Originally posted by ColettiColetti the Clown: Most scientist don't even address it, they just assume the fairy tail and carry on. It has no practical impact on anything.
a) it's not a matter of little issues, it's a matter of fundamental issues that can only be answered with speculation
b) rather than casting TOE aside, I'd like it given an objective hearing, without any other plausible answers being ignored or ridiculed
c) TOE has been successful at very very little, unless you count popular opinion as success. Sant ...[text shortened]... ey just assume the fairy tail and carry on. It has no practical impact on anything.
LMFAO! Tell that to someone studying diseases caused by viruses. Tell that to people developing pesticides.
Originally posted by ColettiThere's no sense having science classes at all if you're simply going to claim that the rules of the universe can be changed at any time so that no present observations can yield any insight on past events. This is pre-scientific reasoning; if you want to abolish science why not simply say so?
Continental drift can be measured. But we don't have any measures even 100 years ago, much more 1 000 000 years ago.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's right. Additionally, if your basic tenet is that the very rules of the universe may change, then science also has no predictive value either. What sense is there in designing an airplance that will fly in today's sky if the universe's rules of aerodynamics might be different tomorrow, or might even change mid-flight.
There's no sense having science classes at all if you're simply going to claim that the rules of the universe can be changed at any time so that no present observations can yield any insight on past events.
You can't even go about life as a human being without believing that the universe is a certain way, even if you don't fully know what that way is. Every decision you make rests on the belief that some aspects of the physical world are reliably immutable. You count on friction every time you tie your shoes. You count on gravity every time you take a dump.
Originally posted by KellyJayContinential drift isn't just a 'it looks that way so therefore...' . It used to be, but they've don considerable work looking at rock strata on different continuents that were once contiguous. Likewise, with satellite data nowadays, it's entirely possible to watch and measure continental drift....
You seem to be saying that your opinions of things make you believe
the univese is very old. Example: the Grand Canyon taking a long
time to form, simply by the it looks? Now, if I'm not mistaken, that
is the same thing that ID'ers do when they look at DNA and say that
is it way to functionally complex to just occur, it had to be designed.
Dinosaur bon ...[text shortened]... "this is what it looks
like" so it must be true, and that is different than ID how?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWell Kelly,
It is a connect the dots process that takes millions or billions of years.
I can make up stories make a claim that it takes millions or billions
of years to complete, can I be proven wrong if I mix in just a little
bit of truth in the moment to back up my claims? Testable predictions
such as reptiles evolving into birds, you believe you can test that?
...[text shortened]... one over time? You can tell just by looking
at it, much like the ID people do with DNA?
Kelly
Archaeopteryx was predicted to exist before it was discovered. That makes it a testable hypothesis. There are lots of other testable hypotheses out there which have not, and may never, be proven. Archaeopteryx was a half bird - half reptile that fell in between strata which contained archaeopteryx like reptiles with no feathers, and archaeopteryx like birds, that could no longer be called reptiles. By radiodating the strata we know that there were significant periods of time involved, and that birds and pre-archaeopteryx reptiles did not coexist.
It does kinda follow that the prediction made by evolutionary theory was proven correct.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe fact the real scientist DO know that the rules may change is why we've been able to make new discoveries and advances. They predicted that if you sailed too far in one direction, you'd fall of the side of the earth. They said that heavier than air flight was impossible, but that did not stop real scientist and innovators. Newton, Einstein, Plank, etc broke the rules commonly accepted by the majority of "scientist". They knew that if there is one valid rule in science, it is that no scientific laws are sacred.
That's right. Additionally, if your basic tenet is that the very rules of the universe may change, then science also has no predictive value either. ...
And as far as useful predictive value goes, TOE does not supply any.
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiName one of the universe's rules that has changed and that has been acknowledged by scientists.
The fact the real scientist DO know that the rules may change is why we've been able to make new discoveries and advances.
It was never the case that sailing too far in one direction would result in falling off of the earth. The fact that we understand that now does not indicate that the universe's rules have changed, or that at the time of our previous understanding, it actually was the case that you would fall off.
I'm not saying scientists' descriptions of the rules don't change. I'm saying the actual rules don't change. You are saying they do.
Originally posted by ColettiNon sequitur. None of the people mentioned agreed with you that present observations are useless in explaining past events.
The fact the real scientist DO know that the rules may change is why we've been able to make new discoveries and advances. They predicted that if you sailed too far in one direction, you'd fall of the side of the earth. They said that heavier than air flight was impossible, but that did not stop real scientist and innovators. Newton, Einstein, Plank, etc ...[text shortened]... c laws are sacred.
And as far as useful predictive value goes, TOE does not supply any.
Originally posted by ColettiAlready covered this. I'm going to say it again however.
Why is that? Abiogenesis is one the the tenets many evolutionists hold. How would abiogenesis without energy disprove TOE?
ABIOGENESIS FROM SIMPLE COMPONENTS (i.e. ground state elements CO2, N2, K+, PO4) WITHOUT A SOURCE OF EXTERNAL ENERGY.
Abiogenesis happens in evolution from complex precursors, and with an abundant source of energy.
Abiogenesis without an external source of energy would go against the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in the way that creationism does. There is no way it could happen in an evolutionary system.
Originally posted by scottishinnzAll English kids love the game of marbles. From this I predict that you will find a white marble in almost every home with children in England. Now, if you find a white marble in 99% of the homes with children in England, this proves my premise?
Well Kelly,
Archaeopteryx was predicted to exist before it was discovered. That makes it a testable hypothesis. There are lots of other testable hypotheses out there which have not, and may never, be proven. Archaeopteryx was a half bird - half reptile that fell in between strata which contained archaeopteryx like reptiles with no feathers, ...[text shortened]... ist.
It does kinda follow that the prediction made by evolutionary theory was proven correct.
A implies B,
and B is true,
then A is true.
That's called the fallacy of asserting the consequent.