scientific law, except for gravity. It has been held to a higher
standard for good reason.
The problem I see occurring here is how the word Theory is defined.
In North America Theory means a proposition, or something slightly
better than an educated guess. But theory also means a detailed
predictive model of some event that has more explanatory power than
previous models.The theory can be mathematically or logically based or
both. It also has to explain how it can be rejected and is only
tentatively accepted. A theory is discarded if the pattern of
empirical data does not support the model.
Accordingly you have a mechanism called Evolution, which is simply put
the change in allele frequencies over time, in strictly biological
terms. You also have a theory of Evolution, a model to explain the
mechanism of Evolution.
larry
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:41:04 -0400, Ray Champagne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But see, I don't see how this argument works. To believe the 'hand of
> God', you have to have the faith that the stories that have been handed
> down in the bible or where ever are true. With science, all facts are
> proven, no matter how complicated they are, the are all FACTS. They have
> been proven indisputably. More complicated Laws of Science are all based
> upon smaller Laws that are based on smaller Laws. The way that Laws are
> created are based upon the proof of other Laws are in fact laws. You can't
> prove a lot of Religious 'Laws' that way. They are all entirely based upon
> faith that what was said many thousand years ago is true. There is no
> concrete proof of this.
>
> That being said, I realize that the Theory of Evolution is not a scientific
> Law. That is why it is called a thoery. For you to say that science Laws
> are faith-based is inaccurate, IMO. We all know that a ball will roll
> downhill, and that Law of Gravity has been proven using other minute Laws
> of Physics. It doesn't need to be proven by me to know that it is true.
>
> Taking the word of a scientist (actually many scientists) is not the same
> as taking the bible's word. Scientists have proven small facts over time
> that have evolved (pardon the pun) into larger facts.
>
> Ray
>
> At 12:27 PM 9/29/2004, you wrote:
> >At 10:54 9/29/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> > >The difference is that science observed the evolution but didn't
> > >observe the hand of god. It could just as easily be true that my
> > >farting in WI magically caused the evolution in a lab in CT. What the
> > >science tells you is what it observes happening and what it can rule
> > >out as the causes for that. Since you can't disprove the non-existance
> > >of something, if the hand of god doesn't exist, then it's impossible
> > >to rule that out as a possiblity. That's not to say that it doesn't
> > >exist, but if it doesn't then there's no way to prove that it doesn't.
> >
> >I think this only supports my claim. I'm not saying it was the hand of
> >God. But logically: I'm sitting at home and someone tells me that fish
> >changed because of evolution and someone else said the fish changed because
> >of the hand of God. At this point I have to make a decision. Do I believe in
> >
> > a) it was evolution
> > b) it was the hand of God
> > c) they are both wrong
> > d) they are both right
> >
> >But really C and D are not options. Because for someone to say it is the
> >Hand of God tacitly implies it can't be anything else. And the same for
> >evolution (until another scientific theory is presented). But despite
> >having the willingness to really re-produce what ever test the biologist
> >conducted to come to that conclusion - I can't. 1) because I can't conduct
> >test and 2) I don't have enough knowledge to draw the same conclusions at
> >the scientist. I mean ultimately, isn't this what is happening.
> >
> >Get data.
> >study data.
> >draw conclusions on data.
> >
> > >You continue to press that science is ALL about believing what someone
> > >else says. But science is ONLY valuable if the theories are
> > >continually tested. Yes, scientists do stand on the shoulders of
> > >giants. But those shoulders have been tested repeatedly and can be
> > >tested again ad infinitum.
> >
> >I never said science is all about believing what someone else said.
> >This is a cut and paste of one of my emails.
> >
> > Both require a large amount of faith and ultimately you get to a
> >point where you have to take someone else's word.
> >
> > But at high level science, the actions taken by the masses is
> >essentially the same.
> >
> >You can mix some chemicals and see that there is an exothermic
> >reaction. You can test that.
> >
> >But let's look at this way.
> >
> >If a function, within it's domain, produces any number divisible by 5 it is
> >called a CF function. IFF does not, it is called a ASP function.
> >
> >And let's say the domain of this function is [-3000,99999999999]
> > From -3000 to 99999999998 it does not produce any value that is divisible
> >by 5.
> >But at 99999999999] it does. Doesn't matter that at the extreme end it
> >only produces 1 value divisible by 5. This equation, is by definition, a
> >CF function.
> >This is logic. Logical is the way I am viewing this, and almost every
> >discussion, I participate in.
> >
> >Except when it comes to sports.
> >
> > >As for the presented theorums being only understandable by a few, the
> > >few now that can understand them can test them. And they are not
> > >secret knowledge stored in some modern-day temple of Luxor that only
> > >the initiates can see. They are out there for the next really smart
> > >person to challenge. But that's the extreme examples. Most science is
> > >done by the average person plugging away at a problem, continually
> > >eliminating what isn't the cause in order to generally narrow down to
> > >what is.
> >
> >See my post about GR.
> >
> >----------
> >[<http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=t:5>Todays Threads]
> >[<http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:129568>This Message]
> >[<http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5>Subscription]
> >[<http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=12823.11631.5>Fast
> >Unsubscribe] [<http://www.houseoffusion.com/signin/>User Settings]
> >[<https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?amount=&item_name=House+of+Fusion&business=donations%40houseoffusion.com&undefined_quantity=&cmd=_xclick>Donations
> >and Support]
> >
> >----------
> ><http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=35>
> >[]
> >
>
> =============================================
> Ray Champagne - Senior Application Developer
> CrystalVision Web Site Design and Internet Services
> 603.433.9559
> www.crystalvision.org
> =============================================
>
> The information contained in this transmission (including any attached
> files) is CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the person(s) named
> above. If you received this transmission in error, please delete it
> from your system and notify us immediately. If you are not an intended
> recipient, please note that any use or dissemination of the information
> contained in this transmission (including any attached files) and the
> copying, printing, or retransmission of that information is strictly
> prohibited. You can notify us by return email or by phone at 603.433.9559.
> Thank you.
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
