|
Intelligent Design Theory (pg. 29)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Desiderata |
Originally posted by srussell0018
I'm just playing devil's advocate here (I believe you) but that is still technically just a theory, despite it's being widely accepted in most scientific communities.
quote:
You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.
The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5
Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
as far as relativity theory goes, every single test that we have done substantiates it, and technology like GPS systems & satellites etc work due to the calculations based on relativity. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
And like PKC said The Theory of Relativity is being used in GPS and other systems here on Earth and they work perfectly according to that Theory. You never answered him about that. |
Apples falling from trees worked perfectly according to Newton's theories too. Literally all you're doing is recycling things other people already said ad nauseum, so just stop.
:stongue: and then you quote something that PKC already did to prove a point that's already been made, and that's already been understood by everyone reading here. What exactly are you trying to prove here? Your reading comprehension skills? We can see that you're very good at reading and recycling what PKC says. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Who said it changes the entire structure? |
Okay, apart from the patently obvious pun, intended, I'm assuming (since I've yet to scroll back to the beginning of this hyperbolic Mesopotamian exchange to find out when people started boarding and/or rocking it) that the ship is a metaphor for whatever theory, consisting of multiple arguments, happens to premise the platform for whoever decided to build it, rhetorically speaking, in the first place. I must also assume that the "plank" proverbially pertains to the many, interlacing arguments by which the HMS Simile is supported.
Am I, at least, correct in that regard? |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
|
Answer only yes or no.
Are scientific theories infallible?
Yes or no? |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Well the original point of the thread was certainly not what it is now. Nobody has been arguing for Intelligent Design or saying that god is the only real truth at all. It's just conversation at this point. Well, conversation and then Desiderata repeating everything that PKC says. |
Stop riding my nuts dude, I was the one who said first that the word Theory is used completely different than the definition of the word Theory, then like 2 people said it after me, you didn't see to get it, at least I didn't think you did so I repeated it.
Read the whole Thread moron, I haven't repeated one thing PKC said except for my last 2 Posts only because you never answered him?
ff's read the whole Thread moron. |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
Who said the M-Theory didn't work with the Theory of Relativity. You think this is a separate Theory that excludes all other Theories?? |
It doesn't. Relativity breaks down at small scales. It's meant to explain planetary and cosmic movement and time dilation. If you're talking about quantum scales, relativity has no relevance.
| quote: | | And like PKC said The Theory of Relativity is being used in GPS and other systems here on Earth and they work perfectly according to that Theory. You never answered him about that. |
lol. his point was simply that our entire ing technological lives are based on many, many fields of science agreeing with each other. And it works, marvelously. srussell0018 is trying to make this discussion less tangible and more philosophical. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Answer only yes or no.
Are scientific theories infallible?
Yes or no? |
You can't say yes or no because some may be and some are defiantly not. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Okay, apart from the patently obvious pun, intended, I'm assuming (since I've yet to scroll back to the beginning of this hyperbolic Mesopotamian exchange to find out when people started boarding and/or rocking it) that the ship is a metaphor for whatever theory, consisting of multiple arguments, happens to premise the platform for whoever decided to build it, rhetorically speaking, in the first place. I must also assume that the "plank" proverbially pertains to the many, interlacing arguments by which the HMS Simile is supported.
Am I, at least, correct in that regard? |
The ship thing started when I pointed out that theories can be amended or even disproven altogether with the discovery of new knowledge, etc. PKC said something along the lines of "If you replace one plank in the ship, is it not the same ship?" He was (I think) trying to say that even if these theories do change, or if parts of them change, they're still the same theory. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
You can't say yes or no because some may be and some are defiantly not. |
So the answer is no. Not all scientific theories are infallible.
You therefore agree with srussel and myself.
Conversation over. |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Okay, apart from the patently obvious pun, intended, I'm assuming (since I've yet to scroll back to the beginning of this hyperbolic Mesopotamian exchange to find out when people started boarding and/or rocking it) that the ship is a metaphor for whatever theory, consisting of multiple arguments, happens to premise the platform for whoever decided to build it, rhetorically speaking, in the first place. I must also assume that the "plank" proverbially pertains to the many, interlacing arguments by which the HMS Simile is supported.
Am I, at least, correct in that regard? |
nah, nice guess though
each plank represents a change in 'x' theory. and they're basically arguing whether changing one plank makes it a new 'theory' or if it's a new 'ship' all together |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
Stop riding my nuts dude, I was the one who said first that the word Theory is used completely different than the definition of the word Theory, then like 2 people said it after me, you didn't see to get it, at least I didn't think you did so I repeated it.
Read the whole Thread moron, I haven't repeated one thing PKC said except for my last 2 Posts only because you never answered him?
ff's read the whole Thread moron. |
You must be in love with PKC. Why don't you wait until he says something else, then you can posit some "new" ideas.
D-Res is right. I'm simply arguing from a philosophical standpoint, whereas you're arguing from a "Whatever PKC says" standpoint. Also, as D-Res also stated, the only original idea you posted was incorrect lol. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
It doesn't. Relativity breaks down at small scales. It's meant to explain planety and cosmic movement and time dilation. If you're talking about quantum scales, relativity has no relevance.
I will admit if I am wrong here but if M-Theory turns out to be true it doesn't disprove Relativity does it?
lol. his point was simply that our entire ing technological lives are based on many, many fields of science agreeing with each other. And it works, marvelously. srussell0018 is trying to make this discussion less tangible and more philosophical. |
Yeah, no ...all Rhetoric if you ask me plus some nut riding. But I'm biased cause he keeps bringing me up. |
|
|
|
|
