The Theory of Evolution

[Vangelovski]

Assumption number 3 is extraordinarily honest in its candid description...

The University of Tennessee

Basic assumptions of science (Nachmias and Nachmias 1996, pp. 5-7))

1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order.

2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature. Individuals and social exhibit order; may be studied same as nature.

3. All phenomena have natural causes. Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.

4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance. (See Sjoberg and Nett previous link)

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

[Phoenix]

I'm guessing they have a very good handle on gravity, but I'm also guessing that you don't. You should ask Berkeley as they might be able to help you with the exact percentages of what we know and don't know about gravity.

Still missing the bigger picture on scientific assumptions...

Science (or scientists today) presupposes that there is a natural explanation for everything. Anything that does not fit into naturalistic philosophy is automatically discounted regardless of the evidence to support it.

However, scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent and therefore uncertain.

Here's that bit about justifying science from Wikipedia (Philosophy of Science). Before you try to make out that science is somehow omnipotent, you should get a handle on was is basically science 101. This is stuff one would have learned in high school...but then again not all schools are constant...I mean equal in Australia.

I have NO IDEA what point you're trying to prove...?

Why are you grasping so desperately at the 'assumptions' and 'uncertainties' of science...what is it that you're trying so hard to disprove or discredit.

I know you have a problem with carbon dating, I 'assume' that's because you believe the Earth is a couple of thousand years old, you believe that dinosaurs couldn't possibly be millions of years old, or that they even existed, apart from the behemoth...I'm convinced you believe the Earth is flat, any other possibility could only be an invalid 'assumption'.

[spitfire]

Still missing the bigger picture on scientific assumptions...

Science (or scientists today) presupposes that there is a natural explanation for everything. Anything that does not fit into naturalistic philosophy is automatically discounted regardless of the evidence to support it. But this in itself is an unprovable assumption and goes against what science is mean't to be - a tool to determine facts and perhaps truth.

You are missing the bigger picture because you are talking about half of the picture.

Science presupposes yes, but it tests and proves that presumption before anything else.
Therefore you are just trying to hide the whole picture.
It's OK, all creationists do that. But they don't understand that by hiding, they don't get anywhere.

However, scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent and therefore uncertain. There is no way of knowing, absolutely, whether scientific knowledge is absolutely true/correct. This in itself is also unprovable.

Says who? This is a generalization. Scientific knowledge is proven.
Maybe you are talking about something other than knowledge.

Here's what knowledge looks like

[spitfire]

Black holes are good examples with the uncertainties of science. New research suggests black holes do not exist and that in fact it is mathematically impossible for them to form or exist.

Let me ask it the way your delusions ask.

How do you know? Have you been there? Can you prove it?


I was 100% certain that some creationist who thinks he can use science whenever it suits him (therefore id) would fall into the the trap.

[Philosopher]

Let me ask it the way your delusions ask.

How do you know? Have you been there? Can you prove it?


I was 100% certain that some creationist who thinks he can use science whenever it suits him (therefore id) would fall into the the trap.

If you read the article, which obviously you did not, you would have learned it is mathematically impossible. Why not read it, before making more stupid statements?

[spitfire]

If you read the article, which obviously you did not, you would have learned it is mathematically impossible. Why not read it, before making more stupid statements?

Why don't you read anything before posting?

Speaking last week on BBC's Newsnight Professor Hawking said: 'I've been thinking about this problem for the last 30 years, and I think now I have the answer to it. A black hole only appears to form but later opens up and releases information about what fell inside. So we can be sure of the past and predict the future'.

He did not say that black holes do not exist. On the contrary he said they exist!!!!

What a moron you are! You think that by twisting what somebody said will get you anywhere?

[Vangelovski]

I have NO IDEA what point you're trying to prove...?

Why are you grasping so desperately at the 'assumptions' and 'uncertainties' of science...what is it that you're trying so hard to disprove or discredit.

I know you have a problem with carbon dating, I 'assume' that's because you believe the Earth is a couple of thousand years old, you believe that dinosaurs couldn't possibly be millions of years old, or that they even existed, apart from the behemoth...I'm convinced you believe the Earth is flat, any other possibility could only be an invalid 'assumption'.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm merely making the observation that science is not omnipotent and/because it is based on unprovable assumptions. A few posts back you made the claim that the speed of light is not an assumption - do you still hold that belief?

Why are you getting so upset?

[Vangelovski]

Science presupposes yes, but it tests and proves that presumption before anything else.

You can't prove the basic assumptions of science and there are many other unprovable assumptions that science relies on.

Says who? This is a generalization. Scientific knowledge is proven.

"Science" itself says this. I already provided the links to various universities.

Spitfire, do you believe your own posts?

[spitfire]

You can't prove the basic assumptions of science and there are many other unprovable assumptions that science relies on.

"Science" itself says this. I already provided the links to various universities.

Spitfire, do you believe your own posts?

If you want to lower the bar of science, or raise the bar of religion, then you 'd have to provide the same elements as science.

