I could be wrong here, but I don't think that "one of the conditions of a good theory is that it cannot be proven". I can prove to you that theorems work in certain cases/systems. I can also prove to you that they don't work in all systems. A good theory that gets proven becomes a Law. But then not all Laws work in all systems, either. For example, Newtonian mechanics at Relativistic speeds. If theorems had no proofs, why bother with them? ------------------ Just shut up and post [This message has been edited by Dr of Dunk (edited August 04, 2000).]
That's like the only thing I remember from my high school science class, I think! Seriously though, I do remember that. ------------------ Going for the Rolls Royce! visit www.swirve.com
RM 95: If you learned that in high school, I need to edit my latest opposition to vouchers. Theories are merely plausible scientific statements given the scientific data. Laws are infallible statements given a set of criteria (it's best, obviously to be specific.). Interestingly enough, theories and laws change from time to time (obviously, when the criteria is found to be erroneous or the set of required criteria is insufficient). ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited August 04, 2000).]
BK, check out this link http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/printer/printer.asp?f=/stories/000513/288424.html ------------------ "The day after tomorrow is the third day of the rest of your life." ---George Carlin
Bob, That is an interesting article. I was especially interested in the Arkansas trial stuff. There are some thing that I don't think Ruse covered, however. There are many creationists who don't believe the Bible ought to be taught in public schools either. Too often, when creation/evolution is discussed, it is discussed in terms of science and Bible. I think that's an oversimplification. Creation can be talked about without bringing the Bible into it. Colin Patterson, British Museum (Natural History), has said, "This theory [evolution] has only one main competitor, creation theory, though there are different stories of how the Creator went about His work" (Evolution, 148). It's not necessary to study Genesis (or any other religious text)to study the creation theory. Really, there has never been a law banning that kind of study. Gould is on record saying, "But no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before and it can be taught now." If you have any more articles like that one, I would be interested in reading them. Got links? ------------------
Check out the book The Science of God by Gerald L. Schroeder. Great analysis of science and religion. ------------------ Going for the Rolls Royce! visit www.swirve.com
Getting back to cow farts... Just a note about this. The gas emitted from cows as the result of flatulence is detrimental to the ozone layer. The increase in cattle production and the subsequent deforestation to make grazing lands for meat-producing cattle has had a terrible effect on the entire world's climate. I know it sounds funny and not a little bizarre, but it is something scientists have been studying for a decade now. We tend to forget that we are an ecosystem and that, despite the belief in our superiority, we HAVE to live within the ecostystem. Each day, hundreds of lifeforms become extinct because of human encroachment and pollution. Who knows which of these species could hold the key to our very survival? Life is a delicate balance and we have to respect its sanctity or live to regret it. Many industries flaunt their lack of respect for our environment with pollution, deforestation and environmental contamination. Deforestation, for example, is slowly altering our weather patterns because the rainforests that are being cut down are the seat of our weather. Thunderstorms and various other weather and climatic conditions throughout the world begin there and directly effect everything from droughts to hurricanes. Speaking of cattle, not only do they create problems through their flatulence (methane gas is actually the problem), but they deplete the world's supply of grain used to feed them (b/c they are used to feed us - well, some of us ) and the growth hormones added to many of their foods to make them larger (chickens too) have shown up in humans. In fact, my wife recently wrote a letter to a man in London conducting a study on the link between women who have allergies and asthma and the age at which their mother began menstration. My wife asked if the link between early menstration and hormones in dairy and meat products had been studied. To my dismay, the scientist actually responed quickly and said that the particular variable is being studied. In fact, in most countries where the consumption of red meat and dairy is low, the average age of puberty in women is 15 to 16. In the US, it has steadily decreased since the 60's from around 16 to now around the age of 12 and younger. Hormones were added to dairy and meat products in the late 50's. My point is that no one really knows the long-term effect of this but it has been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer and osteoperosis to name a couple. Like that, we have no idea what the effect on the natural world we are having when we pollute and/or destroy. It is essential that we do whatever is necessary to stop polluters and cut down on fossil fuel emissions. Our world is strong and can withstand a lot, but, eventually, we might be the one's that end up extinct if we aren't careful. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
"It is essential that we do whatever is necessary to stop polluters and cut down on fossil fuel emissions. Our world is strong and can withstand a lot, but, eventually, we might be the one's that end up extinct if we aren't careful." Let's also not forget that fossil fuels are not going to last forever. ------------------ WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... Next year
I think what's being missed in this argument is the fact that if someone says they doubt the validity of global warming, the national press rakes them over the coals and paints them as idiots. One thing this forum has proved is that there are still many questions. Yet the media and liberals takes this absolute approach of labelling anyone who questions it as an idiot. Interesting. ------------------
Odd you should mention that one RM95, I've had that book for several months now but only started reading some of it about a week or two ago. I've only read the first chapter or so up to this point. You kind of get the idea Schroeder likes reading Nahminides (and Maimonides for that matter). Does he quote them throughout the book? Good points MadMax. That happens with a lot of things. Creation/Evolution is another example. If you believe that the creation model best fits the available data, you're automatically a simpleton in many quarters. Some creationists are simpletons to be sure, but then again so are some evolutionists. I think it should be possible to disagree and to talk objectively about the strengths and weaknesses of various views. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TraJ (edited August 04, 2000).]
