Originally posted by stevenv76Yes, experimental verification underpins everything in science.
Hrm, for some reason I can't edit.
Anyhow, I have verified your statement independently, so I was wrong in saying SLOT was promoted from theory to law... perhaps I used the wrong terminology.
But my point was that it has been confirmed and verified through experimentation. Has it not?
My earlier questions still stand. Does the definition of a law ...[text shortened]... directly from hypthosis to law? Are laws somehow exempt from the scientific method?
Thanks.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI have two requests for you, tell me what I have said was not
So you sit there, refuse to believe something is science, and also refuse to look at the evidence?! That says everything one needs to know about theists.
science, and what evidence have I refused to look at? The only
thing I get out of this post is that you have your opinion and
it really does not matter what I say you are going to put your
little spin on it. I have never said anything was not science, and
I have gone over countless evidence with you and others. Just
because I don't agree with your views on what it means does not
mean that I have not looked at it.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzYea, when I get a brain dead statement like this said to me, “If you
Came down to this has it Kelly?
close your eyes hard enough perhaps you'll be right." It is either
ignore it, or respond in kind. Granted for the most part I do attempt
to ignore them, but sometimes I lower myself to their level. I normally
always regret it later, but it happens from time to time.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by stevenv76Calling something a 'law' in science does not (just as in the political arena) make it right, or superior to any other kind of concept in science. The 'law' of gravity is that massive (objects having the property of mass) attract each other. Newton’s 'law' of gravity was that they attracted each other with a force proportional to Mm/(r^2), this is a good approximation which is however not true. It is still however called a law, meaning it is applied invariantly. Boyls gas law for example can be applied to any non-quantum gas anywhere and it will always be true. But it in itself does not explain how the system works or why the results come out the way they do, and it doesn't apply on the quantum scale. I could hypothesise that sea temperature is inversely proportional to it's greenness (warm tropical seas always look blue in films where as the beaches near me usually look green (or brown) and are very cold), I would state this as a universal law, which would apply anywhere, any when, and I would be wrong of course, but what I proposed would still be a 'universal law', just not a true one. Being a law is thus totally independent of hypothesis/theory true/false status.
Hrm, for some reason I can't edit.
Anyhow, I have verified your statement independently, so I was wrong in saying SLOT was promoted from theory to law... perhaps I used the wrong terminology.
But my point was that it has been confirmed and verified through experimentation. Has it not?
My earlier questions still stand. Does the definition of a law ...[text shortened]... directly from hypthosis to law? Are laws somehow exempt from the scientific method?
Thanks.
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd what should I call refusing to read the evidence? It certainly seems like closing your eyes to me. And I'm pretty sure you can't honestly claim that I close my eyes in the face of evidence.
Yea, when I get a brain dead statement like this said to me, “If you
close your eyes hard enough perhaps you'll be right." It is either
ignore it, or respond in kind. Granted for the most part I do attempt
to ignore them, but sometimes I lower myself to their level. I normally
always regret it later, but it happens from time to time.
Kelly
Originally posted by XanthosNZRefusing to read what? What evidence have I refused to read?
And what should I call refusing to read the evidence? It certainly seems like closing your eyes to me. And I'm pretty sure you can't honestly claim that I close my eyes in the face of evidence.
More than once on this forum people have accused me of not reading
what they write or understanding it, while I have read and did get their
points I simply didn't agree with them on what their 'evidence' could
possibly mean. It is possible to have two different people look at
something and get different ideas about the same piece of evidence.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo now you're NOT refusing to read the paper abstracts I posted and tell me what part of them is wrong?!
Refusing to read what? What evidence have I refused to read?
More than once on this forum people have accused me of not reading
what they write or understanding it, while I have read and did get their
points I simply didn't agree with them on what their 'evidence' could
possibly mean. It is possible to have two different people look at
something and get different ideas about the same piece of evidence.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOriginally posted by scottishinnz
Refusing to read what? What evidence have I refused to read?
More than once on this forum people have accused me of not reading
what they write or understanding it, while I have read and did get their
points I simply didn't agree with them on what their 'evidence' could
possibly mean. It is possible to have two different people look at
something and get different ideas about the same piece of evidence.
Kelly
SO which part of those paper abstracts I posted aren;t scientific then Kelly?
