thaumaturgy
Well-Known Member
Thaumaturgy, I don't generally use a bare math equation to prove something in the real world
But when a bare math equation is presented as the framework of the underlying principle, then you are bound by it at least to prove your "Unique" application of it doesn't violate some fundamental aspect of it.
--I use real world events to prove the math. [I've always been puzzled by those who try to do otherwise.]
Interesting comment. I am experimentalist first so I can understand that, but in the end I am a scientist so I know that math is the language of our craft and really, if you can't handle the math, be prepared to get battered from pillar to post.
For example, I can't use the velocity equation distance/time to prove my moving car has velocity.
Why not? Do you not understand the terms? Distance/time? That's unfortunate. It's a pretty simple concept. If your car has changed position (moved a distance) over some block of time, that's pretty much the only way to know your car has velocity.
The bare equation itself is not proof of anything.
Pure rhetoric.
The equation E=MC2 has no potency or power to prove anything if in the real world energy and matter were not related to each other via the speed of light.
But the point here is if I claim that I were to convert 1g of material into its energy equivalent and I then claim I produced 1000 terajoules someone would rightly come along and say "No you didn't!" If they point out the fact that we know from nuclear physics that E=mc[sup]2[/sup] means I will only get 89.9 terajoules they can reasonably ask me to show how the well-known equation E=mc[sup]2[/sup] is wrong.
Now I know you're off into your "rhetoric" world and you are going to obsess on proof versus understanding, but if a theory is distilled down into an equation and it has been repeatedly proven, then it is up to you, the challenger, to show either how the equation is failed (by reference to terms or missing terms) or prove by dint of experimental evidence that your model is more correct.
You fail on both accounts.
In this debate, I've made assumptions,
And many of those assumptions have been shown to be wrong.
just as I did in the legal analysis I presented to you. Because I am set in those assumptions, and because you guys are set in your assumptions, there's probably not much room for debate.
Except our assumptions are based in fact. Yours are based in religious zeal and preconceived notions of "gut feeling".
A disagreement cannot be resolved unless there is common ground.
And that common ground in a science debate is SCIENCE.
I would hope that you will eventually accept the assumptions I've described them
Why on earth should I? I know you have no grounding in chemistry for the assumptions you made in the first part of the debate. I know from 12 years worth of geology training that you have no grounding in geology for the tectonics assumptions. I know from my years of chemistry experience as an R&D chemist, you are demonstrably misapplying the Second Law.
So do tell me why I should eventually accept anything you claim?
Especially when you never agree to apply those claims to challenges in which we know the actual provable answer to test to see if your claims have any merit whatsoever?
Face it, you aren't interested in proving anything. You want people to just accept your statement. When they show they know more than you do, you resort to rhetoric. When they insist on your backing up a claim, you ultimately provide yourself an "out".
I must also reaffirm that degrees, titles, tenure, published papers, popular acclaim, eloquence, etc. are not as important as the underlying ideas.
And I must reaffirm that degrees, titles, tenure and published papers means the person has done the actual work on topics you only dream about understanding.
Face it, no one waves their degrees around without it having some bearing on the facts.
Do you know why it is so easy for me, Baggins, US38, Temperate and the other scientists on this board to find example after example and reference after reference that proves your assumptions are flawed?
It's because we know the field. We have facility at finding the facts and know where to look.
It's really almost too easy for us to poke holes in your assumptions. It's fun for us because we do get to keep our feet in the pool.
The ideas have merit, or they do not. Karl Marx was an absolutely brilliant man. I will never, ever be as smart as he is, and I would never be able to complete with him in many areas one might measure intellectual prowess. But I have complete confidence that my ideas on economics, based on Adam Smith and 150 years of failed communism and socialism, are right and that Karl Marx's economic ideas are wrong. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." True knowledge and understanding come from God and nowhere else.
Oh geez, did you get tired of dealing with science so now we have to have a go at "Communism"?
Is that where we are going next in the "Creationist Epistemology Whack-a-Mole Game"?
Upvote
0