The flaws in Intelligent design

[ImmortalFlame]

What it might be "based on" is completely irrelevant.

Again, it really isn't. Observation is a fundamental part of the scientific process.

The fact is that there are no observations in either E=mc^2 or in the theory of relativity.

Are you serious? E=mc^2 is BASED on observation.

They are both falsifiable models that predict nature.

... That are based on observations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What it might be "based on" is completely irrelevant. The fact is that there are no observations in either E=mc^2 or in the theory of relativity.

They are both falsifiable models that predict nature.

As has been pointed out E= mc^2 is a formula. My gif was an observation of that since it showed the results of mass turning into energy. You need to use the image that I posted and try to apply it to our discussion.

Scientific theories are models .if the universe. We test them by seeing if observations match what the model predicts. For the theory of relativity there are countless ways of testing it. If your cell phone has GPS it is continually testing it. So far it works.

 

[IBdaMann]

Wrong again. I continually demonstrate a far deeper understanding than you do.

In your dreams. I know eighth graders with a more solid grasp of science than you have.


[QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 6042887, member: 63191"That is why I am trying to limit the discussion to ideas that you should be able to understand. [/QUOTE]
Translation: you are desperate to steer the discussion away from, well, any sort of science lest your scientific illiteracy be made apparent.

I made you painfully aware of how Wikipedia will fail you in your rush to get "up to speed" on new topics, so now you just hope to avoid it altogether.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your dreams. I know eighth graders with a more solid grasp of science than you have.
Translation: you are desperate to steer the discussion away from, well, any sort of science lest your scientific illiteracy be made apparent.

I made you painfully aware of how Wikipedia will fail you in your rush to get "up to speed" on new topics, so now you just hope to avoid it altogether.

No, I am trying to help you. Right now you do not even have a high school level of understanding of the scientific method. You constantly demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of what science is.

Tell us in your own words what is and what is not "science".

 

[IBdaMann]

Again, it really isn't. Observation is a fundamental part of the scientific process.

Sure, observations and data are useful for developing science, but not required. Once you develop science, you no longer need observations and data because you have the science (except to possibly prove it false, but then you wouldn't have science anymore).

Are you serious? E=mc^2 is BASED on observation.

Please give me a break. You repeat this as though it matters. It probably isn't even true.

Answer the question: What observations are in E=mc^2

I'll tell you on what it is based: an epiphany that occurred to Einstein

There. We should be done on this topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, observations and data are useful for developing science, but not required. Once you develop science, you no longer need observations and data because you have the science (except to possibly prove it false, but then you wouldn't have science anymore).


Please give me a break. You repeat this as though it matters. It probably isn't even true.

Answer the question: What observations are in E=mc^2

I'll tell you on what it is based: an epiphany that occurred to Einstein

There. We should be done on this topic.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of what science is at all.

Once again, in your own words what is science?

 

[IBdaMann]

You constantly demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of what science is.

I feel sorry for anyone who genuinely wants your "assessment."

Tell us in your own words what is and what is not "science".

You mean that you want me to teach you ... again. Sure.

Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Religion is ideological dogma that is taken on faith.

Black body science, chemistry, laws of thermodynamics, are good examples of science.

Global Warming, Christianity, Climate Change, Islam, are all good examples of religion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sure, observations and data are useful for developing science, but not required. Once you develop science, you no longer need observations and data because you have the science (except to possibly prove it false, but then you wouldn't have science anymore).

You seem really very confused as to what science actually is. Do you or do you not understand that science is a methodology which STARTS with observation, and continues making further observations with the intent of expanding on or potentially falsifying existing hypotheses?

Please give me a break. You repeat this as though it matters. It probably isn't even true.

*facepalm*

No, clearly Albert Einstein just put a jumble of letters together on a blackboard one day and found, by sheer accident, that it perfectly described mass-energy equivalence. It was just a pure fluke based on absolutely no prior knowledge or observation whatsoever!

Answer the question: What observations are in E=mc^2

The question is malformed. It's an equation that DESCRIBES an observation.

I'll tell you on what it is based: an epiphany that occurred to Einstein

Are you serious?

There. We should be done on this topic.

You're adorable. Can we keep you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I feel sorry for anyone who genuinely wants your "assessment."


You mean that you want me to teach you ... again. Sure.

Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Hey! That is a good start and the first correct statement you have made today. Now let's discuss the scary picture.

Religion is ideological dogma that is taken on faith.

Black body science, chemistry, laws of thermodynamics, are good examples of science.

Global Warming, Christianity, Climate Change, Islam, are all good examples of religion.

Oh so sad! You were doing so well. Global warming has been observed. Climate change is the theory that explains it. But you are not ready for that yet. Let's discuss the picture that appears to frighten you.

 

[IBdaMann]

Because they all make predictions about the past

We shoul go back and erase everything you've said up to this point and give you an opportunity to look up what "predict" means.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We shoul go back and erase everything you've said up to this point and give you an opportunity to look up what "predict" means.

He is spot on. Let's discuss the image of the scientific method that I posted.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We shoul go back and erase everything you've said up to this point and give you an opportunity to look up what "predict" means.

To expect something in advance, i.e: to be able to pre-empt the truth of something before it is known.

 

[IBdaMann]

You seem really very confused as to what science actually is.