Guys, I am not 100 percent sure there is global warming. But why think its a myth or say its a way to raise taxes? Also, there is scientific proof that more of the ozone is depleting. Cases of melanoma(sp?) and skin cancer have shot through the roof! And why is skin protection up to 65 or 70? When I was growing up, I use to wear sunblock that was 8 and 10. Now, you get a sunburn using that low of protection. Also, if you ask people here in the northeast, they all say that there was a major snow storm every year for as far as they can remember. In the 1990's, there were only 3. One in 1990, 1993 and 1996. I have been here all those years and I can say with confidence that winter here is not the same since I got here. It never snows and winters are 50 degrees instead of 25. In 1997, scientists recorded the warmest summer ever and the temperature has being going up every year. Also, that picture they have at the NASA website of a hole in the atmosphere that has developed over the NorthPole...is that a myth too? Something is going on. I am not sure what. But to dismiss it or call it a myth is very ignorant on their part. If the jury is still out, why not just say that more research has to be done? Earth wasn't built to hold all these people and their cars, in my opinion. I hope that it is a myth so that the kid I have on its way can breathe clean air. I never thought I would pray for snow storms just to get things back to normal around here. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan [This message has been edited by Almu (edited August 04, 2000).]
Does anybody know if Raymond Wheeler's "Big Book" is on the internet? Mango ------------------ 1. Put new topics in the proper forum 2. Use clear wording for new threads 3. No duplicate threads 4. Conduct yourself as an adult The Serious Police are watching Donate Blood or be assimilated!
Can you cite any evidence that global warming is not true? How about any evidence on creationism, other than the Bible, which, for all we know, could have been written by weirdos who were hearing voices in their head, ala David Koresh. ------------------ Going for the Rolls Royce! visit www.swirve.com [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited August 04, 2000).]
RM95, the explanation for why global warming is a theory rather than a fact has already been made in this thread. Regarding evolution, I actually believe in it-- but I refer to it as a theory rather than a fact, because there are still holes in the theory. I think evolution's the best explanation for how things got to be the way they are-- but I am willing to admit that it is not an infallible theory. Besides, because the drive for legislative action originates with those that believe in global warming, I think they're the ones that need to prove it. It doesn't make a lot of sense to hypothesize global warming and then say, "Now, prove it doesn't exist." ------------------ I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.
