The Big Bang, Evolution, and other Myths

wohali

Posts: 10,068

Vansdad:

"Have you turned on a light lately."

Yup, but that still doesn't make electricity anything more than a scientific theory.

I haven't floated off into space, regardless that gravity is a scientific theory.

newchurchguy

Posts: 3,060

May 1, 2012 -- 11:52PM, Oncomintrain wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 11:39PM, vansdad wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 12:15AM, Oncomintrain wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 12:07AM, vansdad wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:20PM, wohali wrote:

Vansdad:

"There is no 100% proof of any of it,"

Maybe you cvan give us an example of something in science that you think does have "100% proof"?

How about electrons make electricity.

Nope... also a theory.

Have you turned on a light lately.

You guys seem to be after Vansdad like a pack of wolves.

Here is a clearer line-up.

That (a specific) light turns on is a fact (meausrable data). HOW they turn on is modeled by mathematical theory - WHY they turn on is philosophy.

The universe is here (measurable data). How the universe commenced is mathematical theory (many versions now in-play as Cosmology) WHY the universe is here is philosophy/religion.

There are no physical therories that are not mathematically expressed.

100% proof sounds like wiskey. Mathematical theories, such as how electrons behave are only expressed by math relations such as Ohm's law, equations of Maxwell, Faraday's Law and others. Electron tunnelling is expressed through quantum mechanical equations.

amcolph

Posts: 13,345

May 2, 2012 -- 2:03PM, newchurchguy wrote:

You guys seem to be after Vansdad like a pack of wolves.

We are a suspicious and cynical lot, NCG, as you have cause to know yourself.

Vansdad's line seems to be that he regards what science tells us about our origins as reliable so far as it goes, but that it is somehow at the same time at odds with the notion that God is behind it all.

It's the old "Your faith in the Big Bang is really no more firmly grounded than my faith in God, so why are you dissing me about it?" (when nobody is) approach that we have too many times seen used as a Trojan Horse for YECism to swallow it whole.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.

Oncomintrain

Posts: 2,535

May 2, 2012 -- 2:03PM, newchurchguy wrote:

You guys seem to be after Vansdad like a pack of wolves.

Here is a clearer line-up.

That (a specific) light turns on is a fact (meausrable data). HOW they turn on is modeled by mathematical theory - WHY they turn on is philosophy.

The universe is here (measurable data). How the universe commenced is mathematical theory (many versions now in-play as Cosmology) WHY the universe is here is philosophy/religion.

There are no physical therories that are not mathematically expressed.

100% proof sounds like wiskey. Mathematical theories, such as how electrons behave are only expressed by math relations such as Ohm's law, equations of Maxwell, Faraday's Law and others. Electron tunnelling is expressed through quantum mechanical equations.

None of which is especially germaine to the point here. That point being: the relationship of electrons to electricity (to light switches) is theoretical in the same sense that the Big Bang is theoretical: to whit, it is a unifying explanation for the data we observe. And like the Big Bang, the relationship of electrons to electricity is open to falsification within the scientific method.

We are trying to express to Van that identifying the Big Bang as "just a theory" doesn't somehow put it on par with any and every other explanation of the universe's origins, because successful theories, within science, have been rigorously vetted by the scientific method.

Whether either theory can be expressed mathematically is simply irrelevant to the conversation -- and in fact, in this case, only serves to needlessly complicate the issue at hand. If you want to discuss the mathematical expressibility of scientific theories, may I suggest you start your own thread on the topic, instead of derailing an ongoing conversation?

d_p_m

Posts: 7,603

May 2, 2012 -- 2:03PM, newchurchguy wrote:

Here is a clearer line-up.

Not really. Indeed, you don't seem to be addressing VD's position or our discussion in any substantive way.

May 2, 2012 -- 2:03PM, newchurchguy wrote:

There are no physical therories that are not mathematically expressed.

I thought we dealt with this a little while ago, in another thread.

While one can find a way to say somthing about almost any theory that involves math in some way, particularly if you get convoluted, math is not the primary expression, or needed to express, all scientific theories. It is useful in many cases, optional in others, and irrelevant in a few.

Examples of theories that were developed before Math became the One True Hammer of Science (TM), and were therefore not considered Nails (TM) initially include:

1. The Germ Theory of Disease.

2. The Circulation of Blood.

Both of these were pointed out to you the last time we discussed this.

---------------------------------------------------------
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" do you not understand?
---------------------------------------------------------
Wind speeds of Mach 2 would messily disassemble most consumer electronics.
---------------------------------------------------------

wohali

Posts: 10,068

NCG:

"You guys seem to be after Vansdad like a pack of wolves."

How so?

steven_guy

Posts: 11,046

May 1, 2012 -- 11:39PM, vansdad wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 12:15AM, Oncomintrain wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 12:07AM, vansdad wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:20PM, wohali wrote:

Vansdad:

"There is no 100% proof of any of it,"

Maybe you cvan give us an example of something in science that you think does have "100% proof"?

How about electrons make electricity.

Nope... also a theory.

Have you turned on a light lately.

There are many scientific theories involved in things we use in everyday life.

rsielin

Posts: 2,801

May 2, 2012 -- 2:03PM, newchurchguy wrote:
You guys seem to be after Vansdad like a pack of wolves.

It's easy pickin's ... like taking candy from a baby.

You on the other hand are more difficult ... you're so slippery. ;)

d_p_m

Posts: 7,603

May 1, 2012 -- 11:39PM, vansdad wrote:
Have you turned on a light lately.

Light??

Oh, you must be referring to a darksucker.

---------------------------------------------------------
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" do you not understand?
---------------------------------------------------------
Wind speeds of Mach 2 would messily disassemble most consumer electronics.
---------------------------------------------------------

vansdad

Posts: 55

May 2, 2012 -- 10:11AM, d_p_m wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 11:39PM, vansdad wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 12:15AM, Oncomintrain wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 12:07AM, vansdad wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:20PM, wohali wrote:

Vansdad:

"There is no 100% proof of any of it,"

Maybe you cvan give us an example of something in science that you think does have "100% proof"?

How about electrons make electricity.

Nope... also a theory.

Have you turned on a light lately.

You are thinking like a technician, not a scientist, and you don't seem to have noticed there's a difference. Science requires a different, more analytical, more precise, mode of thought.

There is a useful mantra that can help here: "Engineers are not (necessarily) scientists".

When a theory is proven it becomes a fact. Electrons do exist...fact. Electricity exists...fact. That gap was bridged already. Maybe in Benjerman Franklin's day it was still theory but now we know it's true. As to why the electron once energized moves to the valence band and is a free electron ready to move down a conductor we probably will never truly know. That knowledge exists but only with the One who Created it.

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot