The only things that can be proven are in pure Mathematics, as far as I can tell.

Bill Nye is a hack! *runs*

Scientific law is a misnomer. Nothing ever graduates beyond theory, and even the best established "Law" is still up for disapproval. The only distinction you could make (and this is something that doesn't always hold true) is that a Scientific Law is a Strong Theory that has failed to be disproven for a significant amount of time, and is now often used as a fundamental assumption in further scientific study.

Science, like mathematics, is often heavily based on unprovable assumptions (postulates in math). But in science, it is essential to always remember what your assumptions are, because they are always under critical review, and that they can be disproven at any time.

Now lets look at Science in action, time to look at the story of the planet Vulcan (not THAT Vulcan, the local one):

About two centuries ago, when we had the so call "Laws" of classical mechanics, which included gravitation, several astronomers noticed that Mercury's orbit was slightly different that what would be predicted. Now Classical Mechanics were a very strong theory at the time (still are), so instead of throwing the "Law" of gravity away, they acknowledged that something was amiss, and tried to figure it out. Several Scientists proposed a theory that there was another planet between Mercury and the Sun, and that it's mass was responsible for the deviations in Mercury's orbit. They called this theoretical planet, Vulcan. For years people searched for Vulcan, (and some even claimed to have found it) but eventually enough contradicting evidence was gathered to disprove the existence of Vulcan. Science was unable to propose any other theory to explain Mercury's orbit, so Science had to admit that there was a problem with the "Law" of gravity. And Lo and Behold, many years later, Albert Einstein comes along, with his Theory of General Relativity which, amongst other things, leads to a change in the mathematics used to model gravity, and explains Mercury's Orbit without the need for the planet Vulcan.

So then, why didn't they just throw out the "law" of gravity as soon as there was contradicting evidence? Because Theorys are very rarely complete, yet they are still useful, which is why scientists come up with them. If Science had simply thrown out gravitation in the 19th century just because of Mercury's orbit, we would likely have never gotten far enough for Einstein to solve the problem. Even a theory that we know to be wrong can be useful, it just means that we eventually have to fix it, or find a better theory.

Think about Hooks law (the spring law). Many textbooks list Hooke's law as F=-k*x. This is wrong, and only represents a single case (constant spring coefficient k). In reality the correct formula is closer to f = - Integral(k sub x dx, from x1 to x2), but we still use the first form, even in cases where we know the spring coefficient (k) is not constant, and therefor the integral does not simplify down to the first version. Why do we still use it? Because it's useful.

I personally am always in awe at the Philosophy of Science. It's not perfect, and Scientists certainly aren't perfect either. But it still achieved so much.

SCIENCE! IT WORKS, *****ES.

(just had to say that!)

Yes, inductive problems can be completely proven, deductive ones, like in science, cannot.

I want wookie to keep posting, this is hilarious.

What? I think I've shown myself quite open here. But in the interest of amusing you I'll just say this. Obviously I had some misconceptions about scientific terms here and I'm happy to have learned a bit. I now whole heartedly support scientists' endeavors to disprove the theories related to evolution.

Well, you know, I suppose if a perfectly omnipotent, omniscient being had an agenda in the world he created he could probably see that His own Bible survived well enough. I mean, especially if that was the whole point of the existence of the universe.

God most certainly could but from the point that man become involved it would most certainly be flawed.

I see, so not even a god could create a book that humans could translate throughout generations without becoming flawed.

Wookie, can I ask how old you think the Earth is? For that matter, how old is the Universe?

For those of you who are Nye fans, how many of you are lucky enough to have seen the Eyes of Nye? I just started watching it, I'm really enjoying what I've seen so far.

In Wookie's defense, it could just as easily be that God values human free-will (meaning the Bible-tampering that goes along with it) more than the survival of the unaltered Bible.

