Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: trubolotta
I already provided a link to a neutral and qualified site that defines the entire scientific method.

Yes, you did, and as someone already pointed out, it's wrong, either because the author himself is ignorant or because he dumbed it down to the point of uselessness.

As I explained, a theory is a general explanation of why events occur, while a law is a generalization of what has happened that can be used to predict future events.

As an example, there is gravitational theory and the law of gravity. They are two different concepts. Gravity, in general, is that objects exert a force on each other in proportion to their mass and distance. The theory of gravity is an attempt to explain what causes this force. It's still currently a very big mystery as to what causes the distortion of space that is gravity. The law of gravity is simply a mathematical formula to calculate the gravitational force exerted by two objects between their mass and distance. The "law" of gravity, however, explains nothing. It offers no insights as to what, exactly, causes this force, it's just a formula for determining the force derived from consistent observations. It could never have been a theory, it's just not descriptive enough.

Laws aren't derived from theory. They're derived from consistent observations. They serve a different purpose than theories.

All of this is distraction, however. Even with your incorrect distinction between "theory" and "law", Conservative till I Die is still wrong about creation being a theory. It doesn't match the criteria set forth in the incorrect link that you supplied. You're just trying to play semantic games, but even that won't make the previous poster's inaccurate claims any better.
280 posted on 09/10/2004 11:43:20 AM PDT by Dimensio (Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies ]


To: Dimensio

It's a Theory! Just a Theory! Soylent Green ... is a Theory!

281 posted on 09/10/2004 11:59:48 AM PDT by balrog666 ("One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." -- Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies ]

To: Dimensio
Yes, you did, and as someone already pointed out, it's wrong, either because the author himself is ignorant or because he dumbed it down to the point of uselessness.

Oh really. The source for those definitions, including theory and science was

Greg Anderson
Mendenhall Postdoctoral Fellow
US Geological Survey
525 South Wilson Avenue
Pasadena CA 91106

And just what might your credentials be?

283 posted on 09/10/2004 4:48:17 PM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies ]

To: Dimensio

Just give up. In the wonderful world of creation science, a theory is whatever the creation "scientist" wants it to be. Same for laws, hypotheses, facts, whatever.


284 posted on 09/10/2004 6:23:50 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson