by dubstepped 340 Replies latest jw friends
Sure the standard model doesn't fit in dark matter. But Newton's theories work very well empirically under ordinary circumstances but they don't explain other things. Maxwell's theories explain electromagnetism quite well without encompassing the weak force or gravity. Incomplete that's all but for most things, it works.
Of course, we're assuming dark matter exists. We once thought ether existed.
I agree entirely, Outahere. I could add more, but I don't want to derail the thread.
Lol, the creationists derailed my thread with words meaning nothing a long time ago. Do what you want. No worries.
I got answers to my questions, something creationists never provide outside of fluffy words and vague Bible threats.
Who really cares what anyone believes so long as it doesn't result in any sort of bad behavior? - Old Navy
No one as long as they keep it to themselves. - me
Who are "they" and what is "it" that they should keep to themselves? You wouldn't be advocating censorship or non-freedom of speech, wouldja now? - Old Navy
I was referring to religions that are harmful. I would go into it in more detail but that would be drifting too far from the thread which was about asking cofty to explain evolution.
If this hasn't already been said before, I'll suggest this: try reading up on the subject from a source that isn't automatically biased against it right from the start.
@shepherdless:
The standard model of particle physics has not been proven "beyond reasonable doubt". In fact, its inability to explain, for example, "dark matter" is a puzzle, not yet solved.
ok. has any theory in your opinion been proven beyond reasonable doubt?
by your standard evolution certainly hasn't as there are still a lot of stuff evolution does not explain well atm...
no theory can explain everything, so no theory is proven beyond reasonable doubt, so we are back to relativism???
ok. has any theory in your opinion been proven beyond reasonable doubt?
Yes, I would consider theories such as the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity as proven beyond reasonable doubt. Other theories, such as:
have not been proven "beyond reasonable doubt". Science does not give a different name to theories that have or have not, been proven beyond doubt. Once a hypothesis survives a few different types of experiments and observations, it gets called a "theory" and never earns an upgraded term.
by your standard evolution certainly hasn't as there are still a lot of stuff evolution does not explain well atm...
Take this analogy. I have a theory that the road going past my house can be used by cars. I observe that it is flat and smooth with no steep parts, and connects all the way to and from the freeway. Furthermore, I have seen cars drive past my house. I have no idea what was the colour of the first car ever to drive past my house. In fact, I do not know the colour of the first car to drive past this morning. I may never find out. But I think my theory is proven beyond reasonable doubt, especially after seeing cars go past my house, even though I am unable to provide these colours.
Furthermore, my theory does not explain who built the road. But I have a different theory about that.
I have another theory that trucks might be able to drive past my house as well. I have never seen a truck drive past my house, but it looks to me like a truck should be able to. Perhaps if a truck came past my house, it might sink. I doubt it, but I cant prove it won't. This is an example of a theory not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
no theory can explain everything, so no theory is proven beyond reasonable doubt, so we are back to relativism???
Well, I disagree with the first part (for reasons given above), and I am not sure what you mean by the second. I avoid words like "relativism" because they mean different things to different people and end up in tangled SBF type arguments where nobody is sure what the argument is, or even can agree what particular words mean.
Or how about electricity as an example?
Electrical theory holds that electrons and protons have a property known as "charge" and that the movement of charge is "current."
Could we prove this with the same rigor demanded of evolutionary theory? How do you observe the displacement of subatomic particles? (Except through very indirect means..)
The theory made sense in many, many ways. It explained the distinction between conductors, insulators and semiconductors It allowed us to build generators and power grids. It allowed us to create the vacuum tube, which gave rise to television and radio. It allowed us to create the transistor by doping materials like silicon with various impurities and combining the results into PNP and NPN configurations. It allowed us to combine transistors into simple switches, which gave rise to digital electronics and the world as we know it today.
But there is still a healthy level of inquiry and debate in this field. Why, for example is a superb conductor, like gold foil, utterly opaque to photons?
Evolutionary theory is similar. It is a fact that animal populations change over time. The mammals of North America are very, very different today than they were just 10,000 years ago. It is a fact that new species come into existence via natural forces. One of the most popular landscape plants in the American Southwest, the Golden Barrel cactus was a new species resulting from a chance hybridization.
Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain this phenomenon, but it is not perfect and it is not complete. But this acknowledgement is not quite the same thing as saying the phenomenon itself doesn't exist. Or that it even remotely resembles the creation model.
@shepherdless: lol, you are applying an ENORMEOUS double standard!
There are things the standard model does not explain like dark matter and other things that falls outside its scope. but within what it tries to explain it is pretty damn precise. tell me a single experiment that it has failed?
evolutionary theory on the other hand have no explanation for a bunch of stuff, like the origin of thought.
so if you want to say the standard model has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt bc it does not explain EVERYTHING (like dark matter), you got to apply the same principle to evolution.
But there is still a healthy level of inquiry and debate in this field. Why, for example is a superb conductor, like gold foil, utterly opaque to photons?
and how do f#cking magnets work??
There are ppl that know this stuff just google it.
you can't compare this to something like thought where scientist have no flipping clue how it even works much less explain how it got to be like it is.
I am not saying that mean God made it or anything. But u can't equate evolution to something like the standard model bc there are so many things about evolution we still don't know because it happened a billion years ago.