Not quite sure what you're getting at but I believe the numbers to be extreme. Practically beyond human comprehension. Let's take the number 1,000,000,000. Stack 1000 $1 bills. Then make a row of 1000 piles. Then do that 1000 deep. Now make another level for each billion years we want to talk about, or God forbid, a thousand high if we're going to a trillion. I personally believe these years to be in the billions to trillions, or beyond. Now, if we are actually going to talk about the universe, how could it have ever not existed in some form by our perception?

But here is the thing that gets me about these questions. WTF does it matter? Let's say that scientists conclusively prove (which apparantly is impossible, they simply have to fail to decisively disprove) the universe was created 2 billion years ago. Are we supposed to use that knowledge for something?

edit - Oh, and I sincerely doubt that God reached down and handed somebody a book.

I'm personally more of a fan of discussing seconds instead of stacks of money.

But that doesn't really answer my question. It was a nice example, but still dodged my question.

To answer your question, knowing the age of the world or the universe is something that should be known. It's an example of how much we do know, and how large of a void we still have to fill. If the world were only 300 years old, then our history would be more than complete, if it were a few billion, well, we still have quite a few millennia to fill in.

To Free: Ok. Let's go with that. A god favors free will, and the potential bastardization of his rule book, over preservation of his rules. However, future generations will be following the bastardization of those rules, and yet are damned to eternal hell fire for not following the original true rules. That makes sense.

I didn't dodge the question. My point was that my opinion is the age of the Earth and universe is probably a number of years that is virtually incomprehensible. And I disagree with you that filling in the history is relevant. It's all conjecture. I don't have any problem with scientists pondering the issue but in the end it's pointless. Nothing constructive to be had.

You're right, learning about history never did anyone any good...

History is fine. Pick up a book about the history of the Earth and read it. A conjectural, theorized, made up history of the ancient beginnings of the planet and the universe serves no constructive purpose. Again, I have no problems with scientists doing it, it just doesn't accomplish anything.

Yet.

What would you hypothesize coulld be accomplished if it was possible for us to figure out what created the Earth and universe eons ago?

It'd help us understand how everything around us works on a macro level. Just because we don't know what to do with that info now doesn't mean someone down the line won't.

Fair enough, I figured your opinion would be along those lines. Mine is different but I'm fine with people trying to figure it out.

Wait, are you talking about evolution and scientific theories of the creation of the universe, or the Bible?

am i the only one who sees wookie as not a religious fanatic, but a rational thinking person?

seriously folks, he hasnt said OMG GODWURKS LULZ. he hasnt said science is wrong, in fact he now seems in favor of science, as science is supposedto work. (not that it always works that way)

reread his posts, hes not as stupid as you guys seem to think he is.

*turns LividDK27 into a newt*

Edit:

No it might not serve a practical purpose right now. Learning what possibly happened some 10[sup]-8[/sup]s after the Big Bang might not have any real applications in the now but like Roach said, it might later on. I'm a practical person myself. I see all kinds of pointless **** that people drop thousands on (diamonds for one). But I don't see anything pointless about expanding our knowledge of the universe and just how things work.

Could you please point out to me where I said Wookie is a religious fanatic?

Wookie, do you feel I've attacked you for "being a religious fanatic"?

Even though I've posted at Massassi off and on for about ten years I'm usually not familiar enough with usernames to keep track of who is jumping to what conclusions. Having said that I don't think I've been particularly attacked by anyone here. There have been some dismissive, assuming comments but not really any personal attacks. Most of it is my own fault anyway because I intentionally post inflamatory things from time to time. I used to try to thoughtfully debate people but that just seems to be an absolute waste of time (most of you should know the feeling). Then I end up doing like I am doing now in this and the other thread and post abit more rationally so people realize I'm really not just the "right wing hick" I like to pretend to be (to which I'm sure someone will reply, "Of course you're not".

...so, can I take that as a "no"? I apologize if you feel whatsoever that I've attacked you for being a "religious fanatic." I'd like to think I've tried to actually discuss this with you (with a, self-admitted, dash of sarcasm (though, that's pretty much how I discuss anything)) as civil as I can without attacking you for what you believe.

