Gravity is most certainly a scientific theory. I think perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word 'theory' in the context of science.Originally Posted by hjmick
Big Chief
Gravity is most certainly a scientific theory. I think perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word 'theory' in the context of science.
nuke-u-lar get it right
Now thats funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want." -Dr. Randy Pausch
Death is lighter than a feather, Duty is heavier than a mountain
Over 40 Victim of Fate
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.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
"I am allergic to piety, it makes me break out in rash judgements." - Penn Jillette
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with a lot of pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
"The man who invented the telescope found out more about heaven than the closed eyes of prayer ever discovered." - Robert G. Ingersoll
.
evolution is not fact, deal with it....what must it be like to have "mountains of evidence" yet you can't conclusively prove the theory...LOL
Big Chief
... to you.
Because you've made up your mind a priori. But it is conclusively proven to the tens of thousands of biologists and research MD's who use it everyday in their work. Maybe you should go tell them all of their science is wrong since its all based on something that hasn't been 'conclusively proven' to your standards. Or maybe you should just take high school biology over again.
.
its called:
evolution theory and they keep changing their minds all the time on the "facts"
Senior Member
Here's what KILLS me when it comes to ninnies choosing to believe in the random creation of the entire Universe...
If "they" found a car floating around in space somewhere... their first question would be "Gee, I wonder what sort of Intelligent life created this car?" - I mean, just look at how well it's designed! - we must seek out its creator"..
Yet, when it comes to a PERFECTLY TUNED FOR LIFE PLANET SUCH AS EARTH - these same "folk" all chock it up to random chance? Really? Wow...
One has GOT to be mentally unbalanced to accept the following as random chance:
- The Earth is the PERFECT Distance from the sun for sustained life.
- The Earth has the perfect atmosphere for life
- The Moon is the PERFECT distance from the Earth to make the tides go in and out
- The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.
- Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form.
- Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels.
Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable.
- Our sun is the right color. If it was redder or bluer, photosynthetic response would be weaker.
- Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.
- The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.
- The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapor and ozone levels are just right.
All random chance, yet when it comes to finding anything else, "oh, it must have a creator behind it - surely this car in space couldn't have just made itself"....
Really..........???
Last edited by -Cp; 01-25-2008 at 01:44 AM.
.
Exactly. The odds of producing the earth are far greater than a car being "suddenly" produced in space. Its like when they find artifacts that "seem" manmade, they automatically assume it "must" be manmade and then embark on some historical research to discover the creator of such and object.
Senior Member
“… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.
Senior Member
No doubt.. and what I listed doesn't even BEGIN to scratch the surface as evidence that points to a creator...
Don't even get me started on the amazing complexity of the Human Body...
Hahaha! LULzzzzz
"The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty." -Stephen Hawking
Transplanted Yankee
What might you estimate the odds to be?
Now go here and estimate the numbers of possible locations in this TINY fraction of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...ield.800px.jpg
"Representing a narrow "keyhole" view stretching to the visible horizon of the universe, the Hubble Deep Field image covers a speck of the sky only about the width of a dime 75 feet away. Though the field is a very small sample of the heavens, it is considered representative of the typical distribution of galaxies in space, because the universe, statistically, looks largely the same in all directions. Gazing into this small field, Hubble uncovered a bewildering assortment of at least 1,500galaxies at various stages of evolution."
From http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.20495
How many stars and galaxies in the universe?
The best estimates suggest that there are at least 70 thousand million million million (70 sextillion or 7 × 10E22) stars in the Universe. The Universe probably contains more than 100 thousand million (100 billion or 10E11) galaxies.
Big Chief
Do you know what the word 'theory' means, and which 'facts' have they changed their minds, on, and more importantly, who is 'they'?its called:
evolution theory and they keep changing their minds all the time on the "facts"
Cars don't have survival motive. Even a complete idiot can see that. Next.
Unless you can rigorously calculate what those chances are, you have no point.
All random chance,
Who is 'they' and what artifacts are you specifically referring to?
That's not evidence for a creator, that's evidence that the human body is complex.
Not to mention the fact that there could be multiple universes - or even infinite number of them. Also, if the universe is reborn in a 'big crunch' and subsequent 'big bang' - even if there were only one universe, it may have have had an infinite number of the cycles going back in time forever.
In an infinitely large reality, its not at all surprising that life would develop by chance.
The poster who first posted that acts as if this is the only solar system available.
With 10E22 stars in the universe, even if only one in a BILLION have planets orbiting them at the distance that is 'just right' for life, that still leaves 10E13 planets suitable for life.
.
i really don't care how the scientists mangle and twist the word to suit their agenda, the "fact" is, while evolution is obversable, the notion that science has "proven" our origins and "disproved" God is laughable.
is the universe shrinking or expanding? this changes. how old the universe changes.
if you don't know who "they" are, look up the word "context"
Senior Member
much more complex than a car - yet you'd swear up and down it must've had a creator....
You really are retarded... really...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote