God vs Science

[Bonam]

Theres other problems with general relativately as well, and theres what Einstein himself calls fudge factors. One example I read about recently is how the strength of gravitomagnetic fields predicted by general relativity is wrong... not even remotely close actually.

Hmm, I have not heard that. Got a reference?

I know there are a lot of people that misinterpret the term "gravitomagnetic" to mean something that it does not, which leads to a lot of crackpot theories.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Bonam

[dre]

Hmm, I have not heard that. Got a reference?

I know there are a lot of people that misinterpret the term "gravitomagnetic" to mean something that it does not, which leads to a lot of crackpot theories.

This talks about gravitomagnetic fields. Theyre

http://technocrat.net/d/2006/3/23/1556/

They were able to measure it in a lab recently, and apparently it was hundreds of millions of times as large as general relativity predicts.

Heres another link on entanglement.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

Edited February 4, 2011 by dre

[betsy]

That book is as imaginary as the little story in your opening post.

-k

So?

Betsy:

It was the title of a book allegedly written by Einstein in 1921.

Follow the discussion...until then, don't bug me. Golly, you're proving to be worse than that wild-eyed dude. Move along. Shooo.

Better yet, just stick to those leaflets.

Edited February 4, 2011 by betsy

[bloodyminded]

So?

Follow the discussion...until then, don't bug me. Golly, you're proving to be worse than that wild-eyed dude. Move along. Shooo.

Better yet, just stick to those leaflets.

There are both honest and dihonest uses of the word "allegedly."

[Shakeyhands]

Evolution is definitely a theory. A debunked one at that.

Wow, when was Evolution debunked and by whom?

[BubberMiley]

That book is as imaginary as the little story in your opening post.

-k

You just need to have faith in its existence.

[BubberMiley]

Follow the discussion...until then, don't bug me.

Are you saying christ was <superhugefont> allegedly </superhugefont> the son of god?

[pinko]

It was the title of a book allegedly written by Einstein in 1921. It was the title given to the anecdote that followed.

If I am correct you have premised your view of the earth's origins on Genesis. I would like you to walk me through Genesis to put some flesh and substance on the beliefs you seem to embrace. Bear in mind I am not as familiar with the bible as you claim to be.

Edited February 4, 2011 by pinko

[segnosaur]

Evolution is not a fact and should not be presented as a fact.

I hate to nitpick... but, Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

The "fact" portion is that we know (through observation) that life on earth shares a common ancestor, with various species exhibiting changes over time.

The "theory" portion involves our understanding of how such changes come about. The accepted "theory of evolution" basically involves selective reproductive success through genetic changes (as opposed to, for example, "Lamarkian evoluation"). There is no real debate over this point; the vast vast majority of the scientific population has accepted the "theory of evolution" too.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

It is an extremely useful theory. Creationism and/or intelligent design is also a theory but it is useless because it does not allow us to make predictions.

Another nitpick...

The fact that creationism/intelligent design does not allow us to make predictions pretty much precludes it from being a "scientific theory".

Edited February 4, 2011 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

Obviously, many anomolies exist which is why evolution cannot be called 'known truth' but that does not undermine its usefulness and means it is superior to any other available theory.

Actually, the reason why it can't be called a "known truth" is because, in science, you can never really "prove" anything. Technically, we can't even "prove" that bacteria and viruses cause disease (the "germ theory".)

What we can do is to provide evidence that supports/verifies a theory, and if enough support is obtained (enough to make any alternates virtually impossible) then it is accepted by the scientific community.

[TimG]

The "fact" portion is that we know (through observation) that life on earth shares a common ancestor, with various species exhibiting changes over time.

These observations are facts but they are not "evolution". They are facts that support the theory of evolution. Someone could develop a different theory that explains the same facts. A subtle but important difference.

The fact that it does not allow us to make predictions pretty much precludes it from being a "scientific theory".

That is ultimately my point.

[Jonsa]

Theres other problems with general relativately as well, and theres what Einstein himself calls fudge factors. One example I read about recently is how the strength of gravitomagnetic fields predicted by general relativity is wrong... not even remotely close actually. As you pointed out quantum entangle also undermines the theory.

I assume you mean Ol' Al's cosmological constant? An embarasment that seems really hard to kill particularly with all the postulation surrounding Dark Matter/Energy.