Scientists have nothing to gain from mindlessly supporting established dogma. Scientists are rewarded for finding new things and questioning current thinking, not for supporting established principles. Quantum Mechanics is the best example of a 20th century discovery that utterly flies in the face of common sense, and is the most accurate description of reality ever. Just a glance at the Nobel Prize in Physics and you'll see how many of those are in topics related to Quantum Mechanics.

If there were compelling evidence that the mechanics of evolutionary biology were seriously flawed, then scientists would be the first to leap upon it. The scientist that disproves evolution would be guaranteed fame and prestige.

This evidence, however, simply doesn't exist. The fact of evolution is a principle that underpins most of biology, it is a beautiful and elegant model that explains such a vast amount about the natural world; from bacteria in a petri dish to the origins of man, the fact of evolution underpins it all. It is one of the most strongest supported models in all of science, and it is only getting stronger.
Ever since its discovery, claims have been made that 'oh evolution will soon be disproven'. The only thing that has happened is the discovery of more and more evidence for it. Before the evolutionary model, pretty much all scientists were creationists - Now, less than 5% of scientists and engineers in the US are creationists, and considering biologists and earth scientists then 0.15% are creationists. And this is just in America, the figures are much lower elsewhere in the world.

Evolution is not in any way a 'theory in crisis'. Of course, all scientists are open to the possibility of serious challenges or developments - but after 150 years of research, none has ever emerged. Biologists use the fact of evolution every day in their work.
Newtonian mechanics was not shown to be irrevocably 'wrong' by Relativity or Quantum Mechanics; it was shown to apply only to limited cases (of large masses at low speeds). Science discovered areas where classical mechanics did not apply.
In a similar vein, evolutionary mechanics is not ever going to be shown to be entirely 'wrong' - you cannot simply 'throw out' all the evidence found hitherto. It is possible, however, that evolutionary mechanics may have 'limiting cases' - there may be areas where evolutionary mechanics breaks down, or that there is a more fundemental theory of which evolutionary mechanics is an approximation of.
This is precisely the work that evolutionary biologists are working on today. And they have only discovered further support of the beautiful, intricate and remarkably simple fact of evolution.

You have problems with the scientific community for not having found evidence to disprove a theory you simply don't like? Your problem is with the natural world, not with science.

I like what you said there, Mort.

I don't have a problem with the "scientific community". I have already stated that I believe many of the underlying theories are well founded. And your statement that my problem is with the natural world is based on your view that the predominant scientific theories are indeed fact and will always be so therefore they perfectly explain the natural world and therefore my problem is with the natural world is the same type of dismissive statement that I said both scientists and religious types are routinely guilty of which fuels the animus many of them have towards each other.

He didn't say it perfectly explained the natural world. In fact he said that there's the possibility evolution has "limiting cases."

Well if he could easily influence events, but he could also simply set thing in the motion in the beginning so that it work out that way. Sort of a butterfly effect type thing, although that precision would be far beyond any finite comprehension. Fortunately that's not a problem in this case.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

I am against religion because it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

The difference is, my conviction is based on evidence.

Any new evidence that comes to light and any new theory that comes to explain it has to take into account all the evidence we already have. You can never simply dismiss evidence. And because there is such a wealth of evidence that supports the fact of evolution, it will continue to be a significant part in biological sciences for a very very long time.

Newton published his treatise in 1687. Despite the discovery of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, areas of reality where Newtonian mechanics doesn't apply, it is still an incredibly significant part of science. After 320 years, it is still taught in schools as necessary groundwork for understanding more complex physics and at the low-speed macroscopic level it is accurate to a very high degree. I imagine it will continue to be taught in schools for a very long time yet.

Evolution is as fundemental to biology as Newtonian mechanics is to physics, and even if some biological-equivilant of Quantum Mechanics arises then Evolutionary mechanics will still remain a significant part of biology.

Of course there may arise new evidence to challenge the fact of evolution, every scientist is prepared for that. But it is also possible that there may arise new evidence to support the fact of evolution. And if previous experience is anything to go by, the latter is far more likely.

