[_ Old Earth _] Evolution/ top science breakthrough 2005 !

[reznwerks]

Business
Science
Entertainment
Sports
Quirks
Topics
Arts, Culture And Entertainment
Crime, Law And Justice
Disaster And Accident
Economy, Business And Finance
Education
Environmental Issue
Health
Human Interest
Labour
Lifestyle And Leisure
Politics
Religion And Belief
Science And Technology
Social Issue
Sport
Unrest, Conflicts And War
Weather

Evolution top science breakthrough
NEW YORK, Dec. 23 (UPI) -- The top spot in the journal Science's list of major endeavors this past year was awarded to research into how evolution works.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.p ... roughs.xml

 

[NOTW]

Would you like a cookie? :

I got a breakthrough for ya. Keep your evolution and do with it what you wish. It's a part of life and thats all to a minor degree. Spontaneous generation, aka "Abiogenesis" does not exist and or happen period. So, where evolution fails ID will one day pick up it's slack. Soon as all the yuppy's stop calling it a "Religion" (How rediculous)!!

In case you don't know this already, everything is alive. Everything! And Jesus is the source of all life. Jhn 14:6 Quantom physics says 99.9% of everything is empty space. The bible says Hbr 11:3

Peace my friend!

NOTW.........

 

[Grengor]

Spontaneous generation, aka "Abiogenesis" does not exist and or happen period. So, where evolution fails ID will one day pick up it's slack.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Spontaneous generation is not Abiogenesis, and you equating it to it is a strawman and deliberately dishonest, I would bet. That is, unless you don't know better and you're talking about something with no formal education in the subject ;-), but I would certainly hope not as it could be construed as "bearing false witness".
Yes, spontaneous generation is impossible, no one is disagreeing with you on that. And Abiogenesis is actually inescapable. It literally means "life from non life". Wether you think it was naturally reacting chemicals eventually forming RNA strands, hypercycles and protocells, or life breathed into clay, it happened.
And keep chugging along with that ID, who knows, even though they've been given chances with research funding and possible projects never came in, maybe, just maybe, it's proponents will get it out of their head that "goddidit" is not a scientific answere.

Soon as all the yuppy's stop calling it a "Religion" (How rediculous)!!

ID isn't religion per se, but as the Dover judge so eloquently stated, it's impossible to seperate them from their creationist counterparts, and the redefinition of science that would be required for it to become science would open the door for things like astrology, and well... religion.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

The way I read the article, it appears the discoveries were pro ID.

The article goes on to explain the embarrasment of those who assume the

evolutionary underpinnings of biological processes.

Am I missing something here?

 

[reznwerks]

claim

Would you like a cookie? :

I got a breakthrough for ya. Keep your evolution and do with it what you wish. It's a part of life and thats all to a minor degree.
Actually it's even less than that. Evolution is just an explanation of where we came from. It's not going to change anything. It just answers some questions about man who just happens to be very inquisitive.


Spontaneous generation, aka "Abiogenesis" does not exist and or happen period. So, where evolution fails ID will one day pick up it's slack. Soon as all the yuppy's stop calling it a "Religion" (How rediculous)!!
ID will never pick up the slack because it has absolutely no evidence for it's theory. When that changes it might get a seat at the table. Not being able to explain something doesn't mean ID is involved.

In case you don't know this already, everything is alive. Everything!
Everything? Stones too?And Jesus is the source of all life. Jhn 14:6
If you consider the Bible a textbook I guess you could make that claim, but would it be true?

Quantom physics says 99.9% of everything is empty space. The bible says Hbr 11:3
Would you care to cite your source for that last comment? That is really deep.

Peace my friend!

NOTW.........

 

[NOTW]

Evolution now claims it knows where we came from? Yeah, riiiiiiigggghhhhtttt!! Wheres that, the ape? Have a closer in depth look into the dna and your missing 4%. When your done that, try and explain where all the embedded information that makes dna tick and where that came from. BTW, theres your ID! Your brainwashed buddy, period!

