Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:faith is not a requirement to carry out science. It is however a requirement for religion.Habit7 wrote:Whose words am I twisting?
Pseudo science is saying evolution is the basis of all biology. Say what factual science I deny and I will publicly denounce it.
The discovery of planets within the habitable zone proves that planets exists within the habitable zone. Any conclusion beyond that is faith, something you say doesn't exist in science.
You claim the earth was created in 1 week. You claim the earth is 6000-12000 years old. You claim therefore that dinosaurs lived at the same time with humans. You claim that there was some magic that explains how the universe is only 6000-12000 years old yet we can see stars that are millions of lightyears away that took the light from it millions of years to get to us.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:Young earth creationists cunningly obfuscate anisotropic synchrony convention to suit their claims, claiming that light does not travel at the same speed all the time and infact light that is coming towards the earth travels at an infinite speed and light that is going away form the earth travels at a much slower speed. I say "cunning" since there is no real way to test this and even if it were true the universe would still look the same way it does to us using the "constant speed of light" convention.
you've really perfected the art of throwing red herrings - you do it so deftly!Habit7 wrote:But you need to separate your fact from theory, if you are equating theories with fact then you are exercising a faith/hope much stronger than mine.
Isn't Evolution Just Another Religion That Requires Faith?
No. A religion is a set of beliefs based on the supernatural, which by definition is untestable and impossible to disprove (or "unfalsifiable"); Faith, in the religious sense, can be stated as "belief without evidence." No aspect of science works this way, including the Theory of Evolution. All scientific theories have been scrutinized through years of experimentation, and can all be falsifiable. For example, the Theory of Gravity can be proven false if a scientist can devise an experiment where two bodies did not attract each other. Likewise, the Theory of Evolution could be proven false if a scientist ever documents the evolution of a new adaptation to an organism which did not in any way benefit the organism's ability to survive, reproduce, or ensure the survival of its species as a whole.
While scientists may place faith in a scientific theory, their faith is based on past evidence. For example, all scientists have faith that the Law of Thermodynamics will hold true during an experiment because there is overwhelming past evidence to support this belief. This is completely different than placing faith in a religious belief, which has no supporting evidence at all.
Isn't Evolution Just a Theory?
Evolution is often criticized by opponents as being "just a theory." This argument is especially common in America, where the word "theory" usually means an unproven idea. However, in science a theory is the highest degree of certainty. Gravity is "just a theory." The Earth orbiting the Sun is "just a theory." By definition, a scientific theory is a hypothesis which has withstood rigorous testing and is well-supported by the facts. There is overwhelming evidence for biological evolution, just as there is overwhelming evidence for gravity.
Why Isn't Evolution Considered a Law?
This is an issue which often confuses the general public, as the two words, theory and law, have very different common meanings. But in science, their meanings are very similar. A theory is an explanation which is backed by "a considerable body of evidence," while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a "mathematical statement." This is why Newton's Laws of Motion are referred to as laws and not theories. They are expressed with simple equations (like f = ma for his 2nd Law of Motion). Evolution, and most of Biology, cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation, so it is referred to as a theory. A scientific law is not "better" or "more accurate" than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:For everyone else not bent on making this a religious discussion: do you think it would be scarier to find out we are not alone, or to find out we are alone?
ABA Trading LTD wrote:I honestly believe that due to the profitability of having cancer around. There will never be a cure out in the open.
chulo45 wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:For everyone else not bent on making this a religious discussion: do you think it would be scarier to find out we are not alone, or to find out we are alone?
Both are equally terrifying.
ABA Trading LTD wrote:I honestly believe that due to the profitability of having cancer around. There will never be a cure out in the open.
At least quote Wikipedia nah.Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:Scientific Theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation e.g. Theory of Evolution.
A theory is true if it describes unobservable things that really exist and describes them accurately. Otherwise it is false. This shows the mistake in contrasting "theory" and "fact." A fact is an actual state of affairs in nature, and a theory, or any statement for that matter, is true if it matches fact. Some theories are true (atomic theory), some are false (caloric theory), and the scientific method is what directs us in deciding which are which. To say of some idea, That's a theory not a fact, is a confusion of categories, a comparison of apples and oranges. Facts are; theories describe. And a theory can describe facts.
