Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/17/06 08:35 PM, WolvenBear wrote: No, it's not true that it can't go beyond "theory". Things can be scientifically proven. Laws are no longer theories. They are proven rules. That's why gravity isn't taught as a "theory", because it isn't one. If things begin to "float upwards" that in no way disproves gravity. It simply means the gravitational force of the Earth has changed. A measurement can change. Gravity can increase or decrease. But gravity isn't a theory. Nothing can be proven in science....what poppycock.

Things can't be scientifically proven. "Proof" does not exist in science. Science uses inductive reasoning to formulate theories. Inductive reasoning does not prove anything, it just looks at what has happened in the past and assumes what will occur in the future based on that data.

Gravity is a theory as well, there isn't a clear way to prove what we think of as gravity. We can't perceive gravity; we can't see the effect of gravity directly. We just see things moving towards other things and then make assumptions about how it all fits together.

At 3/18/06 04:44 AM, Lhotun wrote: Things can't be scientifically proven. "Proof" does not exist in science. Science uses inductive reasoning to formulate theories. Inductive reasoning does not prove anything, it just looks at what has happened in the past and assumes what will occur in the future based on that data.

Let me point out--
People who believe in ID also use inductive reasoning (as well as deductive, but the same could be said for science.)

I could understand "how" they may get this odd notion that a creator did certain things. But there is a clear distinction: science tries to prove things as factual as possible without scientific bias, and tries to replicate an event several times under different conditions.

Sorry if this post adds nothing to your argument, but--
I foresaw this argument and wanted to jump in before ID proponents say that they also have inductive evidences and blah, blah, blah...

Gravity is a theory as well, there isn't a clear way to prove what we think of as gravity. We can't perceive gravity; we can't see the effect of gravity directly. We just see things moving towards other things and then make assumptions about how it all fits together.

I think that Darwin's ideas should still be tought in school, but make it clear that it is a theory. However I also think that divine creationism should be tought in class as well. Let the students believe what they want to.

At 3/17/06 03:34 PM, ironmaiden233 wrote: we should ban rednecks from reproduceing.

DAMN right!!!!!

I think that this is insanity; we should complain about it, I can't because I'm across the pond but all you Americans you complain like Hittler with a Pineappe up his ass, because I feel that the US is perhaps walking down a road it should'nt - Mixing Politics with Religion

At 3/18/06 04:44 AM, Lhotun wrote: Things can't be scientifically proven. "Proof" does not exist in science.

Gravity is a theory as well, there isn't a clear way to prove what we think of as gravity. We can't perceive gravity; we can't see the effect of gravity directly. We just see things moving towards other things and then make assumptions about how it all fits together.

What hell are you dribbling about???

An astrophysicist can tell you when and where a comet will be years into the future, and such predictions have been PROVEN to happen - precisely as calculated. That's why science exists. So we can figure out if comets are gonna hit the Earth and when.
Ok, if Creationist know when the World was made, tell us then the exact day it's gonna be vaporised? You can't can you. Yet an astrophysicist following gravitaion theory can! So there's your REAL SAVIOR!!

What hell are you dribbling about???

He's right. You cannot scientifically prove anything because proving something implies that it will occur with 100% certainty. Something beyond the current understanding of science may cause something different to occur, however. Science cannot prove anything.

At 3/18/06 05:01 AM, ledzep1 wrote: I think that Darwin's ideas should still be tought in school, but make it clear that it is a theory. However I also think that divine creationism should be tought in class as well. Let the students believe what they want to.

Honestly, you want to FORCE teachers to teach what doesn't have legitimate proof?????

At 3/17/06 02:03 PM, WolvenBear wrote: A Republican Legislator today said that he was seeking to ban Evolution from schools. "Evolution is a theory and is completely unproven, therefore it should not be taught in schools, until it is fact."

Horrible way to dictate education. Yeah, we know about a theory. Big deal. It's still science.

And it's assinine to remove something from the curriculum just because it's only theory. Theory of Relativity anyone?

No kidding!

The goal of scientists is to either prove theories wrong or find evidence to support them. If our future generation doesn't know anything about evolution, how can they research it in order to prove/disprove it?

At 3/17/06 11:03 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 3/17/06 10:49 PM, I_AM_PIRATE wrote: Goddammit is Missouri stupid.

Is NY? Frigging idiot. Just because one guy wants to do this, the ENTIRE state must be stupid. Go stick a toilet brush in your mouth and think about what you did.

You knew what I meant! Stop taking stuff so literally.