 

[Grengor]

Evolution now claims it knows where we came from? Yeah, riiiiiiigggghhhhtttt!! Wheres that, the ape? Have a closer in depth look into the dna and your missing 4%. When your done that, try and explain where all the embedded information that makes dna tick and where that came from. BTW, theres your ID! Your brainwashed buddy, period!

"Where we came from" was a reference to the origin of species. And yes, it does. An ape? Nah, a creature with ape like qualities? Probably.

Imbedded information? Do you even have a grasp on information theory? Or did you just read a convincing website and now you're on the same level with people who've spent a better portion of their lives researching and studying?
Granted, we all can't be scientists, but that's hardly excusable for blatant arrogance. Once you can define the smallest unit of information and can tell me specifically why if "CAT" has more infomation than "CTA", get back to me.
Brainwashed? Yes, you could say that. You're brainwashed into germ theory, you're brainwashed into the theory of gravity, you're brainwashed into algebra(hopefully). Please, oh please study you're topics first.
We could also claim you're equally brainwashed into Creationism ;). But it's still a horrible argument.
God bless,
Matt

 

[Grengor]

edited.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Ouch!

Wow...getting a little hot in here.


Bottom line is neither Intelligent Design nor Evolution can be, or will ever be,

proven scientifically. Seems to be a bit of a problem with the repeatability

and observability...lol :D .

I do feel in light of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the ID

model has better predictive power.

That's my 2 cents. 8-)

Peace

http://www.preclovis.com

 

[cubedbee]

Re: Ouch!

Wow...getting a little hot in here.


Bottom line is neither Intelligent Design nor Evolution can be, or will ever be,

proven scientifically.

Bottom line is that no scientific theory can theoretically or will ever be proven--from germ theory to quantum theory to plate tectonics to to evolution. Scientific theories ARE NOT provable, and to speak of "proven scientifically" shows an ignorance of the basic tenets of science.

However, scientifc theories ARE disprovable. Scientific theories must all make predictions which are testable--and if the predictions prove not to be true, the the scientific theory is proven to be wrong. Sometimes it's a little wrong and the scientific theory just has to be tweaked, sometimes it's a lot wrong, and a whole new theory needs to take the place of an old one.

Evolution is a disprovable scientific theory. Intelligent Design is a theory, but it is not disprovable, and it is not scientific.

Seems to be a bit of a problem with the repeatability

and observability...lol :D .

Yes, for ID there is, which is why it's not a science.

I do feel in light of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the ID

model has better predictive power.

That's my 2 cents. 8-)

Peace

Then you don't understand the laws of thermodyamics, because they are unrelated to the question of life development, and both ID and evolution are 100% consistent with them.

 

[pasta911]

Evolution now claims it knows where we came from? Yeah, riiiiiiigggghhhhtttt!! Wheres that, the ape? Have a closer in depth look into the dna and your missing 4%. When your done that, try and explain where all the embedded information that makes dna tick and where that came from. BTW, theres your ID! Your brainwashed buddy, period!

So, what was your evidence for ID again??

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Evolution is a disprovable scientific theory. Intelligent Design is a theory, but it is not disprovable, and it is not scientific.

What's your criteria for a theory being scientific? Why is evolution a scientific

theory? Can you disprove lifeless matter became self organized to the point

of taking on a living status? Yes you can. The First and Second law of

Thermodynamics prevent this very activity. Can you disprove intelligent

design?

Yes you can. Observing non-living matter and forces creating life (no

intelligence involved) would be a good start.

Yes, for ID there is, which is why it's not a science.

And where's the observability and repeatability for Evolution?

Seems as if your being prejudiced against ID? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting

this? I've never once heard of non-living forces coupled with no intelligence

creating anything close to living (except as a tenent in The Evolution

Theory).

Then you don't understand the laws of thermodyamics, because they are

unrelated to the question of life development, and both ID and evolution

are 100% consistent with them.

Got to admit, you lost me on this one. The Second Law deals specifically

with organization: All spontaneous processes create entropy, not

organization.

And the on the scientifically provable thing: when this occurs, the theory

becomes a law. At one time, Newton's law was indeed a theory.

