Quote:
Originally Posted by nkgupta80  observable data is observations...if I observe a monkey on a tree, its observable data. If I see that two species have similar characteristics its observable data. |
So, we are back to where we started … OK. Let’s try to do it in your way. If you observe a monkey on a tree, it is observable data, or in my words event. If you see that two species have similar characteristics it is not observable data, you have made at least 2 assumptions which depend on your personal view. I see the same species with totally different characteristics, like you and I. That’s why when you twist the wording of the rules you fail. I cannot be repeating the same things over and over again… It is another proof that evolutionists do not want to play by rules of science… There are 4 rules and there are terms in the rules…
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkgupta80 Secondly, Acquinas, on the nature of causes doesn't prove anything special. There must be a first cause with no beginning... Ok... sure we'll call that god. But what practical purpose is there, I can call that god, someone calls it Allah, another calls it a singularity, someone else calls it an infinite transgression, whatever. his later proofs of god begin sticking in interesting but highly subjective and indirect conclusions. Like: everything tends towards the best, so there must be a perfection, which is god. OK... but you see that it has no practical value as well, and there is a lot of room for argument of what "best" is, and again what the nature of god is. All acquinas really brings up are interesting conundrums in logic and reason, and even limits to logic and reason. No scientist disagrees that there are open questions that are unsolvable. The human mind is limited. A scientist's goal however is simply to understand the observable world based on the abilities we have. |
Again, pay attention – Aquinas’ logic has no scientific value. And what scientists think or understand about abilities and etc has no value in science, these are their personal beliefs. And different scientists have different beliefs; some agree, some disagree; the majority don’t even talk or think about such things. I have demonstrated that in my post about Nobel Prize winners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkgupta80 Uhh TOR does correct classical mechanics when considering larger bodies and faster frames of reference. Classical mechanics was inadequate in explaining it. actually the simple formula of relativity figured out years before was plain wrong for calculating relative speeds near the speed of light. He has a corrected version, that takes into account all reference frames. |
Larger bodies? Faster frame of reference? Classical mechanics was inadequate in explaining it? What is ‘’it’’? The simple formula of relativity figured out years before? What is the formula of what relativity? Plain wrong? You have totally lost me... Madam, you are not even wrong…
‘’ We have another instance of far-reaching agreement between the deductions from two theories in Newtonian mechanics on the one hand, and the general theory of relativity on the other. This agreement goes so far, that up to the present we have been able to find only a few deductions from the general theory of relativity which are capable of investigation, and to which the physics of pre-relativity days does not also lead’’ A. Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
Would Einstein’s words convince you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkgupta80 The second half of your paragraph gets into an interesting thing about the nature of reason, proof, and truth. Yes every logical system we use comes back to a basic set of assumptions that we take for granted. We cannot necessarily prove why there is momentum, or something simple like why red is red. But we have to take them for granted when we create our models. If they have practical results, we give those assumptions more value. |
2nd part does not say it is any kind of an assumption. I did not say it did not have a proof, I said “”such a proof does not exist”’, - the one I was asking you for. Those who knew would understand the catch. But I do not hold you, I am not sure about my English…
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkgupta80 I digress, the point of bringing Einstein into the picture was to show that his extension of classical mechanics was largely deductive, based on a few hypothetical assumptions deduced by simple observations. The rest was mathematical formulation (a think of beauty). It was only later on that the final step of the scientific method was employed, which was to prove that his theory yielded observable results. |
However, the most careful observations have never revealed such anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical non-equivalence of different directions…. …the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body emitting the light. Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
What else..…
’’The agreement between Newtonian mechanics and general theory of relativity goes so far’’ that I guess I would have to quote pages now? TOR is ALL based on observation of phenomena and a very good part of it based on observations and experiments of classical mechanics ( as anyone can see from the text of TOR ), and not on some very special observations but the most basic ones a kid can confirm…
If you mean Galileo’s transformation:
“’The Galilei transformation can be obtained from the Lorentz transformation by substituting an infinitely large value for the velocity of light c in the latter transformation. “Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920. the electrodynamics of Maxwell-Lorentz … in no way opposes the theory of relativity. Rather has the latter been developed from electrodynamics. Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
Oh, darling… What did I say about the Christian creationist Maxwell and TOR? Oh, exactly the same as TOR and Einstein. So, us repeat it to you:
THE BEATLES - MAXWELL'S SILVER HAMMER LYRICS
Each and every time evolutionists start talks about TOR and quantum mechanics. Each time I ask them, please don’t start me up… they never stop… Are you a biologist or a physicist? Didn’t I ask you to make it “’biology for idiots’’ and not to start me on Einstein? Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkgupta80 Key word is models which are logic. Experiments are designed through logic. Logic is everything. Math is pure logic. Science is nothing without math. Again its quite absurd to think there is no value of logic in science. |
Please understand what you have said: Science is nothing without math. It is true, but the opposite is not true. Math does not need science. Math is not exactly science or the scientific method as it is described in the rules. Math is pure logic. As somebody said, ‘if we wake up in the morning and find that all universe around us is gone we would still be able to do math.’
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkgupta80 Evolution, the steps were (and quite valid)
Darwin:
Observed similarities in species. Attempted to observe why those similarities occur (seemingly random). Take into account other observations: Populations change, die off, grow. By each generation we see many changes such as hair color, height, etc. (humans are an easy observation).
Now comes logic and hypothesis:
Well if two populations are competing in an environment of limiting resources, the population with the better advantage to survive will grow faster than a population with less of an advantage. This could be the same species or different species. Darwin's hypothesis was that evolution would occur over time, cause changes that are more advantageous will stick, while changes that are not advantageous will die off with the population. Hence evolution.
Open question: What causes that change from generation to generation. Evolution was still not considered valid until this question was answered, and it was later answered by genetics. |
The question neither was not answered nor was asked by genetics, because such a question “”why”’ especially coming before ‘’how’’ is not scientific. You have merely shown that evolution is non-scientific because it is not following the 4 rules procedure as I have described in my Step 1…2..N. As I have said I am basing my view on the 4 rules quoted. The process you have described is in no compliance with the rules. You see, you, atheists, have the term “scientific revolution”. I have been taught science by atheists. The quoted rules are the base of your ‘’scientific revolution’’. Thus the process suggested by you is anti-scientific revolution. This is exactly what I have been pointing to. I accepted JC as my savior but I never was required to abandon science taught to me by my professors who had to be atheists. I am arguing from the POV they had taught me.
to be continued