|
Nnanji -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/17/2017 6:59:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Since this is junior high school science . . .
Dude.
As for astrophysics, I'll refer you to Richard Feynman, who pointed out we learn from the observation of effects in those instances.
And--science never "proves" anything . . . another misconception. It notes what's likely given what we know so far, and continues to test and expand knowledge by so doing. When a better explanation comes along, science changes. That's a key difference between your "assumption" model and testing hypotheses.
Speculation is a dead end. You have your belief. And that's where your "learning" stops.
A theory, in the scientific sense, can be used to accurately predict occurrences. If it works . . . it's a possibility, for now, until someone explains it better.
Gravity is "just a theory" by your logic. In fact, physicists didn't understand what it was. But as Newton noted, when you drop shit, it still falls. Now we know that it's really space-time curved toward the earth that appears to attract things at the rate of 16 ft/sec/sec. But with that update -- shit still falls.
"What you think" is useless in science. It's what do you think, based on observation, might explain the phenomenon, that you can test and verify and then use to predict.
What can Creationism predict? It's one and done.
Evolution is a couple of different theories. But that there's a fossil record showing a gradual change as we move through millions of years of geological strata -- that we know well enough to predict the kinds of life we'd find at a certain place, for example.
That evolution happens in some species in abrupt jumps in response to environmental changes (punctuated equilibrium) -- like pepper moths and galapagos finches -- has been observed and studied already.
Not because someone believes it, or because someone has assumptions that favor it -- but because available data supports it, can be independently verified, and can be used to predict what we'll find in similar circumstances.
And not because someone has decided it's true, because that's not how science works. When we know more, and it works better, science updates.
Incidentally, string theory is one of many models to explain the universe, and it's an older one. Check out Carlo Rovelli's books for an entertaining and fascinating explanation of these (I won't try to explain them -- it's interesting stuff, though, and he shows why these are favored, in terms of better explaining the universe).
All of this cut and paste is fine except you totally ignored my comments to you. I notice you trimmed them so people couldn't see that your response had nothing to do with my comments to you. Now, perhaps you'll get back to the topic VML posted.
|
|
|
|