Pg 8, A Summary of Scientific Method By Peter Kosso, https://books.google.tt/books?id=lkioLp ... &q&f=false
is not possible with many scientific theories. Hence the need for modelling many of these systems. This is something extremely common in science.scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation
Habit7 wrote:At least quote Wikipedia nah.Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:Scientific Theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation e.g. Theory of Evolution.A theory is true if it describes unobservable things that really exist and describes them accurately. Otherwise it is false. This shows the mistake in contrasting "theory" and "fact." A fact is an actual state of affairs in nature, and a theory, or any statement for that matter, is true if it matches fact. Some theories are true (atomic theory), some are false (caloric theory), and the scientific method is what directs us in deciding which are which. To say of some idea, That's a theory not a fact, is a confusion of categories, a comparison of apples and oranges. Facts are; theories describe. And a theory can describe facts.
Pg 8, A Summary of Scientific Method By Peter Kosso, https://books.google.tt/books?id=lkioLp ... &q&f=false
There are aspect of the theory of evolution are factual, there are other aspects that are unobservable. But to say that the unobservable are as factual as the observable is a ridiculous as claiming evolution as the basis for all biology.
ABA Trading LTD wrote:All your scientific knowledge aside, one day you will understand how the pharmaceutical companies work and spend billions to develop drugs that will keep you alive but do not cure your problem. Cancer is a very profitable business. One day you will understand that $$$ is the most important thing
Well it seems you don't know what a metaphor is.Daran wrote:Evolution is the basis of Biology was simply a metaphor used by Duane to explain that what brings the study of Biology together is Evolution.
Sort of like how Math is kinda important to Engineering.
Habit7 wrote:Well it seems you don't know what a metaphor is.Daran wrote:Evolution is the basis of Biology was simply a metaphor used by Duane to explain that what brings the study of Biology together is Evolution.
Sort of like how Math is kinda important to Engineering.
It is great for you to allow for liberty and reinterpretation for Duane's erroneous statement yet hammer meccalli for disagreeing with you.
But as I said before biology existed long before Darwin. Evolution is NOT the basis for ALL biology.
dougla_boy wrote:chulo45 wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:For everyone else not bent on making this a religious discussion: do you think it would be scarier to find out we are not alone, or to find out we are alone?
Both are equally terrifying.
i was gonna say it depends, but when u think about it, it nuh go end well for any of us....
if they are superior, we would be the indians, they would be the spanish.
if they are inferior, we would be the spanish, they would be the indians.
even if they are microbes or anything like that, gonna find a way to exploit them for our gain
dougla_boy wrote:Intelligent Design maybe..
Arrow wrote:dougla_boy wrote:chulo45 wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:For everyone else not bent on making this a religious discussion: do you think it would be scarier to find out we are not alone, or to find out we are alone?
Both are equally terrifying.
i was gonna say it depends, but when u think about it, it nuh go end well for any of us....
if they are superior, we would be the indians, they would be the spanish.
if they are inferior, we would be the spanish, they would be the indians.
even if they are microbes or anything like that, gonna find a way to exploit them for our gain
^^that.
Throughout history, when 2 civilisations meet, things do not end well for the less-advanced one.
Daran wrote:Evolution is what brings it together and makes it make sense
Daran wrote:If everyone adopted that attitude we'd still be in the dark ages thinking diseases and natural disasters were the work of God.
meccalli wrote:^ O yeah?Daran wrote:Evolution is what brings it together and makes it make senseDaran wrote:If everyone adopted that attitude we'd still be in the dark ages thinking diseases and natural disasters were the work of God.
So Koch, Pasteur and all their nobel prize winning students who adhered to a creationist world view and revolutionized microbiology and medicine were working on a foundation of nonsense when they formulated the Germ theory?
Daran wrote:Arrow wrote:dougla_boy wrote:chulo45 wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:For everyone else not bent on making this a religious discussion: do you think it would be scarier to find out we are not alone, or to find out we are alone?
Both are equally terrifying.
i was gonna say it depends, but when u think about it, it nuh go end well for any of us....
if they are superior, we would be the indians, they would be the spanish.
if they are inferior, we would be the spanish, they would be the indians.
even if they are microbes or anything like that, gonna find a way to exploit them for our gain
^^that.
Throughout history, when 2 civilisations meet, things do not end well for the less-advanced one.
Generally true, but I disagree. I think a super advanced civilization would not wish to harm us. In fact, quite the opposite. They'd probably appreciate and monitor us from far and make sure we don't kill ourselves. Also, given the fact that they've become super advanced (meaning they survived wars) means that they're peaceful. They also don't and won't need earth for resources given they advanced technological knowledge.
It's more analogous to think of it like if we were to discover some rare super deep underwater Gigantic Squid. We wouldn't want to kill it (knowing that it could be rare), so we'd observe it without harming its habit.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: daring dragoon and 94 guests