13 Jan 14
Originally posted by PatNovakMy position is that what happened at the worldwide flood and shortly after formed the fossils and strata. It could have been a combination of all three methods. Nobody knows. There are only theories. Even with the forming of the Little Grand Canyon in 1980 because of the erruption of Mount St. Helens, nobody saw exactly what happened. We only know those strata were formed quickly as was probably the case of the Grand canyon. All we know for sure is that it does not take millions of years to form.
I have confirmed (again) to my satisfaction that you don't even know what your own position is, and that you just randomly link to videos in the hopes that if you throw enough ****, some of it will stick.
In your post, you linked to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9ZGt9UA-U), which is a video by Walt Brown. Earlier in the thread, you linked to thi ...[text shortened]... impossible to have a discussion/debate with you until you figure out what your own position is.
13 Jan 14
Originally posted by Trev33Semantical problem here. The word "theory" means two different things:
Evolution is not a theory. It's fact, whether people want to accept it or not.
1) a proven scientific fact, as in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
2) an idea that is as yet unproven, as in I have a theory that RJHinds is a cabbage.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Jan 14
Originally posted by Pianoman1Almost.
Semantical problem here. The word "theory" means two different things:
1) a proven scientific fact, as in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
2) an idea that is as yet unproven, as in I have a theory that RJHinds is a cabbage.
A scientific theory is an explanation of facts, not a fact in and of itself.
Also my personal hypothesis is that RJHinds is in fact a hyper-unintelligent Lettuce.
13 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgePoint taken.
Almost.
A scientific theory is an explanation of facts, not a fact in and of itself.
Also my personal hypothesis is that RJHinds is in fact a hyper-unintelligent Lettuce.
Yes, lettuce is certainly more vapid, tasteless and pointless than cabbage. Agreed.
Originally posted by googlefudgeHa, ha. You are almost right. Yes, the use of the same definition of words is important to clear understanding during conversations. The problem is that the hypothesis and theory are often used to mean basically the same thing.
Almost.
A scientific theory is an explanation of facts, not a fact in and of itself.
Also my personal hypothesis is that RJHinds is in fact a hyper-unintelligent Lettuce.
When there are a few facts that support a hypothesis, which is an educated guess, then it is often called a theory, such as the theory of evolution. After extensive scientific testing over a long period of time and no exceptions are contradictions are discovered to the theory it may become a law, such as the law of gravity on earth. However, for the universe we only have a theory of gravity at this time, because we do not know if it holds up in all cases throughout the universe.
The theory of evolution should be renamed the theory of variation in species or even the law of variation in species. However, the general theory of Evilution, which includes the changing from one kind to another should be discarded, since it has been proven false and no scientist accepts it as a possible fact anymore.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsNo no no no.
Ha, ha. You are almost right. Yes, the use of the same definition of words is important to clear understanding during conversations. The problem is that the hypothesis and theory are often used to mean basically the same thing.
When there are a few facts that support a hypothesis, which is an educated guess, then it is often called a theory, such as the ...[text shortened]... iscarded, since it has been proven false and no scientist accepts it as a possible fact anymore.
A theory NEVER becomes a law.
A theory will [often] contain laws.
For example.
Newton came up with a law of gravity.
He said that between any two masses, with masses M1 and M2.
Their will exist a force of attraction between them that is proportional to the
multiple of the two masses together and inversely proportional to the square
of the distance between them.
In Si units it works out as F=G*M1*M2/R^2
This allows you to calculate the force of gravity, and predict orbits and such.
What it does not do is tell you WHY there is a gravitational force.
Now it turns out that measurements taken long after Newton had died with instruments
far more accurate than any he had available demonstrated that Newton's LAW of gravity
was not actually completely accurate.
And eventually Einstein came up with a replacement for Newtonian gravity that was more
accurate... But more than that, Einstein came up with a Hypothesis, which has now become
a theory, that not only includes a mathematical law of gravity, but also an explanation of WHY
gravity exists and works the way it does.
I wont try to type Einstein's law of gravity because the math is evil. But there is a mathematical
equation of gravitational attraction just like Newtons, just more accurate [which has not as yet had
any confirmed result contradict it.]
But that LAW of gravity is subsumed within the greater THEORY of gravity that is General Relativity.
A hypothesis is an unproven suggested explanation for some phenomena.
A theory is a proven and tested explanation for some phenomena.
There is nothing above, or better than, a theory.
