- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are theories on evolution, climate change, etc sacrosanct,
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:41 am to Joshjrn
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:41 am to Joshjrn
LINK
All I am saying as far as Newton is concerned is apparently in some quarters it is still be taught as Law, and apparently some quarters it is not. That is a problem for academia. But even your own response to me about it said that it was no longer considered law (Because, it was, no doubt considered scientific law at one point)is because it is now considered flawed.
Maybe I am wrong. (It certainly wouldn't be the first time) however, your response indicates to me that if it were not flawed in some way it would still be considered law. Is this correct, or is it not?
All I am saying as far as Newton is concerned is apparently in some quarters it is still be taught as Law, and apparently some quarters it is not. That is a problem for academia. But even your own response to me about it said that it was no longer considered law (Because, it was, no doubt considered scientific law at one point)is because it is now considered flawed.
Maybe I am wrong. (It certainly wouldn't be the first time) however, your response indicates to me that if it were not flawed in some way it would still be considered law. Is this correct, or is it not?
2
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:52 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Maybe I am wrong. (It certainly wouldn't be the first time) however, your response indicates to me that if it were not flawed in some way it would still be considered law. Is this correct, or is it not?
Yes and no, and technically it can still be construed as a scientific law in extremely limited circumstances, kind of.
I think we should pause for a second and make sure we understand what we're discussing. This is Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation:
That's it. It intends to explain the observed effect of the force of attraction between objects. Note that it contains no words, because it's not intended to be an explanation of anything. It's simply a reporting of observed effect.
We now know that Newton's Law isn't nearly as "universal" as it claims to be, and we're not even certain if it's perfectly true in any circumstance, so it's status as "law" is tenuous at best.
But...
This actually has little to do with whether explanations for gravity, evolution, climate change, etc, could ever be scientific laws. Because scientific laws, by definition, can only describe effects and never causes, it's not at all persuasive to say that there is no law of evolution: it's simply tautological.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 10:27 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Maybe I am wrong. (It certainly wouldn't be the first time) however, your response indicates to me that if it were not flawed in some way it would still be considered law. Is this correct, or is it not?
That's incorrect. This is a great piece that explains this. Scientific theory and theory as used by detectives on TV are simply not the same thing. That's cool if you don't know that...information is great. however, most folks on the right that have been advocating for Creationism and it's reorded name of Intelligent Design who professionally do this ABSOLUTELY KNOW this and are attempting to use this misunderstanding to muddy the waters. Lying is bad...regardless of why one is lying.
LINK
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News