I wasn't aware of the specific ESA experiment but its yet another proof that the quantum universe is really really weird.

It is amazing to me that on the macro scale Relativity does such a wonderful job and yet ain't worth the paper its printed on for planck's scale.

Seems quantum mechanics throws a really big wrench in many religious arguments not the least of which is first cause. The LHC will really juice up the whole field. Unified field theory anyone?

[Moonlight Graham]

Facebook is not a scholarly source.

[WIP]

These observations are facts but they are not "evolution". They are facts that support the theory of evolution. Someone could develop a different theory that explains the same facts. A subtle but important difference.

We're still waiting for that creationist theory, that explains the geologic and fossil record, as well as the new problems presented to creationism by genetics -- which can wind back the clock and trace ALL life on Earth back to a common ancestor.

[bloodyminded]

I hate to nitpick... but, Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

The "fact" portion is that we know (through observation) that life on earth shares a common ancestor, with various species exhibiting changes over time.

The "theory" portion involves our understanding of how such changes come about. The accepted "theory of evolution" basically involves selective reproductive success through genetic changes (as opposed to, for example, "Lamarkian evoluation"). There is no real debate over this point; the vast vast majority of the scientific population has accepted the "theory of evolution" too.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Just so.

Here's another:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

[segnosaur]

The "fact" portion is that we know (through observation) that life on earth shares a common ancestor, with various species exhibiting changes over time.

These observations are facts but they are not "evolution". They are facts that support the theory of evolution.

Well, first of all, I never said that individual observations were "evolution". I said that we've established evolution as a "fact" based on multiple observations/pieces of evidence.

Someone could develop a different theory that explains the same facts. A subtle but important difference.

Yes they could... but you'd still have the 'fact' of evolution, even though the theory (i.e. mechanism for the process) is different than natural selection.

It is an extremely useful theory. Creationism and/or intelligent design is also a theory but it is useless because it does not allow us to make predictions.

That is ultimately my point.

Yes, it was your point. But, in your post you actually used the term "theory" to apply to creationism. To apply "theory" to such bunk as creationism is to give it more credit than it deserves, and just wanted that point to be emphasized.

[segnosaur]

We're still waiting for that creationist theory, that explains the geologic and fossil record, as well as the new problems presented to creationism by genetics -- which can wind back the clock and trace ALL life on Earth back to a common ancestor.

Ask and you shall receive: Here's a valid theory that explains all that...

http://www.smbc-theater.com/?id=174

[dre]

I assume you mean Ol' Al's cosmological constant? An embarasment that seems really hard to kill particularly with all the postulation surrounding Dark Matter/Energy.

I wasn't aware of the specific ESA experiment but its yet another proof that the quantum universe is really really weird.

It is amazing to me that on the macro scale Relativity does such a wonderful job and yet ain't worth the paper its printed on for planck's scale.

Seems quantum mechanics throws a really big wrench in many religious arguments not the least of which is first cause. The LHC will really juice up the whole field. Unified field theory anyone?

As far as the fudge factors I mentioned I assume theres a few things in there to account for the assumptions he had to make at the time. For example Einstein didnt believe the Universe was expanding, even though his origional theory predicted it. So his own theory conflicted with a bad assumption and he "tweaked" it to allow for zero universal inflation (I forget what that particular fudge was called). It got fixed while he was still alive though when Hubble discovered the universe was expanding.

I definately dont mean to attack the theory though, its excellent. Besides Im a complete laymen, and me attacking Einsteins theories would be like the Janitor at Apple's head office saying that Steve Jobs doesnt know how to run a company. My point though was just that gravity isnt as simple as Betsy made it out to be. Theres still tons of really hard work to be done.

Edited February 4, 2011 by dre

[Bonam]

This talks about gravitomagnetic fields. Theyre

http://technocrat.net/d/2006/3/23/1556/

They were able to measure it in a lab recently, and apparently it was hundreds of millions of times as large as general relativity predicts.

Hmm, now that I read that again I recall hearing about it a few years ago, when it was in the news. From some quick googling around, those results have not yet been reproduced anywhere else. And, Tajmar has patented a "gravitational field generator". I am not entirely convinced of the legitimacy of the results.

It would certainly be cool if it was true, but given how large the effect is, it would have been independently reproduced by now if it existed.

