N
Namesake
Guest
What are his credentials?
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I cannot speak authoritatively on cardiac surgery, because I am ignorant about that subject. The pope is not qualified to speak authoritatively about science, because the statement you quoted (about a “complete, scientifically proven theory”) shows that he is ignorant about important aspects of the philosophy of science.
StAnastasia
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 405 years old and counting
N
Namesake
Guest
That’s nice. But what are the pope’s credentials in science? Or are you suggesting that whatever the Pontifical Academy of Sciences finds is what the pope knows? Be careful now, it’s a trick question.The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 405 years old and counting
E
edwest2
Guest
It is wrong to claim that only scientists can speak about science. Anyone can learn.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
the idea that science doesnt prove anything is belied in practice. we can talk all day long concerning the ‘ideal’ of the philosophy of science, yet in practice science both proves, and attempts to prove that various theories map too reality. i.e aerodynamics, chemistry, geology, etc. all sciences researched, well enough to be called proven, i.e. airplanes fly, looks like a ‘proven’ theory to me.
and i dare say that evolution, and abiogenesis, would be seriously considered unproven,
yes, i understand new info may come in concerning theory, but planes arent going to drop out of the sky because of it.
all subjects concerning physical phenomenon contain a finite amount of information, it seems as though the implication is that none of these theories can be proven until all that information is known and categorized and verified. if that were true then we shouldn’t build airplanes,
so that argument is completely fallacious and can only really be a factor in the classroom
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
i am saying that if the Pope Benedict cares to speak on any particular aspect of the sciences, he has access to all the relevant information. from a well established source.
how is that a trick question?
ttahs srcsaam, i maen to say it wsnat vrey tkciry
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Nope. Science can’t do logical certainty. What you call “proof” is actually “sufficient evidence to conclude it is true.”
In the sense you’re using, evolution is proven, since it has been directly observed. And even common descent is “proven” in the sense you use, since there is overwhelming evidence from observed evolution, fossil evidence, DNA data, etc.
And yet, when we didn’t quite understand the nature of lift at high speeds, planes did fall out of the sky because of it.
No scientific theory will ever be proven, but things like evolution and aeordynamics are sufficiently well supported by evidence as to make them a rather good bet.
Now you know better.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Proof Proof, n. [OF. prove, proeve, F. preuve, fr. L. proba,
fr. probare to prove. See Prove.]
[1913 Webster]
- Any effort, process, or operation designed to establish or
discover a fact or truth; an act of testing; a test; a
trial.
[1913 Webster]
and since there is a finite amount of data concerning any physical subject, than logical certainty is possible, if admittedly so difficult as to preclude it in practicality
and in that same loose sense a creator must be proven from Aquinas’ First Cause, the universe is overwhelming evidence
note that additional information did not cause the crash, lack of complete information did.
thats my point, in practice there really seems to be no difference between ‘proven’ and ‘a good bet’
thats just saying the same thing with different words
now you know better
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You don’t really understand how science works, do you?
H
hecd2
Guest
Well I can understand that they are competent to critique Dawkins’s philosophical reasoning behind his atheism. But I don’t see how they could be competent to critique Dawkins’s insights and understanding of the mechanics of evolution. For that they would have to be trained scientists, so if this is their approach, they would be out of their depth. However, this is all hypothetical, as I haven’t yet read the book. I’ve just realised that I bought the book, and it’s in my pile of new unread books. You’ve piqued my interest, so I’ll move it to the top.
Well you don’t need to have any knowledge of science to enjoy and understand the Ancestor’s Tale, but you do need to think and have your wits about you.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
M
m134e5
Guest
Catholics have nothing to fear from science. By studying science, one comes to understand God’s design for creation- and to appreciate it even more.
H
hecd2
Guest
Can you imagine any idiot using a geocentric frame to calculate the interplanetary trajectory (never mind the complete idiocy of using a geostatic frame) for a planetary probe?
You do realise that all calculations of spacecraft trajectories are conducted using Newtonian mechanics (or Eisteinian mechanics if relativistic effects are important), no matter what frame of reference is chosen to do the calculation? You talk as though you think calculations in the geocentric frame don’t use “godless” mechanics. They do. Seems to work.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Yep, but you actually have to have done the learning. Why don’t you learn, Ed?