At 3/18/06 05:46 PM, Begoner wrote: He's right. You cannot scientifically prove anything because proving something implies that it will occur with 100% certainty. Something beyond the current understanding of science may cause something different to occur..

Jesus Christwaggons! ~~ BE ...S-P-E-C-I-F-I-C !!!

What? -UFOS?? The hand of God will appear from nowhere and catch the comet??

If you're talking about ice melting - reducing the mass... then that's called a "variable" which impies probability factor. Just because something is not absafuckenlutely %100, guaranteed doesn't mean there's an explanation not based on science (..the study and quantification of phenomena).

Just because something is not absafuckenlutely %100, guaranteed doesn't mean there's an explanation not based on science (..the study and quantification of phenomena).

I'm just saying that nothing can be proven using science. That's a fact.

At 3/18/06 01:22 AM, JoS wrote: There is more scientific data and support for Evolution then there is for ID.

You think i dont know that.

Honestly, read between the lines...no really, the main point is inbetween the lines that i posted.

You see, this isnt about ID, it's about that wacko banning evolution.

Hopefully this never gets through. If other states follow suit, there will be many protests.

I'm sure this is about making the idea of Creation somehow stronger. The government really has to learn to keep their religious beliefs to themselves. They can believe what they want to believe, but they shouldn't prevent others from learning theories like evolution. That's dictatorship.

At 3/17/06 07:21 PM, -Shadic- wrote: Missouri was part of the confederacy, (much more simply) dumbass.

Since when has what happened 150 years ago lent any weight as to where a state is geographically located? Who the fuck you calling a dumbass, dipshit?

At 3/17/06 03:21 PM, ironmaiden233 wrote: i fucking hate the south

Thats cause you live in New Jersey. Its called jealousy.

ugh once again the annoying theory excuse. theres a difference between what people think of as a theory and what a scientific theory is. just look at the theory of reletivity.

evolution is pretty much fact. the problem is, it disproves religion....

At 3/18/06 05:43 PM, Judge_Dredd wrote: What hell are you dribbling about???

An astrophysicist can tell you when and where a comet will be years into the future, and such predictions have been PROVEN to happen - precisely as calculated. That's why science exists. So we can figure out if comets are gonna hit the Earth and when.
Ok, if Creationist know when the World was made, tell us then the exact day it's gonna be vaporised? You can't can you. Yet an astrophysicist following gravitaion theory can! So there's your REAL SAVIOR!!

I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say or what your whole "creationist" and "real savior" stuff comes from... so uh... yeah.....
And we don't know when the world is going to be vaporized or if it will even be vaporized, so I don't know where that came from either.

Ok... either way, so a scientist can predict something involving gravity and it happens to be right. That does not prove the theory of gravity. His being right does not prove that the space-time continuum is curved by the presence of matter. It doesn't even prove a fourth dimension exists. It just proves that... his prediction was apparently correct.

Even if the theory was just straight "this is what will happen under these conditions" without any actual underlying mechanics, it still isn't proof. Proof is unattainable. It is the nature of science. Something does not have to be proven to be used or be useful.

Only a ignorant fool would want it banned, sadly those are plentyfull in the south of america.

At 3/19/06 01:26 AM, Lhotun wrote:

At 3/18/06 05:43 PM, Judge_Dredd wrote: What hell are you dribbling about???

An astrophysicist can tell you when and where a comet will be years into the future, and such predictions have been PROVEN to happen - precisely as calculated. That's why science exists. So we can figure out if comets are gonna hit the Earth and when.
Ok, if Creationist know when the World was made, tell us then the exact day it's gonna be vaporised? You can't can you. Yet an astrophysicist following gravitation theory can! So there's your REAL SAVIOR!!

I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say or what your whole "creationist" and "real savior" stuff comes from... so uh... yeah.....

Than don't post or even quote his material if you don't understand it.

What was so hard about saviours? He was referring to Scientist who cure the world of disease and astrophysics who calculate when the Earth may or may not be hit by a UFO (Comet, Asteroid, not some Alien space ship).

And we don't know when the world is going to be vaporized or if it will even be vaporized, so I don't know where that came from either.

Why did you further your comments if you didn't understand his point originally? Don't reply to his post if you didn't understand it.

He's saying Astrophysics’ can predict which Asteroids and Comets will, or could hit Earth if all variables are substantial.

He referred to them as saviours because they have detected and predicted which asteroids could eradicate the Earth if impact and the possibilities of them actually impacting. Thus, there knowledge is a vital part of mankind.

