wow....

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by blader
Apparently, yes we do need to explain to you what a theory is when we're talking about science. Here's what AiG has to say about it:

#

-snipped- It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

Yeah, but don't.  It's just as wrong, and just as dumb.

(Blader, that was not directed at you.  That was for anyone who thought that taking AiG's advice above was the right decision).

 

Cheers,

Prax

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"The point I am making is that science seems to be okee-dokee and just fine, as long as the findings don't conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible. "

Whatever you say bear, whatever you say.

I agree with Bear that some people are quite willing to accept the benefits of the methods of science until they uncover something they don't like.

"Often, it is just the traditional naming that sticks regardless of the later assuredness of the theory."

Wow, so you'er saying sceince isn't consistant?

No, I'm saying that science has no formalized way of deciding whether to call something a law or a theory.

"In the same way, gaps in our understanding of evolution, which has had only fifty or so years since the discovery of DNA, should not be taken as a reason to doubt it."

so now you're telling me that we should "fill in the gaps" with evolution and we dont know yet? That's kinda funny because that's EXACTLY what christians get critized for when they claim the same thing...*wonders if there is any consistancy at all in this forum* I haven't seen a single person question you on this yet, though you did only post it about 20 or so hours ago.

I'm saying that evolution is accepted because it answers the broad questions. Scientists are still tinkering with the exact mechanisms that control evolution, but these adjustments are not central to the theory as a whole.

Christianity has done the same thing concerning things like the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As we look at the consequences of the current understanding, occassionally we discover an inconsistency. We don't throw away the doctrine of the Trinity, but instead adjust our explainations to remove the inconsistency.

"The problem is, you can't test God. "

Sceintifically, no, but you can't "test" love either, nor can you justice, or a slew of other things.

Which is why science has nothing to say about them either.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams

No, I'm saying that science has no formalized way of deciding whether to call something a law or a theory.

I believe that the term "law" has generally fallen into disfavor and is rarely if ever used these days except for those cases where something has been "grandfathered" with the term.

I doubt that any scientists would claim no law will ever be found to be incomplete or incorrect at some point in the future as our understanding gets greater.   For example we once had the "law of gravity" which was later replaced by Relativity because the "law of gravity" was found not to fully explain what is going on under certain situations - noteably at relativistic speeds.

 

 

 

[Morat]

  Law, when it was still used, was used to refer to (supposedly) universal mathematical relationships. Very terse ones, for the most part.

   That of force with mass and acceleration, or that of voltage to current and resistance.

   You'll find few to no "laws" that are not, at their heart, simple equations.

 

 

[LouisBooth]

"I notice that you failed to elaborate on your "ape man fossil" thing, and ignored repeated request for clarification and references. Way to provide evidence, Louis."

There are several instances out there of false fossil findings. I recently read about one that turned out to be a combination of 2 creatures and not just one and it showed they still haven't found a "missing" link.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Apparently, yes we do need to explain to you what a theory is when we're talking about science. Here's what AiG has to say about it"

And again I say evolution explains SOME of the data but not ALL of it, thus why it is a theory. *sigh* how many times do I have to say this before you understand it? As for the AMOUNT of evidience it explains, that's the problem and why I disbelieve it.

 

[LouisBooth]

"I agree with Bear that some people are quite willing to accept the benefits of the methods of science until they uncover something they don't like."

Maybe so, but then again science is only a tool, and maybe not the best one in this case as it doesn't explain things fully.

"adjustments are not central to the theory as a whole."

Then someone in the scientific world needs to come up with a better term. Go for it, maybe you'll get a Nobel prize. As for now, theory means something that explains SOME of the data, but not all of it, and thus evolution is just a theory.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Apparently, yes we do need to explain to you what a theory is when we're talking about science. Here's what AiG has to say about it"

And again I say evolution explains SOME of the data but not ALL of it, thus why it is a theory. *sigh* how many times do I have to say this before you understand it? As for the AMOUNT of evidience it explains, that's the problem and why I disbelieve it.

LouisBooth,

What evidence do you think it should be explaining were it true, then?

 

Cheers,

Prax

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

Then someone in the scientific world needs to come up with a better term. Go for it, maybe you'll get a Nobel prize. As for now, theory means something that explains SOME of the data, but not all of it, and thus evolution is just a theory.

No, it doesn't mean that, and you don't get to redefine words in the English language just because you're unhappy with the current definitions.

Sorry.

 

[LouisBooth]

"No, it doesn't mean that, and you don't get to redefine words in the English language just because you're unhappy with the current definitions. "

Yes, it does because its not standardized then. All the languages have the same problem because they have the same definition.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"No, it doesn't mean that, and you don't get to redefine words in the English language just because you're unhappy with the current definitions. "

Yes, it does because its not standardized then. All the languages have the same problem because they have the same definition.

Uh huh.  So, since languages aren't standardised, anyone is free to redefine words within them? Is that it?  You don't seriously mean that, do you?

In any case, the term Theory does have a rigid definition in science.  However, you are correct to a certain degree in that there is more than one definition for "theory" generally speaking, so there is scope for confusion.

 However, in science, when the word is used, it only has one meaning.

 

Cheers,

Prax

 

[LouisBooth]

"So, since languages aren't standardised, anyone is free to redefine words within them? Is that it? You don't seriously mean that, do you?"

LOL.. no no no, science is standarized, thus you need to come up with another word for what you think evolution is, for as it stands, its a theory, and a theory is something that DOESN'T explain all of the evidience.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"I agree with Bear that some people are quite willing to accept the benefits of the methods of science until they uncover something they don't like."

Maybe so, but then again science is only a tool, and maybe not the best one in this case as it doesn't explain things fully.

Do we have anything that works better? Unfortunately, the only way to prove that something else works better is science, which would cause science to embrace that theory. Then, it would no longer be better than science.

"adjustments are not central to the theory as a whole."

Then someone in the scientific world needs to come up with a better term. Go for it, maybe you'll get a Nobel prize.

I don't see how this connects to my statement. If you are refering to the statement that there is no formal way of determining whether something is a law or a theory, this lack is inconsequential. It only presents difficulties for people who try to discredit something by saying that it is just a theory. Scientists just look at the evidence for and against the theory and make judgements based on this.

As for now, theory means something that explains SOME of the data, but not all of it, and thus evolution is just a theory.

Evolution is a theory using this definition:

a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

The propositions are modified from time to time, but the phenomena that it they explain don't.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"So, since languages aren't standardised, anyone is free to redefine words within them? Is that it? You don't seriously mean that, do you?"

LOL.. no no no, science is standarized, thus you need to come up with another word for what you think evolution is, for as it stands, its a theory, and a theory is something that DOESN'T explain all of the evidience.

General Relativity breaks down at very small dimensions. However, this weakness does not mean that its claims about time dilation around massive objects are discredited.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
and a theory is something that DOESN'T explain all of the evidience.

 

Says who?

 

(Do I win the prize for the shortest post du jour?)

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
 

Says who?

 

(Do I win the prize for the shortest post du jour?)

No

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
No

O.

 

[TheBear]

*sigh*

 

[Annabel Lee]

small sigh

 

[Praxiteles]

*yawn*

Prax sits and watches as a cybertumbleweed rolls throught the thread...