Originally posted by scottishinnzLOL, yea right you define it all Scott, you tell me what all the evidence
Mine are based on evidence, yours on opinion. Do not try to equate the two.
means, you tell me what it means when you put it together. You got
your ideas about it all and all of those do not change the universe
one little bit, it remains what it is, the only thing that different between
you and I and the age of the universe is we don't know I admit it what
I think is faith you think what you believe is something of a purer
knowledge, because you believe you have correctly put together what
it all means. In the end it is still what we think, as we have agreed
before, what we think about something does not mean we are getting
it right, it only means what we think.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly,
LOL, yea right you define it all Scott, you tell me what all the evidence
means, you tell me what it means when you put it together. You got
your ideas about it all and all of those do not change the universe
one little bit, it remains what it is, the only thing that different between
you and I and the age of the universe is we don't know I admit it wha ...[text shortened]... ink about something does not mean we are getting
it right, it only means what we think.
Kelly
If scientific evidence is so meaningless to you I wonder if you hold the same opinion of evidence presented in criminal cases in a court of law? Heck, DNA evidence is by its very nature scientific. Are you in favor of the death penalty? Would you send someone to their death based on what in your mind amounts to nothing more than what somebody "thinks"?
Do you have a philisophical objection to serving on a jury?
Thinking the way you do about evidence seems like it would lead to a very strange lifestyle. Do you have a very strange lifestyle?
TheSkipper
Originally posted by KellyJayThe difference between us, Kelly, as already shown, is that I'm willing to entertain the evidence, look at what is says, and allow that to lead me to a conclusion. You are not.
LOL, yea right you define it all Scott, you tell me what all the evidence
means, you tell me what it means when you put it together. You got
your ideas about it all and all of those do not change the universe
one little bit, it remains what it is, the only thing that different between
you and I and the age of the universe is we don't know I admit it wha ...[text shortened]... ink about something does not mean we are getting
it right, it only means what we think.
Kelly
Originally posted by NosracTheory =/= opinion.
IS NOT DARWIN A THEORY i.e. opinion????????
A theory, Carson, is the highest form of scientific explanation. It is an idea which has been tested and retested exhaustitatively by numerous researchers independantly. It has undergone full scutiny, normally for a prolonged period of time, probably lasting decades and has never been wrong. A theory must have predictive power, and be universal in application.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIs this fully accurate, Scott? It is my understanding that a theory is a scientist's best
Theory =/= opinion.
A theory, Carson, is the highest form of scientific explanation. It is an idea which has been tested and retested exhaustitatively by numerous researchers independantly. It has undergone full scutiny, normally for a prolonged period of time, probably lasting decades and has never been wrong. A theory must have predictive power, and be universal in application.
explanation for what s/he experiences in the world. It certainly isn't an opinion -- this
is true -- but I disagree that it is the highest form of scientific explanation (or else, I
have misunderstood you).
That is, it is not a 'theory' that we have 23 chromosome pairs -- it is a provable
observation.
It is also theoretically possible for 38 ATP to be produced from 1 molecule of
glucose in aerobic cellular respiration, but I have been made to understand that this is
almost never actually the case.
As I understand it, a theory ought to represent the best possible explanation for
data we observe in the world (universe). The strength of a theory rests on the criteria
you state: 1) has been tested and retested; 2) has been scrutinized by the scientific
community over the course of time; and 3) is routinely accurate when variables are
consistent. The more tests, scrutiny, and accuracy a theory is subjected to, the more
meritorious a theory is.
Given that we have only been scientifically observing things for a few thousand years
(generously speaking!), observation only comprises a tiny fraction of the lifetime of the
universe (young-earth 'theorists' notwithstanding). Consequently, theories which tie
our limited observations together end up being our larger-scale explanations for the
'how' and 'why' of the universe.
Evolutionary theory is one of those 'how/why' things -- how did we come to be or why
are we the way we are, so to speak. It isn't opinion -- like what flavor ice cream is
better or worse -- but a constructed framework which tries to place into a coherent and
consistent context those very observations that scientists have made. It is possible that
a new discovery will refine the theory of evolution -- something genetic, say -- or
even might flip elements of it on its head (as has happened in the world of science).
But, wasting time fantasizing about imaginary discoveries is a waste of scientific time;
theories ought to reflect the best explanation for the way in which the universe works
based on the concrete observations made as of the current time.
If we are saying the same thing, then I apologize for having misunderstood you.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI would like to point out at this point that from a stellar perspective, we are making observations of the universe over a period of around 15 billion years (give or take a few billion years). Also Scottish said that a theory was the highest form of scientific 'EXPLANATION' which is true, a piece of evidence is not an explanation of anything, also evidence can be wrong, experimentalists have been known to make mistakes (and on the odd occasion make stuff up). Which is why experiments are repeated numerous times, and many different tests devised and carried out to explore the same phenomena, only when the answer is consistent is it considered correct.
Is this fully accurate, Scott? It is my understanding that a theory is a scientist's best
explanation for what s/he experiences in the world. It certainly isn't an opinion -- this
is true -- but I disagree that it is the highest form of scientific explanation (or else, I
have misunderstood you).
That is, it is not a 'theory' that we have 23 chromosom re saying the same thing, then I apologize for having misunderstood you.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioHmm, didn't fully explain it here as well as the other 50,000times apparently....
Is this fully accurate, Scott? It is my understanding that a theory is a scientist's best
explanation for what s/he experiences in the world. It certainly isn't an opinion -- this
is true -- but I disagree that it is the highest form of scientific explanation (or else, I
have misunderstood you).
That is, it is not a 'theory' that we have 23 chromosom re saying the same thing, then I apologize for having misunderstood you.
Nemesio
Okay, the word "theory" means a lot of different things to different people. To most laymen it means an idea or concept. In your aerobic respiration example you are meaning "in an idealised world, this is what should happen". That is a second usage for the word, as in "perfect world" description. The third common misusage is by "theoretical physicists". These people should really be called "hypothetical physicists" in my opinion. For example, "string theory" is simply a mathematical framework. It's impossible to test in the real world. Calling it string theory is a misnomer. String hypothesis currently, at best.
The correct usage of the word theory is as I elucidated earlier. A theory is a complete explanation for an entire system. In the case of evolution, the theory of evolution explains the entire biodiversity of the planet, and other planets too, should there be conditions for life.
[edit; having 23 pairs of chromosomes is not a theory. It is a fact. Evolution is the theory which explains why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes.]
Originally posted by scottishinnzI didn't read it the other 50k times, I guess 😉
Hmm, didn't fully explain it here as well as the other 50,000times apparently....
Okay, the word "theory" means a lot of different things to different people. To most laymen it means an idea or concept. In your aerobic respiration example you are meaning "in an idealised world, this is what should happen". That is a second usage for the word, as ...[text shortened]... volution is the theory which explains why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes.]
I'm certain that we are in agreement on this -- at least, I am trying
to say what I think you said. 😀
Nemesio