proved, you can't call it science, truth or authority, Even if it is held dear in your hearts.
If you are "old school" it is a pre-science school. Your understanding of the term "theory" as it is used in science is fatally flawed, and this is after I posted some good definitions. In case you missed them, here they are again (with additions; sorry for the length):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. Source
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ”it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
If you look at these you will see that theories are not just made up on the spot. In science you start with ideas and from these you form testable hypotheses. An hypothesis can only become a theory after a lengthy series of tests. Theories are expected to make accurate predictions, so the testing of predictions generated from hypotheses is a critical part of this process.
Theories are not "observed and proved" and then advanced to a higher level. A theory is the highest level of explanation in science. And don't claim that a law is higher, because theories explain laws!
Further, don't tell scientists that "you can't call it science, truth or authority" until it is "observed and proved" as that is not a part of the scientific process--it just shows that you have no clue as to how science operates. Nor do you have any role in determining how science operates. That is reserved for scientists to determine.
From your posts it would appear that you are operating from belief. Concerning this, Heinlein notes:
Belief gets in the way of learning.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by homunculus, posted 01-25-2009 11:20 AM homunculus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024