Evolution (and abiongenesis, Cosmology, etc) vs ID, again

[Stormwind-City]

"le emoji face! wow i've got myself laughing at my own emoji hahaha"

You do realize that the scientist that shows Evolution wrong would be world famous and rich right?

You are misusing the term theory. ID is not even a hypothesis because it is not even testable.

Sorry about that. I'll try to start using hypothesis instead of theory when referring to ID. Although I do still think I was getting the point across with the term 'theory'.

We do not need to recreate the big bang, there is other evidence, like the redshift.

Of course, but I believe some one suggested re-creation of it. Considering that the big bang is such a large, large concept, isn't there a small possibility that it could be wrong?

I present to you, the Big Bang in ~3 minutes.

I know how the big bang works.

When discussing scientific subjects, using words like 'theory' and 'hypothesis' incorrectly to make a point is frowned upon.

If if if if if if if if. We can say 'if' as many times as we want, but the current scientific observations lend credence to the Big bang as the origins of the universe.

[Geilinor]

Quite awhile back, even.

Well, abiogenesis, that is. Recreating evolution is just making a bacterial culture plate...

We don't need to recreate it. We can see evolution happening with bacteria all the time.

I understand that, but there's no way that we could create the big bang other than trying to do it practically blindfolded with a computer simulation.

This thread is not about the Big Bang.

[Sociobiology]

We do not need to recreate the big bang, there is other evidence, like the redshift.

It's still just a theory, though. Honestly we don't understand enough about our universe to make a call on it.

a theory is the best you get in science, there is nothing higher.

[United North Atlantic States]

Problem is is that the bible is already publish, and really, can't be edited too much

Well, considering how many different translations there's been of it (and how many times these different versions have been analyzed in-depth), it qualifies hands down as the most peer-reviewed subject in existence.

Exactly. The Bible has been so heavily peer-"reviewed", in fact, that a significant portion of it has been traced to Mesopotamian and Egyptian Bronze-Age mythologies dating thousands of years before the Bible was compiled. It has been thoroughly taken apart by countless historians, its entire history documented, and all of its various myths, fallacies, and contradictions well laid out.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

I'm simply suggesting that ID could be a plausible theory.

Please, do us all a favor, and look up what a theory actually is.
http://tinyurl.com/o56pagx

Hypothesis*. I'm in the habit of calling it a theory.

Sorry about that. I'll try to start using hypothesis instead of theory when referring to ID. Although I do still think I was getting the point across with the term 'theory'.

It's not even a hypothesis. Again, it makes claims that can't be falsified and repeatedly tested.

I know how the big bang works.

Suuure you do.

I'm an atheist, and I support evolution and the big bang. I'm simply stating that ID could be a plausible hypothesis, and I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. I'm sure that there's evidence backing it up here and there (but I can't find anything on it myself, Esternial said that evidence does exist, although it deconstructs itself) that suggests that ID is something that is highly plausible and could be accepted.

[Neutraligon]

I understand that, but there's no way that we could create the big bang other than trying to do it practically blindfolded with a computer simulation.

This thread is not about the Big Bang.

Yes it is.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

This thread is not about the Big Bang.

Yet I'm still discussing evolution and ID. I'm not going to derail the thread.

[Neutraligon]

Please, do us all a favor, and look up what a theory actually is.
http://tinyurl.com/o56pagx

Hypothesis*. I'm in the habit of calling it a theory.

It's not even a hypothesis. Again, it makes claims that can't be falsified and repeatedly tested.

Suuure you do.

I'm an atheist, and I support evolution and the big bang. I'm simply stating that ID could be a plausible hypothesis, and I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. I'm sure that there's evidence backing it up here and there (but I can't find anything on it myself, Esternial said that evidence does exist, although it deconstructs itself) that suggests that ID is something that is highly plausible and could be accepted.

Because it is not testable. That is why it is not even a hypothesis. TO be a hypothesis it needs to be testable. There is no evidence that supports it. Plausible is not enough and comes with it's own problems.

[Esternial]

It's still just a theory, though. Honestly we don't understand enough about our universe to make a call on it.

a theory is the best you get in science, there is nothing higher.

Not entirely correct. A "law" would be higher than a theory.

But yes, I should rephrase that as a "shady theory"...or something like that.

[Mavorpen]

I'm an atheist, and I support evolution and the big bang.

Good for you.

I'm simply stating that ID could be a plausible hypothesis, and I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

Nothing. That's not what I argued against. I argued against you trying to pretend that random articles that aren't peer reviewed publications constitutes evidence for ID. It doesn't.

I'm sure that there's evidence backing it up here and there (but I can't find anything on it myself, Esternial said that evidence does exist, although it deconstructs itself) that suggests that ID is something that is highly plausible and could be accepted.

Then let me know when you find it. Otherwise, don't expect me or anyone else, really, to take it seriously.

[United North Atlantic States]

This thread is not about the Big Bang.