That's my 3 cents 8-)

Peace

http://www.preclovis.com

 

[Grengor]

What's your criteria for a theory being scientific? Why is evolution a scientific

theory? Can you disprove lifeless matter became self organized to the point

of taking on a living status? Yes you can. The First and Second law of

Thermodynamics prevent this very activity. Can you disprove intelligent

design?

Yes you can. Observing non-living matter and forces creating life (no

intelligence involved) would be a good start.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it's based on empirical evidence, is falsifiable, and has withstood 150 years of scientific testing. The laws of thermodynamics do not prevent lifeless matter to form simple replicating RNA strands, or else such things as zygote growth would be impossible as well, but they're not, so obviously maybe your definition of the LoT is skewed?

Also, no, ID can't be falsified. No matter what, you can never show that the designer didn't just create the object using methods unknown to current scientists, that's why it's not science.

And where's the observability and repeatability for Evolution?

Seems as if your being prejudiced against ID? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting

this? I've never once heard of non-living forces coupled with no intelligence

creating anything close to living (except as a tenent in The Evolution

Theory).

Yes, it is observable and repeatable. There's no biological barrier to stop 1 from adding up to 1,000,000, and since evolution is change, any change we see is classified as evolution. Plus there's the talkorigins page on the 29+ evidences for "macro" evolution. Abiogenesis is not the Theory of Evolution, Evolution assumes automatically that the first cell was there, wether it was created or not. Abiogenesis is how that cell formed. It's not to the evidenced level of the ToE yet, but it's getting there.

And the on the scientifically provable thing: when this occurs, the theory

becomes a law. At one time, Newton's law was indeed a theory.

That is glaringly wrong, so glaringly I can't help but feel almost embarrassed for you. Theories do not graduate to become laws, a theory will always remain a theory. There's the law of gravity, for the mathematical relationship we find with things falling, and there's the theory of gravity to explain why these things will fall. Laws and facts are the basis for which theories are born.

Please read up about these seperate theories and laws accordingly, thank you.

 

[cubedbee]

What's your criteria for a theory being scientific? Why is evolution a scientific

theory? Can you disprove lifeless matter became self organized to the point

of taking on a living status? Yes you can. The First and Second law of

Thermodynamics prevent this very activity. Can you disprove intelligent

design?

Yes you can. Observing non-living matter and forces creating life (no

intelligence involved) would be a good start.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it's based on empirical evidence, is falsifiable, and has withstood 150 years of scientific testing. The laws of thermodynamics do not prevent lifeless matter to form simple replicating RNA strands, or else such things as zygote growth would be impossible as well, but they're not, so obviously maybe your definition of the LoT is skewed?

Also, no, ID can't be falsified. No matter what, you can never show that the designer didn't just create the object using methods unknown to current scientists, that's why it's not science.


[quote="Charlie Hatchett":7b088]
And where's the observability and repeatability for Evolution?

Seems as if your being prejudiced against ID? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting

this? I've never once heard of non-living forces coupled with no intelligence

creating anything close to living (except as a tenent in The Evolution

Theory).

Yes, it is observable and repeatable. There's no biological barrier to stop 1 from adding up to 1,000,000, and since evolution is change, any change we see is classified as evolution. Plus there's the talkorigins page on the 29+ evidences for "macro" evolution. Abiogenesis is not the Theory of Evolution, Evolution assumes automatically that the first cell was there, wether it was created or not. Abiogenesis is how that cell formed. It's not to the evidenced level of the ToE yet, but it's getting there.

And the on the scientifically provable thing: when this occurs, the theory

becomes a law. At one time, Newton's law was indeed a theory.

That is glaringly wrong, so glaringly I can't help but feel almost embarrassed for you. Theories do not graduate to become laws, a theory will always remain a theory. There's the law of gravity, for the mathematical relationship we find with things falling, and there's the theory of gravity to explain why these things will fall. Laws and facts are the basis for which theories are born.

Please read up about these seperate theories and laws accordingly, thank you.[/quote:7b088]Thanks, this is as well as I could have said it.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I'll work backwards on your arguments.

