11 Apr 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzChrist said not to sue people.
And apparently education is nothing in your world.
We may indeed need builders and sports stars (although quite why, I do wonder), but we also need lawyers (again, one wonders), doctors, nurses, vets, scientists, teachers, civil engineers, architects, designers and pilots.
12 Apr 07
27. When referring to the theory of evolution, professor Robert H. Peters (not me lol) said, "The essence of the argument is that these 'theories' are actually tautologies [empty statements] and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not_________."
A. scientific theories at all.
B. reliable predictors of anything.
C. ecology friendly.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by RBHILLThen he's full of crap.
27. When referring to the theory of evolution, professor Robert H. Peters (not me lol) said, "The essence of the argument is that these 'theories' are actually tautologies [empty statements] and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not_________."
A. scientific theories at all.
B. reliable predictors of anything.
C. ecology friendly.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by RBHILLTautology=empty statements pretty much sums up christianity.
27. When referring to the theory of evolution, professor Robert H. Peters (not me lol) said, "The essence of the argument is that these 'theories' are actually tautologies [empty statements] and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not_________."
A. scientific theories at all.
B. reliable predictors of anything.
C. ecology friendly.
Of course you will not lower yourself to answer such a charge.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by RBHILLAccording to the scientific method a 'theory' only qualifies as being a theory if it describes a precise empirical method in which it can be proved or disproved. For example, when Einstein proposed the theory of special relativity, he had no empirical proof for it. However, he did explain how his theory can be tested (which was done later on during a solar eclipse).
27. When referring to the theory of evolution, professor Robert H. Peters (not me lol) said, "The essence of the argument is that these 'theories' are actually tautologies [empty statements] and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not_________."
A. scientific theories at all.
B. reliable predictors of anything.
C. ecology friendly.
Anyway, that's what makes a theory acceptable according to the scientific method. The problem faced by both paleantologists and archaeologists is that the evidence is very limited and doesn't suit the methods used in other (more conventional) sciences such as chemistry.
From the above it should be clear that scientific theories are typically based on induction, while the theories of archaeologists and paleontologists are generally based on deduction. It is important to note, however, that from a logical point of view deduction is just as capable as induction - it is simply different.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by karringsnawelYou are getting confused between the word theory used in popular usage (an idea) and the word theory as a scientific term (a rigorously tested hypothesis). See the definitions sticky thread for a discussion on this by me.
According to the scientific method a 'theory' only qualifies as being a theory if it describes a precise empirical method in which it can be proved or disproved. For example, when Einstein proposed the theory of special relativity, he had no empirical proof for it. However, he did explain how his theory can be tested (which was done later on during a s ...[text shortened]... a logical point of view deduction is just as capable as induction - it is simply different.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by karringsnawelScientific theories are typically based on abduction (inference to the best explanation), not induction, and neither archeology nor paleontology are based on deductive inference. Out of curiosity, what do you think the difference is between induction and deduction?
According to the scientific method a 'theory' only qualifies as being a theory if it describes a precise empirical method in which it can be proved or disproved. For example, when Einstein proposed the theory of special relativity, he had no empirical proof for it. However, he did explain how his theory can be tested (which was done later on during a s ...[text shortened]... a logical point of view deduction is just as capable as induction - it is simply different.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by bbarrHmmm. After re-reading my first post I noticed that I switched around the inductive vs deductive methods. Whooops! Now I'm starting to feel slightly out of my depth here, but I'll respond nonetheless since I'll probably learn something in the process.
Scientific theories are typically based on abduction (inference to the best explanation), not induction, and neither archeology nor paleontology are based on deductive inference. Out of curiosity, what do you think the difference is between induction and deduction?
A deductive argument is one that typically follows an if-then structure (normally a whole chain of them) where the following feature holds: If all the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true.
An inductive argument could almost be said to be done in the opposite direction. Typically an inductive argument uses specific observations and then generalises from them. Therefore, it could turn out that the premises are true while the conclusion is false.
Now comes the part where I have to type carefully: A typical scientific hypothesis is established using inductive reasoning, which implies that the conclusion may be false even if all the premises are true. The scientist then goes one step further; he/she formulates specific implications of the inductive conclusion. If those implications can be empirically proven then we can safely feel that the hypothesis was confirmed. Of course it only requires one counterexample to disprove the hypothesis, which is why they are often revisited when new evidence comes to light.
Archaeologists (The only science closely related to evolution in which I have some experience) are in the unfortunate position that they cannot normally take the second step of the process described above, because the research data is almost always site-specific and normally relatively limited. The area of experimental archaeology have tried to bridge this gap though.
I've never heard of this term "abduction", so I did a quick google and found an interesting link at This Blog
Must admit, it's something new to me. However, the crux of my badly worded argument remains - you cannot judge evolutionary theory because it's proof doesn't precisely follow the accepted scientific method. You must, however, admit that it is the best objective explanation for the world that we know today.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by RBHILLAnswer: A. scientific theories at all. [American Naturalist, 19761 Vol. 110, p. 1] There is nothing "scientific" about evolution... it is a chosen belief about the historical origin of life.
27. When referring to the theory of evolution, professor Robert H. Peters (not me lol) said, "The essence of the argument is that these 'theories' are actually tautologies [empty statements] and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not_________."
A. scientific theories at all.
B. reliable predictors of anything.
C. ecology friendly.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by RBHILLAnswer: False. Darwin's finches demonstrate variety within the strict limits of a single species. This variety within species is what allows for different breeds of dogs. But since the dogs always remain dogs, no matter how many breeding generations, Darwinian evolution is just not taking palce.[The Answers Book, Ken Ham, 2002]
28. True or False? Darwin's finches demonstrated evolution because the birds have evolved different beaks, and this means they are diverging into separate species.