View Single Post
  #109 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 10, 2006, 07:40pm
CJN CJN is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally posted by cbfoulds
Quote:
Originally posted by NIump50
Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
Next on Jerry Springer, "When Trolls Collide - the seedy underbelly of Troll arguments"

Let them ramble on, guys, this is going no where. You can't convince someone who is A) unwilling to believe that spin curves a ball, B) insists that because a ball thrown fast from 3rd to 1st doesn't appear to be affected by gravity, that it is in fact not affected by gravity, or C) believes the earth is 8000 years old in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise.

Let it die.
Last I heard big bang is a theory, evolution is a theory and it is impossible to prove the accuracy of carbon dating.
Since you are the resident "expert" in physics, can you please tell us all the difference between scientific theory and fact.
I suggest you pull out your high school freshman science book and read it over a few times so as to avoid misquoting.
Here is the mis-use of language; and it is yours, not mc's:
When scientists use the word "theory", they DO NOT use it as you and other "young earthers" are prone to do when "refuting" the "theory" of the big bang, evolution, and other scientific principles. Gravity is also a "theory" according to the scientists. As soon as you can experimentally drop a hammer and have it hit the ceiling, rather than the floor: come talk to us about "it's only a theory". Relativity [E=mC2] is also a "theory": I am sure that the folks in Hiroshima are glad to know that their city was flattened at the end of WWII by "only a theory". The accuracy of carbon dating [and remember, being scientists, they admit to a window of uncertainty: "10,000 yrs b.c.e, plus or minus ..." XYZ years] has been amply demonstrated [and in some cases made more precise] by comparison with tree-ring and historical evidence.

To the TOPIC of this misbegotten thread: the "theory" of the "rising fastball" has been disproven/debunked both experimentally [what you PERCIEVE is not experimental evidence, by the way, any more than what you believe: the only thing that counts is what you can demonstrate and measure in repeatable experiments] and mathematically/ logically. Which, by the way, is what separates scientific facts/ "theories" from ignorant blind "faith" in cherished myths [like, for instance, the "rising fastball" and the "8,000 year old earth"]: when science discovers that there is evidence which cannot be reconciled with theory, they admit that there is something wrong with the theory, and go looking for the answer/ solution. When mythologists are presented with evidence which disproves their beliefs, they insist that there is something wrong with the evidence, and go looking for nothing, since God, Bishop Usher, or Roger Clemens has already passed down the "truth".

RANT OFF!!
Nicely said. Gravity is still referred to as a theory even though it has withstood a few hundred years of rigorous experimentation for historical purposes. Evolution is similar in the eyes of the scientific community, it has been supported by so much experimentation and it really does match what is observed in nature.

Here again is the scientific meaning of theory as written by the National Academy of Sciences:

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.