Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Into the Night]

There is a theory that life doesn't have a single origin, but multiple origins. DNA is an inherent part of the universe.

Since the discussion is about how life arrived on Earth, it is one or the other. Abiogenesis or Creation, both nonscientific theories (and religions).

 

[Into the Night]

I do not think anyone ever claimed we could recover DNA from Paleozoic trilobites

Evolutionary theory rests on a foundation of multiple lines of evidence, including fossil record, comparative anatomy, biogegraphic distribution, genetics, laboratory experiments.

Genetics pointing to evolutionary divergence is best suited to modern and geologically recent genera.

Other lines of evidence come into play for the remote past. At least that is my understanding, I am not formally trained in the life sciences

As with any theory, there are uncertainties, and things we do not know.

The mere existence of uncertainties however does not constitute evidence of the hand of divine providence

Science isn't an area of study. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[AProudLefty]

Since the discussion is about how life arrived on Earth, it is one or the other. Abiogenesis or Creation, both nonscientific theories (and religions).

Both are hypotheses. Use the correct terms, please.

 

[Into the Night]

These prejudiced morons need to start by reading the definitions of branches of scientific inquiry, then attempt to
understand their interrelations, and then the questions presented in each discipline. Then maybe I'll even deign
to read their value judgments about worth or "scienciness" of them. Yes scienciness. It should be a word they use.

Yes mathematics, chemistry and physics, for example, are bedrock because they so meaningfully describe and predict
in the broadest way the physical reality we live in. That does not mean application of science to more specific problems
is less "science" It means the problems are very complex and diverse. Of what use is physics without caring about
humans?

Science isn't an 'inquiry'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[AProudLefty]

They do treat it like a religion lol.

When the dirty old Ben discovered electricity while he flew his kite, did he treat it like a religion?

 

[Into the Night]

Not playing your game. By the way, there is not agreement in physics that they understand gravity.

The Theory of Gravity does not explain what gravity is. It only describes a relation that applies to a force which we call 'gravity'.
Newton never tried to explain gravity, he just simply accepted it's existence and went to describe the effects of it.

 

[Into the Night]

Genetics is the hot science now, and that is where most funding is going.

Physics is a venerable and traditional science, but the interest in funding big projects for particle physics and nuclear physics has waned since the Cold War ended.

Science is not an area of study. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[AProudLefty]

The Theory of Gravity does not explain what gravity is. It only describes a relation that applies to a force which we call 'gravity'.
Newton never tried to explain gravity, he just simply accepted it's existence and went to describe the effects of it.

 

[Into the Night]

A theory is a hypothesis with supporting evidence.

No. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way 'round. Example: the null hypothesis of a theory.

Only religions use supporting evidence. Science doesn't.

 

[AProudLefty]

No. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way 'round. Example: the null hypothesis of a theory.

Only religions use supporting evidence. Science doesn't.

Thank you for the additional quote for my sig. See below.

 

[Into the Night]

We know our understanding of gravity, aka general relativity. is incomplete and perhaps in need of wholesale revision.

General relativity cannot explain dark energy and the accelerated expansion of the universe.

General relativity breaks down at quantum scales, and the hunt for a quantum theory of gravity is an active area of research.

You are trying to falsify theories by denying them or taking them out of context. Won't work.

The fact that an apple falls to the ground, or a body falls into a crocodile pit is an observation. An observation only.

It has no explanatory power.

These facts are not theories. Explaining why the apple falls to the ground, or why it falls as fast as it does, IS a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument.

The theory of evolution is secure and at least as firmly established as general relativity

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. The Theory of General Relativity is falsifiable. The Theory of Evolution is not.

-- even though we know both theories are incomplete and there is a lot more to learn.

Every theory is complete. They are each complete arguments.

 

[Into the Night]

That's right.
Divine providence is outside the realm of inductive logic and scientific inquiry.

There is no such thing as 'scientific' inquiry. Science is not an inquiry. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

But you know as well as I do that biblethumpers latch onto to any uncertainty in a scientific theory,

Hallucination. Bigotry. A theory of science is not a proof. Proofs are not possible in open functional systems.

and imply that the uncertainty somehow lends support to a providential act of creation.

The Theory of Creation is not a scientific theory.

I have never categorically ruled out the possibility of providential design.

Yes you have, liar.

But providential design is never, ever, under any circumstances implied or supported by scientific uncertainty.

Science isn't a 'certainty'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

I think gravity is just that, an acceleration.

Gravity is a force, not acceleration itself. Gravity can certainly cause acceleration though!

 

[Into the Night]

Nor is it buttressed by perceived complexity or a prejudice favoring design. Yes, God in the gaps is always an obvious ploy.

What about this fossil. Where's that fossils fossil. Here it is. What about that ones? Here. and so forth ad nausium.

What about 'em? Meh.

 

[Into the Night]

I think of gravity as a geometry.

The curvature of spacetime.

Gravity is a force. Its effects can be represented graphically in many ways.

 

[Into the Night]

Exactly. Which is why I think they have been unable to reconcile it with Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum mechanics does not deny the effects of gravity or deny the existence of that force at all. It simply doesn't bother to use it in its models. That's not what quantum mechanics is about.

 

[Into the Night]

????.....dude, it is called the scientific method.......always has been, always will be.....

Nope. Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves.

 

[Into the Night]

have you ever heard of the scientific method?....it has not changed....

https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method

The Britannica does not define 'science'. It is an encyclopedia, nothing more.
The problem with this 'method' is that it can be (and indeed it was) used to try to define God as 'science'.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. Science is only interested in conflicting evidence. Science is nothing more than a set of falsifiable theories. There is no 'method' to science. There is no 'procedure' to science.

 

[BidenPresident]

The Theory of Gravity does not explain what gravity is. It only describes a relation that applies to a force which we call 'gravity'.
Newton never tried to explain gravity, he just simply accepted it's existence and went to describe the effects of it.

Formally, yes.

 

[Into the Night]

didn't say it was, idiot.....do you actually know anything at all about science?.......if something is not capable of experimentation (ie is not falsifiable) it cannot be subject to the scientific method.......it is then, not a subject for study by science.......

Science isn't a 'method' or 'procedure'. It is just a set of falsifiable theories.