Unfortunately you can't. You 'd hope for a comparison but this is only possible in a pathetic world, where our ego is trying to imagine this possible.

No matter what you creationists do, you can't bring religion any closer to science. As time goes by you keep pretending that and as time goes by science gets further away.

All your arguments have been debunked. And to make it clearer all your arguments in the future will be debunked no matter how uncomfortable this is to you.
Science is not about your ego unfortunately. It's about the truth.

[Vangelovski]

If you want to lower the bar of science, or raise the bar of religion, then you 'd have to provide the same elements as science.

Unfortunately you can't. You 'd hope for a comparison but this is only possible in a pathetic world, where our ego is trying to imagine this possible.

No matter what you creationists do, you can't bring religion any closer to science. As time goes by you keep pretending that and as time goes by science gets further away.

All your arguments have been debunked.

That's interesting Spitfire (I'm nodding my head).

Here's an article on the speed of light from the University of California:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

Can you count how many assumptions have been made?

[Vangelovski]

Are you aware of the cern experiments? They are done very close to the speed of light. That's because you can't reach the exact speed of light because matter would collapse.

So there you go. You just showed that you are not aware of science altogether.

This article claims that something moved 10,000 times faster than the speed of light. No mention was made of matter collapsing.

Were you aware of this?

Quantum Tangle

Listen to Einstein: Nothing can move faster than the speed of light. The details of special relativity dictate that if it could then you could switch cause and effect: You could, for example, phone a friend to tell him the winner of a baseball game before the first pitch was thrown.

In 1935, Einstein and two other physicists, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, would use that fact to suggest that quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory. They devised an experiment that looked at a weird, quantum link between two particles. Entanglement seemed to say that a measurement on one particle should influence the other at the exact same instant. The trio's experiment imagined moving the entangled particles a distance away from one another. If measuring one would cause the other to change at the same time, then the two particles had communicated faster than the speed of light. Which was clearly impossible.

The problem? In the 1980s researchers performed the seemingly impossible experiment, and it worked.

Imagine the particles passing a note (or an information-laden particle) between one another. In one 2008 entanglement experiment, researchers in Geneva found that in their setup, the note must be moving at least 10,000 times the speed of light.

One way around this causality-crushing note-passing is to say that the two particles are not sending any actual information between them; instead measuring one instantly changes the other. Unfortunately, this mysterious interpretation hearkens back to Einstein's original annoyance with quantum entanglement, its "spooky action at distance."

http://discovermagazine.com/galleries/zen-photo/s/shedding-dark

[Philosopher]

Why don't you read anything before posting?

The first thing I will point out is that there were two articles referenced, not one.

Therefore, let's go over this very slowly. You asked the following questions:

How do you know? Have you been there? Can you prove it?

I said the article stated there was mathematical proof that black holes could not form.

By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.

This is evidence not based on “observation”. It is based in mathematics. This professor states black holes could never form in the first place.

However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.

So let's pick up the story.

He did not say that black holes do not exist. On the contrary he said they exist!!!!

This statement is out of order. The article I was referring to (that black holes are mathematically impossible) was from the first article I referenced, not the second.

So your statement is just wrong.

But let us exam it anyway.

The first thing I will point out is that I wrote Hawking doubts of their existence.

Does Stephen Hawking say black holes exist?

No.

He says a “black hole only appears to form, but later opens up and releases information”. So in other words, black holes do not exist!

The point of contrasting the articles was to demonstrate the “evolution” of science. Hawking's comments were from 2004. In that article, he reversed his previously held position on black holes.

Newer research, however, shows black holes cannot form at all, as it is mathematically impossible.

[spitfire]

You creationists are so funny when you use scientific terminology.

Vangelovski doesn't even know what light is yet he is fishing from here and there.

If you want answers to all that, then you are simply asking for a lot of information. It's like asking me to explain everything about light in the universe.
I'd be glad to do, but it would take sheets of posting, and I'm not sure if the database allows it.

You are gasping for air. Let me not choke you down to your arguments.

[spitfire]

This statement is out of order. The article I was referring to (that black holes are mathematically impossible) was from the first article I referenced, not the second.

So your statement is just wrong.

But let us exam it anyway.

The first thing I will point out is that I wrote Hawking doubts of their existence.

Does Stephen Hawking say black holes exist?

No.

He says a “black hole only appears to form, but later opens up and releases information”. So in other words, black holes do not exist!

The point of contrasting the articles was to demonstrate the “evolution” of science. Hawking's comments were from 2004. In that article, he reversed his previously held position on black holes.

Newer research, however, shows black holes cannot form at all, as it is mathematically impossible.

You are out of order not me.

Hawkings especially talked about the black hole, not the other way around!

You are masturbating all over the thread Philosopher. Blatant lies!!!

I don't have time for people who are liers! Now apologise liar and let's move on.

[Phoenix]

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm merely making the observation that science is not omnipotent and/because it is based on unprovable assumptions. A few posts back you made the claim that the speed of light is not an assumption - do you still hold that belief?

Why are you getting so upset?

Where exactly did I say that...?