When are going to answer this for us - we really want to know:
*______________________________________________
Explain how breathing the same atmosphere and living on the same earth leads to the same limb structure in the entire tetrapod clade (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals):
Humerus; radius and ulna; metacarpals; pentadactylous phalanges
Femur; tibia and fibula; metatarsals; pentadactylous phalanges
In particular explain pentadactyly. Five digits. Good luck.*
*Explain how breathing the same atmosphere and living on the same earth leads to the same dentition of 32 teeth with the same complement of incisors, canines, pre-molars and molars in all Old World (but not New World) monkeys, non-human apes, and humans. Oh - and fossil humans. But not dogs (42 teeth), cats (30 teeth), elephants (24), birds (none), mice (16), horses (36 - 44) Why does sharing the same atmosphere and gravity lead apes and humans to have the same dental pattern?
*Alec
evolutionpages.com/pederpes%20finneyae.htm
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Not true in science, at least. No one can ever hope to get all the relevant data. We just sample and make inferences. You need to learn how science works.
Barbarian observes:
In the sense you’re using, evolution is proven, since it has been directly observed. And even common descent is “proven” in the sense you use, since there is overwhelming evidence from observed evolution, fossil evidence, DNA data, etc.
**Not from that, at all. St. Paul writes:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. 2 For by this the ancients obtained a testimony. 3 By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God; that from invisible things visible things might be made. **
Have some faith in faith, petey.
Barbarian observes:
And yet, when we didn’t quite understand the nature of lift at high speeds, planes did fall out of the sky because of it.
You’re starting to catch on. There is no “proof” in science.
Barbarian observes:
No scientific theory will ever be proven, but things like evolution and aeordynamics are sufficiently well supported by evidence as to make them a rather good bet.
Other than an airplane falling out of the sky now and then.
B
buffalo
Guest
As long as the conclusions are pure of a reigning worldview.
C
cassini
Guest
My point is that confirmation of Newton’s predictions were forged correct so that his heliocentricism could be shown to have been ‘proven’. I see you confirm this. This in turn was added to all the other so-called proofs to con the Churchmen of 1741 and 1820 to ignore a papal decree. In other words, the decision of Churchmen was based on a fraud.
I really am not interested in gravitational measuring of the earth. Cassini never presented it as a way to measure a heliocentric solar system. He rejected Newtonianism and he knew more about astronomy than Newton ever did. Indeed hecd2, can you name one astronomer during the era of the Copernican revolution. You cannot, because they were alll geocentricists. Now isn’t that gas, not one astronomer of note in the history of the fraud from G to H.
C
cassini
Guest
Because God created it so.
C
cassini
Guest
The answer pal, which is open to speculation, will be found to concord with two possible theories, the universe with its effects turns around global earth, or as you prefer the earth rotates.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Cassini never presented it as a way to measure a heliocentric solar system. He rejected Newtonianism and he knew more about astronomy than Newton ever did.
No mention of Cassini, but there is Newton in my book
University Physics
Seventh Edition by Sears/Zemansky/Young
Part One, Mechanics and Fundamentals:
Chapter 4 – NEWTON’S LAWS OF MOTION
4-1 Force
4-2 Equilibrium and Newton’s first law
4-3 Mass and Newton’s second law
4-4 Systems of units
4-5 Mass and weight
4-6 Newton’s third law
4-7 Applications of Newton’s laws
4-8 Inertial frames of reference
Chapter 5 – APPLICATIONS OF NEWTON’S LAWS - I
5-1 Forces in Nature
5-2 Contact forces and friction
5-3 Equilibrium of a particle
5-4 Applications of Newton’s second law
Chapter 6 – APPLICATIONS OF NEWTON’S LAWS – II
6-1 Force in circular motion
6-2 Motion in vertical circle
6-3 Newton’s law of gravitation
6-4 Gravitational field
6-5 Satellite motion
6-6 Effect of the earth’s rotation on g
There is over 1096 pages in the book. iT’S FUN TO LEARN! Have you ever taken a course in physics or studied physics?
edwest2;4528199:
Sweet. Very Sweet.
- Status