Intelligent Design ruling

[Davemcc]

I was in bed by 10pm, some of us need our sleep.
Thank You Dave, for not letting that one get by.
I've been told it could alter the Space Time Continuum...

Hey, there are standards that need to be upheld, bedtime or not.

 

[majorloser]

Have I Said Lately How Much I Hate Reading This Thread?

 

[bandphan]

 

[yettitheman]

THE DAY I'M CORRECTED BY A RETARD!!.... oh I'm sorry.


Classic

 

[astrodon]

Once you understand who a scientific theory is derived, unlike what the news media and the non-scientific community uses that word, I bet you would not have any difficulty

Non-science uses 'theory' when they are guessing. Science is a long process before something becomes a scientific theory. Best to ask Astrodon next time he posts.
ID is not a theory but a new idea for creation which is also not a theory. It cannot be falisfied, for one.

It's been a while since I had the time to read AH in detail, thanks for the honorable mention mtrycrafts! I can't believe this thread is back. The scientific method has some variation among the different natural sciences, but almost all of them have the same 3 steps in this method:

1. A hypothesis is developed from every day experiences or from an instant of insight.

2. The hypothesis is tested via repeated experiment and/or observation (by various/many/different scientists or groups of scientists).

3. If the hypothesis is confirmed from the experiments and/or observations, it becomes a theory.

Step 2 is essential what one means by "stating a fact." As has been stated by some here, many think that theory plays the role of hypothesis in science, i.e., we're just guessing or assuming. Theory is not a dirty word! In science, the word theory does not mean one has no proof (as this word is commonly used). Indeed, in order for a hypothesis to be accepted as a theory, one must present experimental and/or observational verification (i.e., "facts"). Finally, in physics and astronomy, the word law has the same meaning as the word theory. Whereas "theory" is a statement of words, "law" is the mathematical representation of the theory (e.g., the Newtonian Theory of Gravity states: "Every particle in the Universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distances between them," whereas Newton's Law of Gravity is "F_g = G m1 m2/r^2," where F_g is the force due to gravity, m1 and m2 are the masses of objects, r is the distance between the masses, and G is the constant of universal gravitation which is the proportionality constant between the force and the dependent parameters.

Also as stated by some, science is a self-correcting enterprise. New theories may be realized in time, but if an old theory works well, then the new theory should reduce to the old theory under the limits were the old theory was verified. Examples of this are Special Relativity rewriting Newton's Laws of Motion (but reduces down to Newton's Laws when the speed of an object is much less than the speed of light), and General Relativity rewriting Newtonian Gravity (but reduces down to Newton's Law when an object is in a weak gravitational field).

One final comment, when I talk to my biology professor colleagues, I have heard them state on many occasions that biology makes no sense without evolution by natural selection. On the microbial level, we have seen natural selection take place over the last 100 years ("superbugs" which evolved from the use of antibiotics). For larger organisms, it just takes a lot longer for evolutionary changes to be noticed.

 

[mtrycrafts]

It's been a while since I had the time to read AH in detail, thanks for the honorable mention mtrycrafts! I can't believe this thread is back. The scientific method has some variation among the different natural sciences, but almost all of them have the same 3 steps in this method:

1. A hypothesis is developed from every day experiences or from an instant of insight.

2. The hypothesis is tested via repeated experiment and/or observation (by various/many/different scientists or groups of scientists).

3. If the hypothesis is confirmed from the experiments and/or observations, it becomes a theory.

Step 2 is essential what one means by "stating a fact." As has been stated by some here, many think that theory plays the role of hypothesis in science, i.e., we're just guessing or assuming. Theory is not a dirty word! In science, the word theory does not mean one has no proof (as this word is commonly used). Indeed, in order for a hypothesis to be accepted as a theory, one must present experimental and/or observational verification (i.e., "facts"). Finally, in physics and astronomy, the word law has the same meaning as the word theory. Whereas "theory" is a statement of words, "law" is the mathematical representation of the theory (e.g., the Newtonian Theory of Gravity states: "Every particle in the Universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distances between them," whereas Newton's Law of Gravity is "F_g = G m1 m2/r^2," where F_g is the force due to gravity, m1 and m2 are the masses of objects, r is the distance between the masses, and G is the constant of universal gravitation which is the proportionality constant between the force and the dependent parameters.

Also as stated by some, science is a self-correcting enterprise. New theories may be realized in time, but if an old theory works well, then the new theory should reduce to the old theory under the limits were the old theory was verified. Examples of this are Special Relativity rewriting Newton's Laws of Motion (but reduces down to Newton's Laws when the speed of an object is much less than the speed of light), and General Relativity rewriting Newtonian Gravity (but reduces down to Newton's Law when an object is in a weak gravitational field).

