Don't Expect Polite Debate

I'n not sure about this analogy, and maybe someone here could help me out a bit, but isn't a "Theory" in science similar to a "Theorem" in mathematics? You know, something universally accepted even though there is no formal proof? Like that Pythagorean one that comes in so handy all the time?

And, I thought Gravity was a law, by the way.
 
joesixpack said:
I'n not sure about this analogy, and maybe someone here could help me out a bit, but isn't a "Theory" in science similar to a "Theorem" in mathematics? You know, something universally accepted even though there is no formal proof? Like that Pythagorean one that comes in so handy all the time?

And, I thought Gravity was a law, by the way.
Click to expand...

Nope. Laws are well supported descriptions of natural phenomena. Theories are well supported explanations which might explain several laws.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Nope. Laws are well supported descriptions of natural phenomena. Theories are well supported explanations which might explain several laws.
Click to expand...

I thought that evolution was a pretty well supported description of natural phenomena.

Oh, wait, after I read it a few times I get it. Let's see if I'm understanding this; If I drop this brick, it will always accelerate towards the earth at a given rate, and two object in space that have mass will attract each other with a force that is proportional to their mass and inversly proportional to the square of their distance (I think). All these actions are DESCRIBED by laws. The theory has to do with what the cause of that force is?
 
Last edited:
joesixpack said:
I'n not sure about this analogy, and maybe someone here could help me out a bit, but isn't a "Theory" in science similar to a "Theorem" in mathematics? You know, something universally accepted even though there is no formal proof? Like that Pythagorean one that comes in so handy all the time?

And, I thought Gravity was a law, by the way.
Click to expand...


A theorem is a proposition that has been or is to be proved on the basis of explicit assumptions.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

The Pythagorean theorem has been proved in several ways.
 
joesixpack said:
I thought that evolution was a pretty well supported description of natural phenomena.

Oh, wait, after I read it a few times I get it. Let's see if I'm understanding this; If I drop this brick, it will always accelerate towards the earth at a given rate, and two object in space that have mass will attract each other with a force that is proportional to their mass and inversly proportional to the square of their distance (I think). All these actions are DESCRIBED by laws. The theory has to do with what the cause of that force is?
Click to expand...


Yes.

Laws typically describe mathematically what happens. Theories describe why they happen.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Damn right. Don't let any of those Newtonists confuse you about it being a fact. The bible is clear the sun goes around the earth, no matter what Newton says.
Click to expand...

You got me confused here.. How can the sun go around the earth? Everyone knows the earth is flat, going around a flat surface is a bit weird... Let's just say it circles around in the skies.
 
On the topic of design, do the fundies realise that a lot of it has NOT involved simply abstraction grand conceptualisation and then product but a slow steady feedback loop of idea -> design -> prototype -> test -> design?

Design is iterative - it is evolutionary. In that sense intelligent design is almost a complete misnomer - the only intelligent design we know about is evolutionary in nature!
 
Haven't you guys heard about Intelligent Falling and Intelligent Raining?

joesixpack said:
And, I thought Gravity was a law, by the way.
Click to expand...

Just to add to some specificity to the clarifications others have offered.
The Law of Gravity describes the mathmatics of the mechanics of gravity.
The Thoery of gravity describes the mechanisms of the mechanics of gravity (gravitons, gravity waves, etc.)
 
cyborg said:
On the topic of design, do the fundies realise that a lot of it has NOT involved simply abstraction grand conceptualisation and then product but a slow steady feedback loop of idea -> design -> prototype -> test -> design?

Design is iterative - it is evolutionary. In that sense intelligent design is almost a complete misnomer - the only intelligent design we know about is evolutionary in nature!
Click to expand...

Ah, but God is perfect so got the design right first time.

(I must have a word with whoever wrote the requirements though...)
 
Tis true, you can;t expect debate from evolutionists as they run and hide when faced with the reality of trying to explain their luck and chance religion.

You can;t expect to get them to come out of hiding.

SEE Jesus created Sex thread, as they are speechless about how sex evolved.
 
Bah! I felt it was a waste of time to even post those 14 words above when I could have been catching up on Garfield's antics, checking my stock portfolio or adding to the Three Word Story, but I was hoping others reading this thread wouldn't take a bite on his bait and derail it because of his idiocy.

The most base level MO of Creationists is to turn the debate into atheism vs. Christianity. I say nip that in the bud and make them address the science.
 
Davidjayjordan said:
Tis true, you can;t expect debate from evolutionists as they run and hide when faced with the reality of trying to explain their luck and chance religion.

You can;t expect to get them to come out of hiding.

SEE Jesus created Sex thread, as they are speechless about how sex evolved.
Click to expand...

Speaking of running and hiding: David, I started a thread, which Grayman has kindly linked to just above, asking you why you changed the dates of your end times prophecy. Would you care to respond to that thread?
 
Those last two rants were almost completely incoherent.
As to the marriage between science and religion. Let he who speaks for humanism speak. Let he who speaks for God speak. Let the public decide.
Click to expand...

Ah! We should vote on if we want gravity or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom