Cyanidepoison, on Oct 16 2009, 09:00 PM, said:
You don't prove scientific laws. Scientific laws are observable facts (hence the other name for scientific laws, scientific fact). Evolution and gravity both fall under this concept. Both are observable.
Yay, let's go back to 8th grade science class again and learn definitions.
Ah, but evolution is not a law. It's still a theory.
Let's go back to the basics since you insisted... (source, dictionary.com)
hypothesis -- a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
theory -- a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena -- A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena
law (as in scientific law) -- a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
In other words -- a hypothesis is an educated guess, a theory is something that seems to fit within the information you have and some tests have been conducted and observed, and a law is a law, proven beyond all doubt that it's true for all cases.
At any time, I can prove gravity. I can pick something up and drop it. Problem solved.
At any time, I can prove objects at rest tend to stay at rest (Newton's 1st law of motion). I set a book on the table, and demonstrate how it goes nowhere until an outside force acts on it.
Scientific laws can be proven.
Neither evolution nor any form of intelligent design can be proven to "scientific law" because we cannot observe either at the scale necessary for the task.
So it's a theory. Exactly as I said before.
And you said I was the moron... ironic, isn't it?
Anyway, let's move on to Creationism. "God did it! Let's find out how!" That's not FRAGing science, you morons. You observe and THEN postulate, not the other way around.
Allow me to provide an extremely simple, ultra-basic line of thinking that still fits under creationism:
1. By observation, we can demonstrate that naturally, things decay, wear out, degenerate, etc.
Things don't improve on their own without effort put into them. Energy is lost over time.
This, unlike your bad definition before, actually is a scientific law. It's known as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
2. Therefore, by observation number 1, it is logical to conclude that there was a finite amount of energy that had to start from some point. It's also logical to conclude that the energy had to come from somewhere.
3. Since no KNOWN natural phenomena can contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then it is reasonable to look for other explanations until a known phenomena exists.
See how simple that was? No Bible references, no pastors, nothing. Just my rational mind.
But let's disregard that for a second. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove to me that your God did anything, it isn't on ME to disprove your statement. I think we can all understand this concept that we've all probably learned in a debate class, philosophy class, etc. Until you can actually provide proof (which, guess what?!, you need to observe before you theorize! Observing the pages of your bible doesn't count, either
) of your outlandish statements, your statements have ZERO value. ZERO!
Indeed, the burden of proof in favor of a theory is on me.
However, at the same time, the burden of proof for evolution (or whatever else you want to believe in) is on you. One cannot assume evolution until creation is proven, no more than you need to assume creation until evolution is proven.
As for observation prior to theory, refer to my simplified, made-for-little-children argument of observations in this very post.
Ash, IKE, and I have all posted observation-based arguments without using the Bible as a source (now true, we did reference it for some other unrelated discussion saying "who says they contradict" and some such, but it wasn't part of the argument)
My statements are no more outlandish than yours. Well, except for the fact that I'm not calling anyone names, and actually making an argument instead of saying "you're wrong, because you disagree with this one version I happen to prefer."
Look, I'm done with this. Arguing with people who can't even get poo like the definition of scientific law correct is a waste of my time.
I laugh at the irony of this whole statement, given real definitions.
Fine by me -- if you can't get the definition difference between a theory and a law, that's not on me.
This post has been edited by Thalion: 16 October 2009 - 07:29 PM