Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

Into the Night Soil
200w.webp


It is never possible to prove any theory True.
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
Quantum mechanics is arguably the most thoroughly tested and verified theory in the history of science.

We understand how it works.
We do not precisely understand why it works. But that is true for most scientific theories.
Click to expand...

It is not possible to prove any theory True. The only thing required of a theory of science is that it be falsifiable. Quantum physics is a branch of science and is mathematical in nature.
 
Grokmaster said:
Whereas Y-Chromosomal; Adam...THE SINGLE, MALE DONOR OF Y-CHROMOSOMAL- DNA TO EVERY MALE ON EARTH...HAS BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED, GENETICALLY, AS HAS MITCHONDRIAL EVE ,THE SINGLE FEMALE DONOR OF MITOCHONDRIAL DNA TO EVERY FEMALE ON EARTH.

THE MONKEY PEOPLE DO BACKFLIPS TRYING TO "EXPLAIN IT AWAY"...SUCH AS THIS TOTALLY MADEUP "SCENARIO":


" Wait just a second, you say – isn’t the evidence strong that modern humans descend from a population that has never numbered less than about 10,000 individuals (and as such, is a topic of significant theological consideration)? How is it, then, that all humans can share a single woman and single man as commonancestors? The short answer is that all humans do share a single man and single woman as common ancestors – but that these ancestors are not our unique, or sole, ancestors. Rather, they both come from that population of about 10,000 individuals – the evidence for which (and the theological questions it raises) we will discuss in upcoming posts."

https://biologos.org/series/evolution-basics/articles/mitochondrial-eve-and-y-chromosome-adam


UTTER NONSENSE. THE "10,000 INDIVIDUALS" IS A MADEUP WORK OF FICTION....A RANDOMLY CHOSEN NUMBER NEVER EVEN HINTED AT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT, AND WE HAVE NEVER FOUND ANOTHER Y-CHR. ADAM, or MITO. EVE...WHEN THE SIMPLEST PROBABILITY FORMULA WOULD HAVE US FINDING AT LEAST DOZENS...OUT OF "10,000" IN ONE GEOGRAPHIC AREA...
Click to expand...

Nothing has been established. The Theory of Creation is a nonscientific theory, and a religion, just as the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis is. How life arrived on Earth is unknown. The Theory of Creation and the Theory of Abiogenesis are mutually exclusive.
 
Into the Night said:
Nothing has been established. The Theory of Creation is a nonscientific theory, and a religion, just as the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis is. How life arrived on Earth is unknown. The Theory of Creation and the Theory of Abiogenesis are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

The amount of money so many East of the Mississippi spend to see a fake ark (its a building) which claims that Noah carried Dinos is really quite interesting.
 
BidenPresident said:
All physics is mathematically based.
Click to expand...

No. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science is an open functional system. A theory explains, but cannot predict. You must transcribe the theory into a closed functional system such as mathematics or logic to gain the power of prediction, which comes with the power of the proof. The resulting equation (whether in mathematics or logic) is called a 'law' of science. Often from that point on, the theory is simply expressed by it's law.

For example, Newton created the Theory of Motion, and is often described as Newton's 'three' laws of motion. They can all be expressed by the single equation F=mA where 'F' is force, 'm' is mass, and 'A' is acceleration. This relation came out of Galileo's observance of falling objects, and that it had something to do with some kind of constant, which he measured at 32 feet per second per second. Newton was able to generalize the law of motion, where Galileo could not. Newton's theory was that ALL motion was uniform, not just falling motion. He transcribed this theory into the well known F=mA form. The theory was tested by predicting the orbit of the moon in one second. So far, this theory has not been falsified.

Newton's theory of motion DID appear to be falsified, when the orbit of Mercury didn't appear to follow Newton's theory. It turned out that Mercury was right where Newton and Kepler calculated, but our observance of it is distorted by the gravity well and it's lens like effect. Einstein was able to come up a theory about why. His theory of relativity was the result. Einstein was also able to show how photons can have mass. Turns out that refraction and reflection couldn't work without it. No one was able to demonstrate that photons had mass before, or calculate how much mass they have in a given situation.
 
Into the Night said:
No. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science is an open functional system. A theory explains, but cannot predict. You must transcribe the theory into a closed functional system such as mathematics or logic to gain the power of prediction, which comes with the power of the proof. The resulting equation (whether in mathematics or logic) is called a 'law' of science. Often from that point on, the theory is simply expressed by it's law.

For example, Newton created the Theory of Motion, and is often described as Newton's 'three' laws of motion. They can all be expressed by the single equation F=mA where 'F' is force, 'm' is mass, and 'A' is acceleration. This relation came out of Galileo's observance of falling objects, and that it had something to do with some kind of constant, which he measured at 32 feet per second per second. Newton was able to generalize the law of motion, where Galileo could not. Newton's theory was that ALL motion was uniform, not just falling motion. He transcribed this theory into the well known F=mA form. The theory was tested by predicting the orbit of the moon in one second. So far, this theory has not been falsified.

Newton's theory of motion DID appear to be falsified, when the orbit of Mercury didn't appear to follow Newton's theory. It turned out that Mercury was right where Newton and Kepler calculated, but our observance of it is distorted by the gravity well and it's lens like effect. Einstein was able to come up a theory about why. His theory of relativity was the result. Einstein was also able to show how photons can have mass. Turns out that refraction and reflection couldn't work without it. No one was able to demonstrate that photons had mass before, or calculate how much mass they have in a given situation.
Click to expand...

You would I am sure get along fab with Bret and Heather in spite of the fact that they are progressives like me....Heterodox of course.....because we are not shit people.
 
Grokmaster said:
BULLSHIT. THEORY: "WATER IN ITS PURE FORM IS H2O."

THEORY PROVEN = SCIENTIFIC FACT.


JUST BECAUSE SCIENCE CANNOT PROVE EVERYTHING, DOES NOT MEAN IT CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING.
Click to expand...

Not a theory of science. A simple definition. Attempted proof by definition.
The definition of water, chemically speaking, is H2O. You need no theory for that!

H2SO4 is the definition of sulfuric acid. NO3 is the definition of a nitrate. ClO3 is the definition of a chlorate. ClO4 is the definition of a perchlorate.

There are many such definitions. NONE of them are theories. NONE of them require a proof of any kind. They simply are what they are because we decide to call them that.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
You would I am sure get along fab with Bret and Heather in spite of the fact that they are progressives like me....Heterodox of course.....because we are not shit people.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know. I've never met them or discussed anything with them. I'll take your word for it though. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top