One final comment, when I talk to my biology professor colleagues, I have heard them state on many occasions that biology makes no sense without evolution by natural selection. On the microbial level, we have seen natural selection take place over the last 100 years ("superbugs" which evolved from the use of antibiotics). For larger organisms, it just takes a lot longer for evolutionary changes to be noticed.

We are fortunate to have you a member at AH, with your knowledge and expertise in science.

Why not call on an expert when so handy, instead of stumbling by us/me where much more knowledge is needed.
Thanks for this input, even though I am sure you may have posted something similar before. Repetition helps.

 

[spacedteddybear]

Come on now, teddybear. Let's keep in clean. No need to go for the cheap personal attacks.

Just curious - are you in college? That's not an insult, btw. I'm just asking.

Got my degree in physics recently. Just trying to find a job now in an economy with a ~%9 unemployment rate. Anyways, I find it rather odd that calling someone ignorant is an insult or an attack. Calling someone ignorant means that they are unaware, or misinformed and therefore not entirely at fault for any actions or dictations which is in error. People who do things stupidly however, are informed, aware, yet continues to engage in whatever behavior will cause harm, grief, and etc. Like this response to my earlier post being deleted. If I get banned or gets deleted again, I can't claim ignorance to the rules for this one, or the last.

Actually, there are no missing links, just imagined by the ID folks as nothing will convince them otherwise, right?
And, just because not all the fossils have been found doesn't mean that the existing evidence is insufficient.

When biologist use the term missing link. They use it in the context that they found a physical link between 2 separate fossil specimens that is dated sometime between the other two, whom also share similar characteristics. However, when ID proponents use the term, they use it as a means fraudulently show the public that because there is a gap in the fossil record, it means that there is a gap in the theory. So whenever scientists discover a "missing link" between the fossil record of 2 species, ID'ers will always chant " But where's the missing link between those 2 species?" ad nauseum. Their modus operandi is to convince the public, that unless evolution provides a complete fossil history of every living thing that has ever existed on this planet, evolution is thereby false.

An acquaintance of mine uses the analogy a picture you see on a T.V ( or a projection screen given our audience). Now if you pixelate the image (taking information out) to lets say 240 lines on the screen, you would get..... well a pixelated image of the original. Regardless, you should still see a discernable pattern on the screen. As you allow more information to be processed, the image gets less and less pixelated until you have a smooth uniform picture. As more fossils are found, the picture becomes less pixelated. If the ID'ers arguements flow through into the analogy, they would claim that there is no pattern because of all the jagged edges.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Thats the whole point, not matter what is said, what facts are stated, what evidence is given there is never any convincing. These debates never go anwywhere. One argument is science, the other is faith based. Not even worthy of a comparison or argument IMO.

But, if no one makes and continues the argument, pretty soon, belief is all that will be needed and science will be weakened because as you indicated about the rational and irrational. Easier to believe than to be look for evidence and accept science, a grueling process.

 

[mtrycrafts]

And, as I said before: of course it's a Theory. Just like the Atomic Theory of Matter and the Germ Theory of Disease.

In Science "theory" = explanation, not "supposition". Something can be extremely well-confirmed (e.g., Atomic theory of matter), but it's STILL a "theory" in the scientific sense, because it's STILL a scientific explanation.

Astrodon just made a post in here, today or yesterday's time stamp. He explained this most impressively. Made a comment what makes it into a scientific law by mathematically showing the theory, it becomes a law, if I got it right; Ohm's law. So, theory and law can be interchangeable. That is a rather hefty piece of evidence.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Ok im going to throw this out there for mtrycrafts to make another witty post about.

i have a very hard time believing that scientists can date fossils and other finds back to "Millions of years ago" with radiocarbon dating. You can believe it is possible as for me I think that you have to be able to prove its millions of years old to start with, then you can test radiocarbon dating on it to prove radiocarbon dating is accurate.


The reason i believe evolution to be theory is because Darwin himself said it was.

Will anything convince you?
If you are serious, need to take some serious classes in the subject, or discuss it with the profecssionals. But, you have already stated that you don't believe scientists can do it. Why would any of our explanations be different and convince you that they can? Do you really think it is a conspiracy by the scientists??? Then, we would be part of that conspiracy, no?
After all, it is a fundamental part of achiology, geology, etc.

By the way, why do you think Darwin made that statement if he didn't have the necessary evidence?

 

[mike c]

Will anything convince you?

didn't want to participate in these threads, but i thought you guys were aware you could not convince the other "side" and were just doing this for "fun"

i'm just waiting for someone in this thread or the other political thread to step out of line and get the honor of the first member I ban NOT for spamming.