Ok... either way, so a scientist can predict something involving gravity and it happens to be right. That does not prove the theory of gravity. His being right does not prove that the space-time continuum is curved by the presence of matter. It doesn't even prove a fourth dimension exists. It just proves that... his prediction was apparently correct.

As already stated about ten times in this single page. Read the rest of the thread.

Even if the theory was just straight "this is what will happen under these conditions" without any actual underlying mechanics, it still isn't proof. Proof is unattainable. It is the nature of science. Something does not have to be proven to be used or be useful.

He said that, previously. You missed the entire point of his post.

At 3/19/06 02:08 AM, CadillacClock wrote: Than don't post or even quote his material if you don't understand it.

Pants are the secret to all of life's mysteries, you should know that.

While you may understand what I just said, you might not have any clue what that has to do in relation to what I'm apparently replying to. Therein lies the problem.

What was so hard about saviours? He was referring to Scientist who cure the world of disease and astrophysics who calculate when the Earth may or may not be hit by a UFO (Comet, Asteroid, not some Alien space ship).

Why did you further your comments if you didn't understand his point originally? Don't reply to his post if you didn't understand it.

He's saying Astrophysics’ can predict which Asteroids and Comets will, or could hit Earth if all variables are substantial.

He referred to them as saviours because they have detected and predicted which asteroids could eradicate the Earth if impact and the possibilities of them actually impacting. Thus, there knowledge is a vital part of mankind.

Not really, at the moment. It might be vital some day, but not now since we can't don't know what to do in such a situation yet. As I understood it, he was referring to scientists and the advances in science that led up to all that we have now and all that we will attain. At the very least, that makes a lot more sense.

That still doesn't explain the random tangent in his post.

As already stated about ten times in this single page. Read the rest of the thread.

Not really, the previous references to gravity were either shallow or didn't refer to the same point.

He said that, previously. You missed the entire point of his post.

In the post I was replying to, he stated something as provable. He later stated that things do not need to be proven to necessarily have a non-scientific answer. That is quite a bit different and does not have any bearing on the idea that things are never scientifically provable. He never said it.

Honestly speaking, I have no idea why you replied to my post. You clearly missed the entire point of it.

At 3/18/06 05:53 PM, Gunnery_Sergeant wrote: Honestly, you want to FORCE teachers to teach what doesn't have legitimate proof?????

Yes. They should also be forced to teach all the scientific vocabulary so as to remove a little bit of the confusion. First, "Proof" in it's strictest meaning only really applies to mathematics and philosophy, it means to conclude from axiomatic principles. In Science, there has been no determination of axiomatic principles. Instead, scientists must make observations and try to find a "theory" that explains the phenomenon.

A "theory" in science, is usually used to describe an explanation for a phenomenon that is well demonstrated and has minimal problems. A scientific theory will usually explain a great deal about most situations, but it is not uncommon for a few specific situations to be unexplained. A great example is that of Newtonian physics. For the most part, physics was working fine, but there was a little confusion on the makeup of the solar system very close to the Sun. Oddities kept popping up and it was hypothesized that a planet "Vulcan" was very close to the Sun. Once we learned about Relativity, we learned that the light bending around the Sun was the source of the inconsistancies.

It is important to understand the difference between Proof and Demonstration. In science, because proof is impossible, repeated demonstration is needed. If you repeat an experiment 1000 times with the same results, it still does not constitute proof, just thorough demonstration.

So, back to the point: It is not unreasonable to force teachers to teach well demonstrated Scientific theories that are not axiomatically proven.

At 3/19/06 12:45 AM, WillPostForFood wrote: evolution is pretty much fact. the problem is, it disproves religion....

No, it just disproves some religious beliefs, "Young Earth Creationism" most specifically. Most Christians I know use Evolution to reaffirm their beliefs as Evolution follows closely with Genesis. The only people who are in conflict with Evolution are people who deny that any aspect of their religious beliefs can be wrong in any detail (which curiously, rarely have anything to do with ethics, arguably the most important part of a religion, but instead with details like creation and such.)

Why does this bullshit about Science continue to plague these threads.

In science if you want to be full of shit you can say nothing is ever proven. Strictly this is correct but, preaching this means nothing if you fail to realise that when a theory is seen as the most probable explanation then it is named as a Law.

For example Newtons 3 laws of motion. These are accepted because as far as we can tell the rules are true.

to say gravity isn't proven is just iggnorant.

As for the topic itself I think it is stupid to ban one theory in favour of another because of religous beliefs. Gives me the impression they dont want kids to think of anything that might challenge their beliefs in christianity.

to say gravity isn't proven is just iggnorant.

No, to say that gravity is proven would be ignorant. To say that gravity is a widely accepted theory and has not yet been disproven would be correct.

