A Question That Atheist/Evolutionist Couldn't Answer

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sapporo's picture
I think Nyarlathotep

I think Nyarlathotep explained quite well only recently that gravity is more of a theory than a law.

"Laws of nature" define what is, but a subjective being cannot claim to know with certainty whether something is a law of nature, unless it is unconditionally true - by definition, rather than established through observation. Laws in science are applicable only to what has previously been observed.

Gravity can be falsified because if there is a single instance that acts contrary to expectation, that would prove the theory of gravity to be false.

Dave Matson's picture
Man in search o...,

Man in search o...,

Get a good science dictionary and look those terms up. Theories don't graduate into laws!

Jared Alesi's picture
Your use of theory and the

Your use of theory and the definition used by the scientific community are different. A scientific theory is a well tested, observed, falsifiable explanation for natural phenomena that has been accepted as true by peer review, and can be used to predict future phenomena based on the data collected from prior events. For example, the theory of gravity dictates that objects in space gravitate towards those of greater mass, which they do.

You use theory interchangeably with hypothesis, which is incorrect. A hypothesis is simply a falsifiable explanation for phenomena that has not undergone testing for validity.

A scientific law is a building block of theories. Newton's laws of motion are elements of gravitational theory. They are observed truths about the universe on which we base our theories. The laws are fundamentals, if you will, of the large and branching theories. The law of conservation of energy is solid, while particle theory is fluid and subject to change. It's much the same with evolution. The laws of biology are solid, while evolutionary theory is subject to change as new data is uncovered.

arakish's picture
Since you seem to need to

Since you seem to need to know, especially using AVOIDANCE tactics... Simply put...

A scientific principle or law describes HOW something works. A scientific theory describes why it works the way it does.

Now, stop AVOIDING and respond to the responses.

rmfr

Aposteriori unum's picture
Question creationists can't

Question creationists can't answer:

What is a "kind"? Please define.

Sushisnake's picture
@Apost

@Apost

I think a kind is one of these:

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Sushisnake's picture
And it's related to one of

And it's related to one of these:

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Ramo Mpq's picture
@Chimp3

@Chimp3

Sorry but i am not ignoring or avoiding what was posted about Pharyngula i am just trying to read up on it. Is there anyone else other than PZ Myers that talks about this? Most results showing up are either his blog (which could be biased since its his blog) or Wikipedia (personally, i don't find as a valid source on anything). Just as i have done in the past with anything new that i have not come across, i try looking at both sides of the story (for and against) prior to even giving an opinion, let alone a "judgement" (if that's what one will call it).

Do you have any sources or anything you can recommend i read? studies? Anything written or researched by anyone credible other than PZ Myers? I am not calling PZ myers credible or not being credible just trying to see if anyone else in the science community feels the same way and has also come up with something that verifies what his blog says.

chimp3's picture
Man: I am not refering to

Man: I am not refering to Myers blog. Keep exploring! I am not your google daddy!

Ramo Mpq's picture
@Sapporo

@Sapporo

"gravity is more of a theory than a law...." So IF this is true why is it still a law? I am sorry but i have a hard time accepting some random person saying gravity is more of a law than a theory when in the ever changing world of science that law has held true so far. IF this were even true, dont you think the scientists around the world would have had the law changed/downgraded to a theory?

Sapporo's picture
This is purely an issue of

This is purely an issue of semantics. Whether you define something as a theory or a law does not change the observations we've made of the natural world, nor does it change the processes we use when attempting to falsify our models.

Dave Matson's picture
Man in search o...,

Man in search o...,

LAWS are basic, consistent observations that fit some mathematical formula.
THEORIES are explanations that have successfully explained a large body of related data, made important predictions that have been confirmed, integrate well with other known facts, and are a fruitful fountain for further research.
HYPOTHESES are intelligent, testable guesses based on a careful observation of the relevant data, as to how some part of the physical world works.
SPECULATION is intelligent guesswork that may or may not be testable.

Along these lines, then, the inverse-squared formula for gravity would be a law. Einstein's explanation in terms of cured space would be a theory. The boundaries are not always clear.

Note that theories are successful explanations that open the way for further research; laws are observed relationships of a basic, consistent nature. They are different concepts, not different grades of certainty. That misunderstanding seems to be at the heart of your confusion.