That is glaringly wrong, so glaringly I can't help but feel almost embarrassed for you. Theories do not graduate to become laws, a theory will always remain a theory. There's the law of gravity, for the mathematical relationship we find with things falling, and there's the theory of gravity to explain why these things will fall. Laws and facts are the basis for which theories are born.

So, according to your theory, Newton's laws were automatically accepted as

the truth. I really don't think it happened that way. I think his theory was

tested exhaustively before it was accepted as one of the laws of nature. ID

and ToE could graduate to law status if they could withstand the rigors of

testing in their current form. They both have failed to do so in their current

form. No need to feel embarrassed for me...Here's a couple of examples of

theories becoming laws over time:


'Example: When Gregor Mendel in 1865 studied the pattern of single trait inheritance of garden peas he formed a hypothesis on the manner of how these traits were inherited. The hypothesis he formed based on his observations included the following:

# In the organism there is a pair of factors that controls the appearance of a given characteristic.
# The organism inherits these factors from its parents, one from each.
# Each is transmitted from generation to generation as a discrete, unchanging unit.
# When the gametes are formed, the factors separate and are distributed as units to each gamete. (This statement is also known as Mendel's rule of segregation.)
# If an organism has two unlike factors for a characteristic, one may be expressed to the total exclusion of the other."


"Example: Between 1856 and 1863 Mendel cultivated and tested some 28,000 pea plants which brought forth two theories of how character traits are inherited. Ironically, when Mendel's paper was published on 1866, it had little impact. It wasn't until the early 20th century that the enormity of his ideas was realized."


A scientific law is a description of a natural phenomenon or principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain circumstances.

"Example: In the early 20th century, after repeated tests and rejection of all competing theories Mendel's Laws of Heredity were accepted by the general scientific community.

1. The law of segregation, which states that the alleles governing a trait are separated during the creation of gametes (meiosis).
2. The law of independent assortment, which states that the genes controlling different traits are distributed separately from each other during meiosis."

So, as you can see, hypotheses and theories, subjected to constant testing

and evaluation can indeed be refined into laws.


The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific

law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves a law

was wrong. The Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

The Theory of Evolution, in it's current form, will never become a law

of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a

theory instead of a law (after a 150 years plus of testing).


Maybe we're having a definitional argument here?

Yes, it is observable and repeatable. There's no biological barrier to stop 1 from adding up to 1,000,000, and since evolution is change, any change we see is classified as evolution. Plus there's the talkorigins page on the 29+ evidences for "macro" evolution. Abiogenesis is not the Theory of Evolution, Evolution assumes automatically that the first cell was there, wether it was created or not. Abiogenesis is how that cell formed. It's not to the evidenced level of the ToE yet, but it's getting there.

The 29+ evidences for "macro" evolution you cite are very antiquated and

have all been proven, without exception, false. It a shame textbooks still

site the "evidences" as if they are fact.

This was done, for a time, by evolutionists, when the yolk sac and so-called

gill slits of the human embryo were thought to be recapitulations of bird and

fish ancestors. More investigation has shown that the yolk sac actually

reproduces the essential first blood cells for the new individual--an activity

that is functionally quite different from the bird egg yolk. The gill slits, which

were neither gills or slits, have been more appropriately renamed

pharyngeal pouches, which in humans develop into eustachian tubes, the

thymus, and parathyroid glands. As scientists gave up on the recapitulation

idea, it freed them to explore every area of embryonic development and to

look for specific plan, purpose, and inter-dependence. Many specific

distinctions have been discovered since then.

Following evolutionary thinking caused us, at one time, to have a list of over

180 vestigial organs in the human body, which included such things as the

thyroid gland, the thymus, and the muscles of the ear, as well as many

other organs that have useful and often essential functions.



"Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.

One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."

(Yockey, 1977. A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377–398, quotes from pp. 379, 396.)

Evolution is a scientific theory because it's based on empirical evidence, is falsifiable, and has withstood 150 years of scientific testing. The laws of thermodynamics do not prevent lifeless matter to form simple replicating RNA strands, or else such things as zygote growth would be impossible as well, but they're not, so obviously maybe your definition of the LoT is skewed?