At 3/19/06 07:38 PM, Begoner wrote:

to say gravity isn't proven is just iggnorant.

No, to say that gravity is proven would be ignorant. To say that gravity is a widely accepted theory and has not yet been disproven would be correct.

Did you actually focus on what i wrote?
To say gravity is proven is ignorant
To say graity isnt proven is ignorant
Newtons law of gravity, what did i just say a fucking law was????

To say gravity is proven is ignorant
To say graity isnt proven is ignorant

Make up your mind, already! Or are you suggesting that everyone is ignorant?

At 3/19/06 08:15 PM, Begoner wrote:

To say gravity is proven is ignorant
To say graity isnt proven is ignorant

Make up your mind, already! Or are you suggesting that everyone is ignorant?

Sigh.
Gravity is a law. "newtons law of gravity" but because in science nothing can be strictly 100% saying gravity is proven by this law is not correct, however being a law essentially means that it is all but proven; its the most probable explanation that we have that can beyond reasonable doubt explain how things are, so saying gravity is not proven is also ignorant.

To Summarise
Everyone that doesnt know the concept of scientific law but preach in whether or not theories are proven is ignorant.

At 3/19/06 08:59 PM, DingoTheDog wrote: Sigh.
Gravity is a law. "newtons law of gravity" but because in science nothing can be strictly 100% saying gravity is proven by this law is not correct, however being a law essentially means that it is all but proven; its the most probable explanation that we have that can beyond reasonable doubt explain how things are, so saying gravity is not proven is also ignorant.

To Summarise
Everyone that doesnt know the concept of scientific law but preach in whether or not theories are proven is ignorant.

Gravity is a theory. There might be specific parts of gravity that are laws, but the current total explanation of what gravity actually is remains entirely a theory.

Laws tend to describe something specific, which is what Newton did. He described this force that pulls things together. However, now the explanation for the phenomena is more detailed that an instantaneous force that acts on two bodies over a distance, and is now considered a theory (part of relativity).

And the only reason the idea of "proof" matters to any of us is because of the silliness of the argument against evolution involving the fact that it is "only a theory" and is "not proven."

At 3/19/06 07:33 PM, DingoTheDog wrote: Why does this bullshit about Science continue to plague these threads.

In science if you want to be full of shit you can say nothing is ever proven. Strictly this is correct but, preaching this means nothing if you fail to realise that when a theory is seen as the most probable explanation then it is named as a Law.

The reason these bullshit Science threads keep popping up is because people fail to put in 5 minutes of research before spouting off bullshit.

Your definiton of a scientific law is completely incorrect.

A scientific law deals with very specific instances.

The Zeroth Law of thermodynamics for example:
If two thermodynamic systems A and B are in thermal equilibrium, and B and C are also in thermal equilibrium, then A and C are in thermal equilibrium.

Plate tectonics on the other hand is a theory, it deals with a great deal of variables but is as good as fact.

Really, spend a little time getting all your facts straight before you go around correcting people.

At 3/20/06 09:32 AM, Lhotun wrote:: :

Gravity is a theory. There might be specific parts of gravity that are laws, but the current total explanation of what gravity actually is remains entirely a theory.

Laws tend to describe something specific, which is what Newton did. He described this force that pulls things together. However, now the explanation for the phenomena is more detailed that an instantaneous force that acts on two bodies over a distance, and is now considered a theory (part of relativity).

When you talk about gravity as "he described this force that pulls things together" I get the sneaky suspicion you dont know what your talking about.

Newton formulted his Law of Universal Gravitation.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity

When you talk about gravity as "he described this force that pulls things together" I get the sneaky suspicion you dont know what your talking about.

That is exactly what gravity is -- a force that pulls objects together. His point was that neither theories nor laws can be proven. This is because of the way science works. A scientists observes natural phenomena, and says, "hmm, in all these cases I observed that there is a force pulling two objects together. The force is inversely propotrional to the square of the distance between them. I will try to find an equation that can explain this." The scientist can then develop a theory of how the force is exerted. If scientists do more tests and find that it holds true, then it may become accepted as a law. However, it can never be proved, unlike in math. The difference between math and science is deductive vs. inductive reasoning. In inductive reasoning, you find a general trend and then you apply a formula that fits the data and predicts what will happen with another term in the pattern. In deductive reasoning, you apply various axioms to some sort of data to obtain a result. No matter how many times you apply the axioms to the data, you will get the same result. However, if you may find a term in the sequence that does not match the formula you used, and formula needs to be revised again to fit the data.