Originally posted by KellyJay
I didn't read them, and actually do not plan too either.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWoah Kelly,
You framed that as a pop quiz, which I said no to. If you want me
to read your post for the posts sake that is another thing. Which
is it?
Kelly
You claimed that evolutionary biology isn't science. I provided you with the abstracts of 3 evolutionary biology papers, and asked you to show me, for my education, which parts I was mistaken in believing to be science.
You refused.
I want you to go back to that post (you can search through my forum posts) and tell me why those papers are not science, and how they managed to sneak past the reviewers. I'll tell you what, I'll even download and send you PDFs of the papers if you like.
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou have that quote where I said that? I noticed you posted the
Woah Kelly,
You claimed that evolutionary biology isn't science. I provided you with the abstracts of 3 evolutionary biology papers, and asked you to show me, for my education, which parts I was mistaken in believing to be science.
You refused.
I want you to go back to that post (you can search through my forum posts) and tell me why those pap ...[text shortened]... viewers. I'll tell you what, I'll even download and send you PDFs of the papers if you like.
pop quiz was brought up to prove your point, so where did I say
anything you ever said was not science, at any time, as far back
as you and I have been talking to one another?
Kelly
Personally, I believe you confused me with someone else,
because I don't ever recall asking you to produce anything ever.
Originally posted by KellyJayOriginally posted by scottishinnz
You have that quote where I said that? I noticed you posted the
pop quiz was brought up to prove your point, so where did I say
anything you ever said was not science, at any time, as far back
as you and I have been talking to one another?
Kelly
Personally, I believe you confused me with someone else,
because I don't ever recall asking you to produce anything ever.
Evolution is a scientific theory! It's not just some crackpot idea that someone came up with. There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for gravity! I can, should, and will teach evolution. Not to do so would be the absolute lunacy that only a creationist could possibly dream up!
Originally posted by KellyJay
It is an idea someone came up with, if it is true or not is the question.
Calling it science doesn't mean it occured the way it is presented.
Kelly
5 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZ[/i]POINT it out where I said even in this that something wasn't science!
Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]Evolution is a scientific theory! It's not just some crackpot idea that someone came up with. There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for gravity! I can, should, and will teach evolution. Not to do so would be the absolute lunacy that only a creationist could possibly dream up!
[i]Originally p ...[text shortened]... the question.
Calling it science doesn't mean it occured the way it is presented.
Kelly[/b][/b]
I will point out to you that every theory and every law “MAN has
identified” someone had to 'come up with' and people worked it out.
It doesn't mean the ideas, theories, and laws are not science; it is just
that people are involved. It isn't like science is some type of deity that
talks to man and is a completely different entity distinct from the
influence of human nature and all of man’s human frailties, maybe
you think otherwise I don't know. From Sir Isaac Newton coming up
with gravity and on ward people are involved, saying that people
come up with an idea isn’t a bad thing for crying out loud.
Isaac Newton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sir Isaac Newton, FRS (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727) [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727] was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, and natural philosopher who is generally regarded as one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians in history. Newton wrote the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, in which he described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, laying the groundwork for classical mechanics. By deriving Kepler's laws of planetary motion from this system, he was the first to show that the motion of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws. The unifying and deterministic power of his laws was integral to the scientific revolution and the advancement of heliocentrism.
If you read what you quoted me saying, "It is an idea someone came
up with, if it is true or not is the question. Calling it science doesn't
mean it occurred the way it is presented." Notice no where in here do
I say something is or is not science, I do say if you actually read what
I wrote instead of what you are trying to twist it into saying that even if
something is science that does not mean that it occurs the way it is
being presented. That speaks about the truth of what is being talked
about, not if it is science or not, is the theory correct or not, not if the
theory is science. If you cannot comprehend this sentence, you
expect me to trust your views on the universe?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOh forget it - you can't even identify your own position let alone anyone elses. Tell me Kelly, why do you come here? Is it to argue some point, or just to be as deliberately obfuscatory as possible?
[/i]POINT it out where I said even in this that something wasn't science!
I will point out to you that every theory and every law “MAN has
identified” someone had to 'come up with' and people worked it out.
It doesn't mean the ideas, theories, and laws are not science; it is just
that people are involved. It isn't like science is some type of deity that ...[text shortened]... t comprehend this sentence, you
expect me to trust your views on the universe?
Kelly