Also, no, ID can't be falsified. No matter what, you can never show that the designer didn't just create the object using methods unknown to current scientists, that's why it's not science.

Wow! Come on...are you really buying what you just

said? ID was around BEFORE evolution. And most of it's proponents were

very aware of Bacon's Scientific Method...they used his very method to come

up with and prove their own discoveries, using ID as their origin model.

Here's a few examples of scientists who used ID versus ToE as their model:



ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ACTUARIAL TABLES CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
BAROMETER BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
BIOGENESIS LAW LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULATING MACHINE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
CHLOROFORM JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
DOUBLE STARS WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
ELECTRIC GENERATOR MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ELECTRIC MOTOR JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
EPHEMERIS TABLES JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
FERMENTATION CONTROL LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
GALVANOMETER JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
GLOBAL STAR CATALOG JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871)
INERT GASES WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
KALEIDOSCOPE DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
LAW OF GRAVITY ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
MINE SAFETY LAMP HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
PASTEURIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
REFLECTING TELESCOPE ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
SCIENTIFIC METHOD FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)
SELF-INDUCTION JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
TELEGRAPH SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872)
THERMIONIC VALVE AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

Should anyone suppose that their commitment to theism and creationism

was only because they were not yet acquainted with modern philosophies.

Many were strong opponents of Darwinism (Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin,

Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, Fleming, etc.). Even those who lived before

Darwin were strong opponents of earlier evolutionary systems, not to

mention pantheism, atheism, and other such anti-supernaturalist

philosophies, which were every bit as prevalent then as now.

I agree that ToE has been tested for 150 some odd years: The "withstood'

part I definitely disagree with. We can hash that out latter if you would like.



Your comment on the 2nd law assumes a sperm, an egg, and their coded

message are lifeless and/or not the product of intelligence. That's a huge

leap of faith. Can you really, deep down inside yourself, imagine these

structures self organizing themselves?

Wow!

Now that's faith!!!

That's cool...I respect your belief...just don't present it as science to me.

Peace

http://www.preclovis.com

With over 40 essential parts, the flagellum is a rotary motor used to propel

bacteria and sperm in liquid. Spinning at 17,000 rpms, the motor is acid

driven, liquid cooled and self-replicating.

--- Flagellum image created by Discovery Media Productions

 

[cubedbee]

So, according to your theory, Newton's laws were automatically accepted as

the truth. I really don't think it happened that way.

tested exhaustively before it was accepted as one of the laws of nature.

Yes, Charlie, before laws are accepted, they are unproven hypotheses. Exhausting testing must be done before a hypothesis is accepted as Law.

ID

and ToE could graduate to law status if they could withstand the rigors of

testing in their current form. They both have failed to do so in their current

form.

Here's where your misunderstanding of what a "theory" is. In layman's terms, a theory is very much like a hypothosis, I can understand why non-scientists make the mistake. Please read this link, it is a very clear explanation of why you are confusing the terms hypothesis and theory. : http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

No need to feel embarrassed for me...Here's a couple of examples of

theories becoming laws over time:

'Example: When Gregor Mendel in 1865 studied the pattern of single trait inheritance of garden peas he formed a hypothesis on the manner of how these traits were inherited. The hypothesis he formed based on his observations included the following:


So, as you can see, hypotheses and theories, subjected to constant testing

and evaluation can indeed be refined into laws. Maybe we're having a

definitional argument here?

Yes, it is a definitional agreement. Please see above. If you're going to discredit scientific theories, you need to know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Yes, it is a definitional agreement. Please see above. If you're going to discredit scientific theories, you need to know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Lol...yeah, I guess that wouldn't hurt!! :D

Seriously though, I'll have a look at the definitions ya'll are using.

Thanks and Peace.

http://www.preclovis.com

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Yes, it is a definitional agreement. Please see above. If you're going to discredit scientific theories, you need to know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

hmmmm... I agree with what you have posted. Ideas flow to hypotheses,

hypotheses flow to theories, and theories are the back bone to discovering and

confirming new laws.


Are we on the same page?