It is never possible to talk objectively in support of creationism. Creationism's first premise is a non-arguable statement as to the belief in a higher level being. Objective arguments use empirical data as premises. ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks
But it is possible to talk reasonably about evolution, which cannot possibly be falsified and is therefore outside the realm of empirical science? "Science" without the scientific method? Interesting. "These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. ....the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter" (Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Scientist, Vol. 45, p.388). "Philosopher Karl Popper has agreed for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science" (Stephen Jay Gould, Discover; May, 1981). "Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside empirical science', but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it....become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as a part of our training" (Paul Ehrlich, Nature, Vol. 214, p. 352). "No myth deserves a more emphatic death than the idea that science is an inherently impartial and objective enterprise;...Yet it continues to thrive among working scientist because it serves us so well....It also provides the rational for America's scientific priesthood: The National Academy of Sciences." (Stephen Jay Gould, SCIENCE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY 1978, p.344). In other words, what I am saying is that there is a great deal of faith involved whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist. And I think you've overlooked something Achebe: Rather than starting with a non-arguable premise, it is most definately possible for scientific data to lead a person to the conclusion that there must be a higher being. You might find the July 20, 1998 issue of Newsweek interesting: The article was described in the table of contents this way: "Science and religion have always had moments of conflict (just ask Galileo). But a wave of scientists and believers says discoveries about the universe support spirituality — and hint at the very nature of God." In the article itself we’re told about a physicist by the name of Allan Sandage who came to believe in God at age 50. He said, “It was science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science” (p. 46). It was science that caused him to conclude that there must be a God. (If you like CD-ROMs or like listening to a compact disk then you have this man to thank for it. He discovered the principles that underlie the laser. He earned the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964 for that.) [This message has been edited by TraJ (edited August 05, 2000).]
Hmmmm.... 1 2 3 Hmmmm.... Henry M. Morris? What is Creation Science? I have that book too. Traj, With all due respect, all of these quotes are dated or taken out of context. Evolution is observed every day in molecular biology labs. These quotes were made before bacterial evolution was observed in the lab. Is it the time scale that bothers you? Regardless of what any of us learned in Philosophy (that was a hit against myself w/ dated Environmental Philosophy information) evolution is merely mutation that leads to differential reproductive success. There's nothing mythical about that. I disagree for the reasons before. By definition, Creationism demands faith. A good Creationist will always be faithful from the beginning. Good scientists measure empirical data and make conclusions accordingly. They have no pre-conceived notions, and do not 'beg the question' (There have been plenty of scientists that have failed the test and built their own biases into their work, but when these people did so, they failed science). Although that personally hasn't happened to me, I do not see why Evolution and GOD cannot cohabitate. 'Creation scientists' tend to find evolution too misanthropic, but that's no concern of mine. p.s. You can observe evolution if you merely fail to eradicate an illness. Some people get sicker, and find out that the virus has 'gotten stronger'. The virus hasn't gotten stronger, we've merely selected for some random mutation that we haven't developed an antibody for. ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks
Heres another link Traj: http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/08/03/text/p1s4.html Here's an online audio book worth checking out: http://www.broadcast.com/books/science/darwinontrial_682.html ------------------ "The day after tomorrow is the third day of the rest of your life." ---George Carlin [This message has been edited by BobFinn* (edited August 05, 2000).]
When it comes to creation vs. evolution, I guess I see the reason it is debated in the natural world - it helps to better understand the processes we see today. But, as a matter of practicality in religion, does it honestly matter? Even when I was a born-again Christian (many years ago), I had the tendency to argue that creation needn't be an integral part of the religious model of Christianity. Even if you regard creation, the burning bush, even the resurrection or ANY Biblical story as just simply a story rather than fact, does it really destroy the premise of the religion itself? Faith shouldn't have to be based on stories for it to continue. If you are a Christian and creationism no longer is a believable theory, it doesn't mean you are no longer a Christian. The fear of losing the religion, in many cases I have observed, seems greater than the faith itself. The point is that religion should be free flowing, ever-changing belief system, not simply a rigid set of dogmatic rules to be followed or else. With science, my problem with creation as theory is that it REQUIRES a religious content to be believed. What if you religion isn't one based on creationism as a beginning to our world? Let's say there is a religion that believes the world was born from several gods who came together to create an evolutionary process and invented the big bang. Does this now become a plausible theory? It seems to me that creationism only has merit simply because there are millions who believe it and shot about it loudly enough. Would the same be true of any other belief? ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
What if you were to insert "the Bible" in place of creationism in the above quote? ------------------ "The day after tomorrow is the third day of the rest of your life." ---George Carlin [This message has been edited by BobFinn* (edited August 05, 2000).]