 

[Adam]

...i thought you guys were aware you could not convince the other "side" and were just doing this for "fun"

Amen to that, brother.

 

[mtrycrafts]

didn't want to participate in these threads, but i thought you guys were aware you could not convince the other "side" and were just doing this for "fun"

i'm just waiting for someone in this thread or the other political thread to step out of line and get the honor of the first member I ban NOT for spamming.

Yes, it is fun and for fun, but some questions still need to be asked
Why explain carbon dating accuracy or other dating methods if one will never accept it. One can accept it as a tool, yet have a different belief what it means.

 

[spacedteddybear]

Will anything convince you?
If you are serious, need to take some serious classes in the subject, or discuss it with the profecssionals. But, you have already stated that you don't believe scientists can do it. Why would any of our explanations be different and convince you that they can? Do you really think it is a conspiracy by the scientists??? Then, we would be part of that conspiracy, no?
After all, it is a fundamental part of achiology, geology, etc.

By the way, why do you think Darwin made that statement if he didn't have the necessary evidence?

Nothing is going to convince a person he he/she lacks the education in order to actually have the basic grasping concept. For example, when I was taking highschool chemistry and physics, we were taught about radiocarbon dating being valid for a time period for specimens dating back at most 50,000 years to be accurate. Does that mean radiocarbon dating was the only method scientists had at their disposal? Of course not! There are other methods like U->Pb testing, K/Ar testing, and the isochron method. All methods are capable of dating materials back a few billion years because of the extremely long half-lives of the materials.

But it is fraudulent of people who support ID to knowingly ignore the other methods, tout the one that scientists DON'T use for a specific time frame, and claim that it is the only tool that they have.

There is a hypocrisy involved here. If there is something that science has not yet been capable explaining, it is obviously the work of an ID. However, when asked what exactly does ID explain that science cannot, no reply can be given that isn't circular reasoning ( IE things like, " Well that's why we have ID it's so complicated that we can't explain it. I kid you not, I've had someone actually call that an explaination.) . What's troubling, is that it works on a lot of people.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my prof. over a couple glasses of wine ( Was visiting him in Rome at the time). He told me that the U.S had the highest percentage of people who were scientifically literate. I'd initially thought that he was simply drunk at the time, but it was still early in the evening. But he showed me another study that shows that citizens of European countries have a higher trust placed on their scientists than U.S citizens do.

 

[spacedteddybear]

didn't want to participate in these threads, but i thought you guys were aware you could not convince the other "side" and were just doing this for "fun"

i'm just waiting for someone in this thread or the other political thread to step out of line and get the honor of the first member I ban NOT for spamming.

It's not only fun, but it keeps the tongue sharp ( so the speak), and the fingers nimble.

Here's something that's pretty relevant to political discussions on the internet courtesy of Red Vs Blue. Epic fail if you never heard of it.
Click to watch
It might not be safe for work because of questionable foul language.

 

[Adam]

He told me that the U.S had the highest percentage of people who were scientifically literate...But he showed me another study that shows that citizens of European countries have a higher trust placed on their scientists than U.S citizens do.

One could draw the conclusion from those statements that the more someone knows about science, the less they trust it.

Well, or that Americans know just how crappy our schools can be and don't trust any "experts" coming out of them.

 

[Davemcc]

One could draw the conclusion from those statements that the more someone knows about science, the less they trust it.

One should draw the conclusion that the less somebody knows about science, the more they trust the scientists and that's what makes Europe so dangerous.

 

[jinjuku]

So if evolution is a theory, is it really science? We need a DBT on this one.

Evolution is 'technically' a theory. It is considered by the science community at large a hairs width away from scientific law.

Remember Gravity is still a theory called gravitational theory. There is such a thing as law of gravity, but there is a difference. You can pose a broad theory that contains a subsequent law.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Evolution is 'technically' a theory. It is considered by the science community at large a hairs width away from scientific law.

Remember Gravity is still a theory called gravitational theory. There is such a thing as law of gravity, but there is a difference. You can pose a broad theory that contains a subsequent law.

Of all the bovine manure perpetrated by the creationist idiots, the "just a theory" argument has to be the worst. They are making the really basic mistake of confusing the everyday usage of the word "theory" (roughly equivalent to "hypothesis") with the scientific meaning (essentially the same as "fact" once enough evidence has been provided, as it most certainly has in this case.)

 

[astrodon]

Evolution is 'technically' a theory. It is considered by the science community at large a hairs width away from scientific law.

Remember Gravity is still a theory called gravitational theory. There is such a thing as law of gravity, but there is a difference. You can pose a broad theory that contains a subsequent law.

It seems that many are not reading my posts:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=452449&postcount=685