The following quote from the link you provided disturbed me:

"Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt."

Wow...The Theory of Evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt!

I think it's these circular kind of statements that cause alot of the

definitional confusion.


What do you think?


Peace

http://www.preclovis.com

 

[cubedbee]

I still don't know that we're still quite on the same page.

Laws and theories don't flow into one another. Both laws and theories are accepted by scientists as being true. The difference is in complexity--Laws are simple and describe a single action, theories are complex and explain a complete set of related actions.

A Law starts with a single hypothesis to explain a single event. The hypothesis is tested, and if evidence to the contrary arises, then the the hypothesis is proved false. However, if enough testing is done and no contrary evidence arises, then scientists accept the hypothesis as Law. The law has not been provenâ€â€if new observations every contradict the law, then scientists will reject it. For instance, Newton’s Second Law of Motion was accepted as true by scientists for hundreds of years, but once we had the technology to move things really fast and measure things really accurately, we found that our observations didn’t line up with Newton’s Law, and Einstein came up with a new law of motion, consistent with his theories of relativity---which in normal situations simplifies to Newton’s Law. Newton’s Law wasn’t overturned---it’s still taught in every intro to Physicsâ€â€it still agrees with 99% of our observations, but we know it isn’t trueâ€â€that it’s just an approximation of Einstein’s equation. And if we start observing things that’s disagree with Einstein, then a new and more refined law of motion will need to be developed. Laws are never provedâ€â€the best they can be are useful and consistent with observation.

A theory is similar to a law, but instead of just starting with one hypothesis about a single event, several hypotheses and/or laws are used to describe a complex set of events. Just as with a law, the hypotheses of the theory must be tested and if contrary evidence arises, then that hypothesis needs to be rejected or revised. And, just like a law, there is no way to prove a theory---all scientists can do is accumulate evidence to gain more and more support for a theory. Scientists accept theories as true just as they accept laws are true---neither is better or superior to the other, both can be disproved (usually resulting revision like Einstein did for Newton’s law, sometimes causing the theory to be completely thrown out), both are backed with a very large amount of data verified by a very large number of independent scientists.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

O.K., I'm getting what your saying. Hypotheses lead directly to laws, and

directly to theories. Hypotheses also lead indirectly to laws and theories via one

another. Also, I believe I'm hearing you say there's a bit of fluidity to these

theories and laws.

Let's say we are trying to determine if ID meets the criteria for a theory (just an

example, of course :D).

'Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis."

Let's break down the criteria:

I.. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events

based upon proven hypotheses...

So lets make ID the proposed theory for this example.

The proven hypotheses, let's say for example, are:

a. Billions of years are not necessary (but not disallowed either) to create or

produce life.

1. The sun is shrinking at 5 feet/hour which limits the earth-sun relationship

to less than 5 million years. (Significant Acceptance is Assumed for Example

sake)

2. Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would

have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By

implication, the earth is also young. (Significant Acceptance is Assumed for

Example sake)

And so on....Citing different research teams, etc...

b. Irreducible Complexity of Cellular Systems:

1. "An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works -- a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum."...Behe and Crew

(Significant Acceptance is Assumed for Example sake)

2. Macosko, molecular biology researcher who holds chemistry degrees from Cal and MIT, and Crew at UC Berkeley research lab believe that the work going on inside those bacteria isn't just amazingly complex-it's so incredibly complex that it couldn't conceivably have formed through evolution. The only reasonable explanation, he says, is that these systems and their processes were deliberately created by an "intelligent designer." Macosko, who has co-authored a handful of published scientific papers, calls that designer God, though he says you could call it anything you're comfortable with. If you like, he says, call it space aliens. He is inspired by what he claims is growing evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution-the very bedrock of biology-has collapsed on the molecular level.

And so on...citing different "proven hypotheses" by different research teams

in support of ID...


Close to the same page?

I'm trying to make sure I've the technicalities straight.

Oh, by the way, who decides or how is it decided if a hypotheses is "proven".

This appears very gray to a avocational archeologist wanna be like

myself...:-? .

Thanks for you patience and teachings.

Peace

http://www.preclovis.com