[kimmy]

So?

Follow the discussion...until then, don't bug me. Golly, you're proving to be worse than that wild-eyed dude. Move along. Shooo.

Better yet, just stick to those leaflets.

I'm just trying to understand why Christians are willing to lie to spread their "Truth".

Doesn't it make Baby Jesus cry when people tell lies?

-k

[Shakeyhands]

Ask and you shall receive: Here's a valid theory that explains all that...

http://www.smbc-theater.com/?id=174

That is absolutely fantastic. I've been so misled all of these years!

[betsy]

If I'm not listening to God, he's doing a poor job of communicating. That's His fault.

At any rate, I don't hunger for the disproving of God. I can't see, at present, any way in which the existence of a god could be disproved, and I don't consider it relevant anyway.

And while there are undoubtedly some self-professed atheists who feel as you describe, most atheists are not such because of some petulant Father-issues. That sort of dime-store psychologizing is actually deeply disrespectful.

Of course you think they're wrong, Betsy; that doesn't mean they're all angry children with father issues who have a religious faith in science.

I was careful to stress in that post that I was referring to some atheists.

As I've explained before, it was the extreme hostile reactions/responses to any posts or any posters who dare mention God, religion or faith that really got me so interested with this type of posters. All these years that I've been a member of this forum...I witnessed hostilities ranging from deliberate insults and ridicule of one's faith, personal attacks and childish name-calling.

They seem so incapable of civility....keeping their tempers in check when dealing with the topic that includes God. They so easily forget that this is a public forum. A place of discussion. However, just the very mention of His name drives some to go ballistic. "God" is a hot button for some. Whoa....you don't go there, they hiss. And boy, do they all come out in numbers. ALL HANDS ON DECK!

It's pure anger. Anger issue ...for whatever reason(s) they may have....that they carry on their shoulders. I actually stumbled on a blog site where-in a pastor wrote this guy a letter, beginning his greetings with something like, "hello friend," obviously trying to establish the tone of the discussion....and the pastor proceeded to give his views about faith. Well, he got a very rude, scathing insults after another....beginning with a slam that he dared to call this guy, "friend"...that "it's an insult to friendship"....and the atheist really flew off the handle. So it's not just some people on this forum.

Dime psychology or not....what more can one deduce from unreasonable reactions? There is something going on inside.

Some atheists however, are confident in their stance. You could tell by their ability to freely engage in discussion...they don't feel threatened by the mention of religion, faith and God.

[cybercoma]

These observations are facts but they are not "evolution". They are facts that support the theory of evolution. Someone could develop a different theory that explains the same facts. A subtle but important difference.

That is ultimately my point.

Evolution is a fact. It is clearly evident in the domestication of crops and animals that species evolve and we have controlled that evolution through artificial selection for thousands of years. Where Darwin's theory was groudnbreaking is in the sense that a natural selection occurs over many, many generations as particular favourable traits are more likely to be reproduced in a certain environments and conditions without being actively directed. Things evolve. End of story. Someone may come up with a different explanation for why particular genes are passed on through generations (natural selection), but it's very highly improbable. So, ultimately, evolution is a fact and it's so highly unlikely that it will ever change that you may as well start calling it a fact.

Edited February 6, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I would be very happy with people saying evolution is "just a theory" to realize that there are two very different definitions of theory.

From www.dictionary.com

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

There are actually 8. But, can we just for once and for all come to terms with the fact that evolution as a theory falls under definition 1 and creationists when they say "evolutions is only a theory", they are confusing definition 2 with definition 1?

[TimG]

It is clearly evident in the domestication of crops and animals that species evolve and we have controlled that evolution through artificial selection for thousands of years.

Bad example. In these case you have a 'intelligent designer' guiding the changes.

In any case, the observation that species change over time is the fact. It is a fact that supports the theory of evolution. But it is NOT 'evolution' in itself.

So, ultimately, evolution is a fact and it's so highly unlikely that it will ever change that you may as well start calling it a fact.

If you want defend the scientific process you have to follow the rules. In this case the rules say evolution is a theory that explains the observed facts. Insisting on calling it a fact is a political exercise on your part which undermines science. You do not need to call evolution a fact in order to repudiate creationist theories. A repudiation that sticks with the rules of science is much stronger in my opinion. Edited February 6, 2011 by TimG