Posted on 03/24/2002 7:03:09 PM PST by scripter
Alright then, please give me three examples of scientific theories that have been demonstrably proven. Should be easy, if scientific theories really are proven, as you insist. Why do you stall?
The theory that heavier-than-air powered flight is possible has been demonstrably proven. At least one mathematical proof that it was not possible had previously been offered (Simon Newcomb). Asked to comment, Orville Wright said something like 'our proof seems to fly better than the good doctor's...'
The theory that the Earth is round has been demonstrably proven. That one was no more than a theory 550 years ago.
The theory that the mechanism of a repeating rifle could be operated by the exhaust gas of the rifle itself has been demonstrably proven.
The theorems of mathematics are all rigidly proven....
Yes.
The theorems of mathematics are all rigidly proven....
I fully agree that proof is possible in mathematics. Mathematics deals with formal systems. Natural science deals with nature. Demonstrative proof is possible in the former case because we know the rules that govern the system in advance. In the case of nature we do not know all the rules. (Indeed a purpose of science is to discover those rules.) This is one of the reasons that scientific propositions can never be proven.
Something which can never be disproven is by definition pseudoscience and not science. The normal definition of a pseudoscience is that it be non-falsifiable, but it appears to me that demonstrating that something could never be proven should do just as well. The basic quality you're looking for is guaranteed perpetual inability to get any sort of a handle on something. Witchcraft is still as good an example as anything else; how could you prove or disprove the existence of witches? Does that not make witchcraft a science by your definition?
That is a fact. Facts can be proven. A theory is more involved. Think Newton's theory of gravity. It sure seemed true, it tested true on earth. Then Einstein comes along with a better explanation. We can't know that someone else won't come up with an even better theory so we can't prove Einstein correct. We can only fail to disprove it.
already discredited? Saying something over and over doesn't make it so.
BTW, what about those whales, you remember from the other threads, the ones with the birth defect that gave them legs? Don't they cast a bit of doubt on the 'intelligence' of the 'designer'?
Until we have a body of knowledge in this area, and a way of applying it to problems of natural history, the ID speculations have no place in the elementary science curriculum because they're without content.
All those wasted man hours. What a shame.
If Jesus were here now He would say:
"Render unto science that which is science."
"Render unto mythology that which is mythology."
Teach science in science class.
Teach creationism, ID, etc in religion, mythology or philosophy clases.
Some of the sites listed lead to popup hell. Not only will you learn some false science, but you will be asked exchange your automobile, choose your game at world's largest internet casinos, etc.
Is anyone surprised that such sites would be associated with internet trash?
I hope this helps you understand.
As for your other point, that new functions cannot arise by chance: proteins only contain a handful of structures. It is by mixing and matching the structures that are there that new functions arise. Proteins that act as environmental sensors of oxygen, of "xenobiotics" (environmental compounds ingested or absorbed by the organism), or light sensors have a common structure and are present in organisms as varied as plants, insects, bacteria, and animals. Organisms are constantly shuffling genes and parts of genes; it is how we believe that novel functions arise. Now, as to how the proteins originally arranged themselves into functional structures, or how thousands of proteins work together to sustain life... these are questions which make many scientists wonder about intelligent design. If there was a creation event, it had to happen billions of years ago, and involved simple organisms such as viruses (which are not truly alive) or bacteria.
I never said such a thing. A hypothesis is testable, and either the experiment supports the hypothesis, in which case we want to test it again, or it disproves the hypothesis, in which case it is time to think of a new hypothesis.
Just because evolution cannot give any proof of its assertions either in the fossil record or in any other way, does not mean that real science does not. Science proves its theories with repeatable experiments, calculations, predictions and practical applications.
Evolution is a theory, meaning that it can be used to make testable hypotheses. So far, these hypotheses have stood up to repeated experimentation. The experimentation is not merely based on what one finds in the fossil record, and making testable predictions as to what may be found there, but is, these days, based on our knowledge of genetics. I happen to be a biochemist; the theory of evolution for me is a tool.
I say there is a thousand-dollar bill in your wallet, but you cannot see it because it is caught in some transdimensional warp. No matter how hard you try to disprove a negative, there is always a "but" involved. BTW, when you find that $1000, could you lend it to me?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.