And a neither a theory or a hypothesis EVER becomes a law.
13 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are not correct about these scientific definitions. A law is a description of WHAT happens (like Newton's Laws of Motion), but does not explain HOW it happens. A theory is an explanation of HOW something happens (Like Einstein's Relativity). Newton's laws explained WHAT gravity did, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity explains HOW gravity works.
Ha, ha. You are almost right. Yes, the use of the same definition of words is important to clear understanding during conversations. The problem is that the hypothesis and theory are often used to mean basically the same thing.
When there are a few facts that support a hypothesis, which is an educated guess, then it is often called a theory, such as the ...[text shortened]... iscarded, since it has been proven false and no scientist accepts it as a possible fact anymore.
Theories are repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Calling something a theory in science is like giving the idea an A+. A theory is the highest status an explanation in science can reach. Laws are not the next step after theory.
Originally posted by googlefudgeLike I said, it all depends on how it is defined. If a law can be demonstrated not to be completely accurate, then it should never have been declared a law, right? So if I am talking about something that I define as law and fact and you say it is only theory or hypothesis, then there is no meeting of the minds and we can not communicate reasonably to gain understanding.
No no no no.
A theory NEVER becomes a law.
A theory will [often] contain laws.
For example.
Newton came up with a law of gravity.
He said that between any two masses, with masses M1 and M2.
Their will exist a force of attraction between them that is proportional to the
multiple of the two masses together and inversely proportional to t ...[text shortened]... ng above, or better than, a theory.
And a neither a theory or a hypothesis EVER becomes a law.
So that seems to be where we are on evolution or evilution. We have different definitions and therefore there is no meeting of the minds to effectively communicate.
Originally posted by PatNovakYou and googlefudge should be able to communicate well then. That seems to be one of our problems in communicating. We do not use the same definitions for all the words by which we use to communicate. Perhaps that is why you have no understanding of the videos I suggested for your education.
You are not correct about these scientific definitions. A law is a description of WHAT happens (like Newton's Laws of Motion), but does not explain HOW it happens. A theory is an explanation of HOW something happens (Like Einstein's Relativity). Newton's laws explained WHAT gravity did, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity explains HOW gravity works.
Theo ...[text shortened]... the highest status an explanation in science can reach. Laws are not the next step after theory.
Doesn't the so-called theory of evolution try to explain both WHAT and HOW it happens?
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are correct that the theory of evolution tries to explain both what happens and how it happens. This is why, if there were a hierarchy of science, theories would rank higher than laws.
You and googlefudge should be able to communicate well then. That seems to be one of our problems in communicating. We do not use the same definitions for all the words by which we use to communicate. Perhaps that is why you have no understanding of the videos I suggested for your education.
Doesn't the so-called theory of evolution try to explain both WHAT and HOW it happens?
I agree that word definitions are hindering communication between us, but that is because I am using the correct definitions and you are using incorrect definitions.
As for your videos, you've made it clear that I am the only one of the two of us who actually does have any understanding of the videos you link to. You've made this abundantly clear by posting so many video links that were irrelevant to the topics being discussed. In fact, I suspect I've watched more of your linked videos in this thread than you have watched.
13 Jan 14
Originally posted by PatNovakIn my worldview, a law outranks a theory, and a theory outranks an hypothesis, and a hypothesis outranks a mere guess. You guys that believe in evilution like to change definitions to make the idea of evilution seem more real and factual. A worldwide flood seems more real and factual to me. If you can't understand that, then we must be using different definitions for facts too.
You are correct that the theory of evolution tries to explain both what happens and how it happens. This is why, if there were a hierarchy of science, theories would rank higher than laws.
I agree that word definitions are hindering communication between us, but that is because I am using the correct definitions and you are using incorrect definitions.
...[text shortened]... In fact, I suspect I've watched more of your linked videos in this thread than you have watched.
13 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYour worldview is wrong on just about everything.
In my worldview, a law outranks a theory, and a theory outranks an hypothesis, and a hypothesis outranks a mere guess. .
Your self-made definitions are wrong.
And nobody cares what you think.
It's a guilty pleasure reminding you of your own ignorance.
13 Jan 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59I am going by the old definitions before the false idea of evilution turned godly thinking on its head.
Your worldview is wrong on just about everything.
Your self-made definitions are wrong.
And nobody cares what you think.
It's a guilty pleasure reminding you of your own ignorance.