No, that would be you. You think science is a methodology of all things.

Do you or do you not understand that science is a methodology

Science is not a methodology. Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. Sometimes it is referred to as the "body of science."

You should find it embarrassing that you never learned what science is.

which STARTS with observation,

So, instead of EVADING the question, try answering it this time. You INSIST that observations are an important part of this nutritious breakfast, so tell me, what observations are in E=mc^2 ?

Do you even know what an hypothesis is, beyond the Wikipedia misunderstanding?

No, clearly Albert Einstein just put a jumble of letters together on a blackboard one day and found, by sheer accident, that it perfectly described mass-energy equivalence.

*facepalm*

So you imagine that E=mc^2 came about by something other than an epiphany from Einstein? You think that some observations put a jumble of letters together on a blackboard one day and found, by sheer accident, that it perfectly described mass-energy equivalence?

You clearly have a kung-fu grip on science.

Yes, I'll keep you.

 

[IBdaMann]

Let's discuss the image of the scientific method that I posted.

I'm not going to waste my time. If you had taken notes when you should have, you'd already know what's missing.

Get a graphic that has what is needed and I'll gladly join you. Until then, I'll let the two of you misinform yourselves.

 

[IBdaMann]

To expect something in advance, i.e: to be able to pre-empt the truth of something before it is known.

To say in advance, not after the fact. There is a timeline component. One can only predict the future. Science is a prediction of the future, e.g. if I drop an object it will accelerate towards the center of the earth. Humans can use science to speculate about the past, but the speculation itself cannot be science.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, that would be you. You think science is a methodology of all things.

Because that's literally what it is.

Science is not a methodology. Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. Sometimes it is referred to as the "body of science."

And how does science produce these falsifiable models?

Could it be because it's a... methodology?

You should find it embarrassing that you never learned what science is.

You're funny.

So, instead of EVADING the question, try answering it this time. You INSIST that observations are an important part of this nutritious breakfast, so tell me, what observations are in E=mc^2 ?

I already explained that the question is malformed. The equation COMES FROM observation, it is a RESULT of the process, it doesn't "contain" observations.

Do you even know what an hypothesis is, beyond the Wikipedia misunderstanding?

Do you know what a cogent argument is?

*facepalm*

So you imagine that E=mc^2 came about by something other than an epiphany from Einstein? You think that some observations put a jumble of letters together on a blackboard one day and found, by sheer accident, that it perfectly described mass-energy equivalence?

You realize that E=mc^2 was a conclusion arrived at after several essays worth of research, right? It was the RESULT of his observations, not an epiphany gleaned from nowhere. Here's the actual paper in which he first touched on the subject (initially written as m = E/c^2 in the footnotes): Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy-Content?

You clearly have a kung-fu grip on science.

Says the guy who thinks science isn't a methodology and doesn't involve observation.

Yes, I'll keep you.

I'm too smart for you, I'm afraid.

 

[IBdaMann]

Not sure why you dragged greenhouse gasses into this thread. This is the evolution vs. creationism forum.

It was Greenhouse Effect and I mentioned it as an example of a religious theory, like Intelligent Design.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To say in advance, not after the fact.

No, "after the fact" is irrelevant, because something can be predicted before it is KNOWN. It doesn't necessarily have to have not actually occurred yet.

There is a timeline component.

Only in that the prediction is made before it is known.

One can only predict the future.

False.

For example, I can make statement X: "I think if we dig in area Y, we will find object Z."
Then, we can search area Y, and if in doing so we find object Z, then statement X becomes a successful prediction.

See how that works?

Science is a prediction of the future, e.g. if I drop an object it will accelerate towards the center of the earth.

No, science can - and does - also make predictions about the past. For example, using studies of both extant and ancient examples of fossilized species, scientists are able to predict when and where certain transitional forms will appear in the fossil record. Here's a list containing a number of similar evolutionary predictions: Is Evolution Science?

Humans can use science to speculate about the past, but the speculation itself cannot be science.

Until it's confirmed by observations.

 

[IBdaMann]

Because that's literally what it is.

Not at all. In fact even Wikipedia gets it right. The literal translation of "science" is "knowledge."

And how does science produce these falsifiable models?

Science doesn't produce any science. Humans produce science and add each new model to the body of science. Humans also falsify existing models and remove those that are false from the body of science.

I already explained that the question is malformed.

No, you did not explain anything. You merely claimed the question was "malformed" so you could EVADE it.

I'll answer the question since you fled from it. There are obviously no observations in E=mc^2. Your insistence that there are is absurd.

The equation COMES FROM observation, it is a RESULT of the process...

Absurd. It quite obviously came from an epiphany that Einstein had. He was sitting around one day and he just realized it.

Was Einstein somehow required to put in a minimum number of man-hours poring over data while wearing a lab coat?

 

[IBdaMann]

No, "after the fact" is irrelevant, because something can be predicted before it is KNOWN. It doesn't necessarily have to have not actually occurred yet.

I'm afraid you need to go back AGAIN and learn what "predict" means. Yes, a prediction necessarily has to be made BEFORE occurrence. One does not "predict" what is in the closet. One merely guesses, or speculates.

Until it's confirmed by observations.

The only way to confirm by observation some speculation of the past is with a time machine. We don't have any.