The 'religious types' pursue their agenda regardless of evidence and regardless of the actual mechanics of the natural world. You're damn right I'm fuelling the animosity between science and religion, scientists are not going to change the scientific method simply because it has discovered things that conflict with your personal worldview. This animosity will continue until 'religious types' accept that they have no place in science.
They're wasting the valuable time of scientists addressing these frivolous concerns. Luckily, unlike religion, science doesn't require you to believe in it for it to exist.

You came into this discussion far too late to rekindle any of it but since the point was never to discuss whether or not science or evolution exists you're not really adding anything relevant, in my opinion.



This is such an extremely condecsending statement. If God does exist and everybody simply chooses not to believe it that won't cause him or the religion to cease to exist. And interesting that people always seem to assume what my worldview is.

Please feel free to respond but this thread is getting old and tired. Like me.

This is a generalization that I think is untrue of many (though not all) religions.

A central concept in all religions, even in the concept of religion, is conviction based on 'faith'. Faith is not the wish to find out, but the will to believe. It is not wanting to know what is true. Faith is the enemy of reason.

Absolutely garbage. You have to have faith that science explains the natural order of things. A good example of this concept would be the final episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. In that episode Q is with Picard on Earth at the moment some spark of life is supposed to occur in a puddle of ooze. It doesn't happen and, therefore, human life will never have evolved on Earth. Just because science may explain everything that has occurred (debateable) that doesn't mean that it all would have occurred. Whether you believe in religions or science, you have to believe in miracles.

Quite a few months ago I saw a show on one of the science channels (if not the Science Channel) that broke the creation of the Earth down to a 12 hour clock. The few things that stick out in my mind about the show was that scientists theorize a large cellestial body struck the Earth and formed the moon, asteroids struck the Earth and brought the water, and that in a 12 hour scale virtually all the life appeared in the final minutes or seconds. Even if you discredit religion you have to believe in miraculous accidents to explain our existence.

Religion and Science are not so different.

What? Faith is blind. It is the acceptance of something as truth without evidence.

I accept scientific explanations of things because they are backed by evidence and because they are verifiable.

If I take a ball, hold it in my hand, outstretch my arm, and let go of the ball, I do not have faith that it will fall and hit the ground. What I have is an assumption based on previous evidence and experiences that tells me it is very, very likely that the ball will fall and hit the ground. I know that Newtonian mechanics is an accurate model in my context and that it explains why the ball will fall and hit the ground. I do not have faith that Newtonian mechanics is correct, I simply assume that it is because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that it will be correct every time.

It is true that nothing in science can be completely, 100% proven. We can, however, show that things are likely to happen some 99.99% of the time, which for all intents and purposes, is "proof."

Consider this. Bob is a mechanical engineer working for GMC, he's working on a new engine for a new line of sports cars. While contemplating his design, Bob does not have faith that the steel alloy used to make the piston linings will hold up over time, he assumes it will, because modern material science has shown that high carbon steel is extremely abrasion resistant.

If a coworker asks Bob why he chose such an alloy, he might say "because I have faith in its properties," but what he really means is "I assume it will meet the needed requirements."

Essentially what I'm getting at is that faith has absolutely no place in science. The scientific method is contradictory with faith.

Just because scientists theorize life and the universe developed by certain means, that doesn't mean that it HAD to happen that way. Even if the scientific theories are correct. That has nothing to do with dropping a ball or forging an alloy. It really isn't that complicated. If the moon was formed by a cellestial body striking the earth, cool. But if that didn't happen we wouldn't exist (in theory). But the object striking the earth was not an inevitable fact. It was yet another event that is theorized to have occurred. Believing current theories requires us to believe in miraculous accidents.

Not miraculous, just of a lower probability. Given the vastness of the universe, it's probable that life has arisen elsewhere as well. And they probably think thier situation is miraculous!

I'm a little late but,

Time is money, friend!