LostLocke's picture
Aron Ra explained it best...

Aron Ra explained it best...
The "law" of gravity is, things fall down.
The "theory" of gravity includes that "law", plus other things. Like, why do things fall down? How fast do things fall down? Etc.
A scientific theory is the whole collection of data we have on a subject. That collection includes laws, hypothesis, experiments, observations, collections, convergence and/or concordance with other subjects, etc.

Dave Matson's picture
LostLocke,

LostLocke,

There is no "down" in a universal sense, so let's not oversimplify! The gravitational force exerted by the earth on a 1 kg sphere is proportional to the mass of the earth divided by the square of the distance between the center of the sphere and the center of the earth. That is what we measure all the time in everyday life, what may be called the Universal Law of Gravitation (discovered by Newton).

Cognostic's picture
Interesting that people are

Interesting that people are talking about THE THEORY OF GRAVITY. I am finding it interesting because there are several working theories. The two most common come from Newton and Einstein. Newton asserts bodies attract each other. Einstein asserts warp space. Both theories are true and adequately explain the Laws. (Things fall down)

In 2010, Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon. In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html#jCp

The laws are not changing - the reason for the laws may be altered. In any theory of gravity, things are going to move towards each other or fall. In any theory of gravity the Laws will be sufficiently accounted for and explained.

Ramo Mpq's picture
I must say, for once, i

I must say, for once, i actually learned something (theory vs law and how they are the connected) on these forums lol. Thanks, everyone.

Tin-Man's picture
@Man in search of...

@Man in search of...

Hulkster! Great to have you back. How ya doin'? Glad you were able to learn something. I must admit, hearing the explanations given so far, I have actually learned something myself in regards to scientific theory vs. law. While I have always had a fair general knowledge of the two, I never had any real depth of knowledge concerning them. Now I do. Pretty dang cool. Thanks, everybody.

Aposteriori unum's picture
And for that I am glad.

And for that I am glad. Theory is so often misued and misunderstood that for a change it is great to hear that at least you understand it.

arakish's picture
@Man in search

@Man in search

Just remember this one a professor taught me a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Principles/Laws = How; Scientific Theories = Why; then concatenate "something works."

Since theories are "why" and WHY is the unanswerable question, theories are always being updated.

Since theories are also used to define HOW, thus a Principle/Law can likewise be updated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what I keep inside my mind. Although it does not truly define Theory/Principle/Law, it helps me to remember the further in-depth definitions. Like a mnemonic device. And my favorite mnemonic device:

If it be a vine
with leaves of three
you'll be fine
if you leave it be.

My mom taught me that since I am extremely allergic to poison ivy and poison oak.

And congratulations on learning something. You make me so proud...

We may yet that Dr. Banner to come out...

rmfr

Cognostic's picture
If it be a vine

If it be a vine
with leaves of three
you'll be fine
if you leave it be.

So your mom lied to you as well? Mine always called me special but she didn't mean it in a good way. Your here with the rest of us so you couldn't possibly be "fine/"

arakish's picture
LOL

LOL

Glad I was obeying my first unwritten commandment when reading.

But at least my allergic reaction and that mnemonic helped keep away from the stuff.

Yeah, my mom used to call me special until she found out that I faked being saved and a believer. Now it is my younger brother who is the special one and only because he still has a young grandchild for her to dote over... If they were still alive, my daughters would have who knows how many great-grandchildren for her to dote over. Mom's can be...

rmfr

Sachete Benitez's picture
Here you have a short term

Here you have a short term experiment that shows how evolution works.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Sachete Benitez's picture
Another proof... DNA and

Another proof... DNA and genetics.

Sheldon's picture
Just checked every news

Just checked every news channel and again nothing to imply the scientific fact of evolution has been falsified or challenged in any scientific way. My guess is you're parroting creationist propaganda. Pretending their superstitious pseudoscience has nothing ot do with religion is one of their favourite propaganda lies.

Also evolution has nothing to do with atheism, so even in the absurdly unlikely event that all the evidence for the last 160 years from multiple fields of science were reversed, I'd remain an atheist.

Well, was it 'fun' for you?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.