Yes it is.

Actually it isn't. You should know that if you've read the OP.

[Lost heros]

a theory is the best you get in science, there is nothing higher.

Not entirely correct. A "law" would be higher than a theory.

But yes.

No, laws and theories are two completely different things...

[Esternial]

Not entirely correct. A "law" would be higher than a theory.

But yes.

No, laws and theories are two completely different things...

I was under the impression a theory could be a law, though not vice-versa.

Well, of course the term is only used in natural science.

[Neutraligon]

a theory is the best you get in science, there is nothing higher.

Not entirely correct. A "law" would be higher than a theory.

But yes, I should rephrase that as a "shady theory"...or something like that.

No it is not. a Theory contains laws. A theory is the highest thing one can get in science.

[Geilinor]

Not entirely correct. A "law" would be higher than a theory.

But yes.

No, laws and theories are two completely different things...

There's no hierarchy, but theories usually explain laws.

[Mavorpen]

No, laws and theories are two completely different things...

I was under the impression a theory could be a law, though not vice-versa.

...What? No. Theories are the collection of observations and data and explanations for those observations. Laws are merely descriptions of patterns observed given certain parameters.

[Sociobiology]

a theory is the best you get in science, there is nothing higher.

Not entirely correct. A "law" would be higher than a theory.

incorrect
laws are components of theories, a theory cannot be come a law nor can a law become a theory.

[Esternial]

Not entirely correct. A "law" would be higher than a theory.

incorrect
laws are components of theories, a theory cannot be come a law nor can a law become a theory.

Ah, I see. I thus stand corrected.

[Neutraligon]

This is the law of gravitation
Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:[3]
Diagram of two masses attracting one another

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\
where:

F is the force between the masses;
G is the gravitational constant (6.673×10−11 N · (m/kg)2);
m1 is the first mass;
m2 is the second mass;
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.

It is contained with the theory.

[Tekania]

It's still just a theory, though. Honestly we don't understand enough about our universe to make a call on it.

It is...just a theory... but then so is Germ theory.

Indeed "just a theory" is such a stupid turn of phrase. When someone puts "just a" in front of "Theory" when talking about a scientific thing, they are demonstrating that they have no clue what a scientific theory is.

[Sanctissima]

Actually, that is my point. You'd be surprised how many scientific papers there's been on the Bible. I do, of course, use the term "scientific" loosely, but still, there's been a lot of academic peer-reviewed papers done on the Bible.

It's not my field of study, but I have my doubts on the validity of any paper that studies any kind of text or scripture compared to - for example - a paper on antibiotics resistance in soil bacteria. I'm used to using data and test results, whereas that kind of academic paper seems almost entirely dependent on interpretation.

The validity is fairly concrete. I mean, keeping in mind that it's not the type of peer-reviewed text where numbers (although some people have really gone in-depth with using the Bible to calculate the age of the Earth) or statistics would be prevalent, the papers on the subject are still very academic. Most people who do these peer-reviews are theologists (take that as you will), but I've rarely come across a paper that wasn't extremely academic. The kind of stuff these papers deal with is, narrow, to say the least (like comparing eschatology in the Old Testament to typology in the New Testament), but the explanations given are far more academic than you might think.

[United North Atlantic States]

You're all spewing misinformation.

A hypothesis is a testable, but untested, claim.
A "law" is an established scientific fact describing particular phenomena. It is a single piece of a theory.
A theory is a well-tested, thoroughly established body of evidence that describes a large group of related phenomena and acts as an explanation for them. It has nothing to do with laws or hypotheses, other than the fact that they may have contributed indirectly to the theory's formation.

[Conscentia]

a theory is the best you get in science, there is nothing higher.

Not entirely correct. A "law" would be higher than a theory.

But yes.

Scientific laws are not "higher" than theories. Theories are composed of scientific laws, and the explanations for them.

A (really) simple description would be:
Hypotheses predict.
Laws describe.
Theories explain.

From a hypothesis one derives laws, from laws one derives theories.
You observe. You predict based on your observations. You test the prediction. If the prediction is always true under the same conditions, then you can get a law describing the phenomenon you predicted. If you have a decent description of the phenomenon composed of laws, then you can begin to explain. You must then go on to test your explanation.

[Esternial]

This is the law of gravitation
Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:[3]
Diagram of two masses attracting one another

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\
where:

F is the force between the masses;
G is the gravitational constant (6.673×10−11 N · (m/kg)2);
m1 is the first mass;
m2 is the second mass;
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.

It is contained with the theory.

There was no need to go through all that trouble, but thank you. I shall never make that mistake again.

I'm also sorry for causing a threadjack of this magnitude.

[Narland]

incorrect
laws are components of theories, a theory cannot be come a law nor can a law become a theory.

Ah, I see. I thus stand corrected.

so then, the component model of component theory based on the law of componentiality would be a valid expression should we test the hypothesis...