Should we put "it’s just a theory" to the test?
Let’s face it, you can’t stumble through more than a few minutes trying to talk to a crowd of Creationists who deny the Theory of Evolution without one of them spouting "it’s just a theory, that means it’s not a fact".
Well, I have an experimental model with which to test this assertion. I live close to the Sierra Nevada mountains, where there are plenty of nice, high cliffs. This is what I propose:
We get a good, broad selection of people who object to acknowledging the factual reality of things which are "just a theory". Then, one by one, we remind them of the Theory of Gravity, and give them a good hard shove off the cliff.
Then we have someone at the bottom of the cliff record how many times the person being shoved was able to weasel out of being crushed to death on the basis that gravity is "just a theory".
As side experiments, I think we should have the person being shoved hooked up to a mic and ask them halfway down if they feel they can ignore gravity because it’s "just a theory", and also let the remaining experimental population watch the experiment in progress, in order to gauge what percentage of the population suddenly decide that attitude might be as dangerous as it is wrong.
I think this is a data set that will come in very handy in the future, and we should get started right away. What do you think?
That would probably be a more compelling argument if Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation hadn’t been demonstrated to be in error many decades ago, and since replaced with Einstein’s models.
And, that would be a more compelling argument, A, if the Law of Gravity didn’t predate the Theory of Gravity by several centuries. It was our continued observations and study of the facts that led us to eventually formulate the Theory of Gravity as a more accurate description of the phenomenon.
you don’t need an experimental model, it fall short upon the definition of "scientific theory"
point in case, exodiafinder doesn’t know the definition, and is apparently confused over the definition of terms like ‘theory’ and ‘law’
just to help those in need that have so far answered this question…
in science, a theory is defined as "an explanation for observed phenomenon" and a law is "a concise description of observed phenomenon"
in summation, a law is something that we see in nature, and a theory is our explanation for why/how it happens
@imaliberal… the parodic "intelligent falling" also shows that apples will fall… are you calling "intelligent falling" a law
facts and laws are different
laws can be wrong, facts cannot
don’t equate an apple falling with gravity being true 😉
(ps, thumbs down was not from me, although i have criticized you)
re-edite for exodiafinder…
change the evolution page to say nothing except "evolution is false" if ANYbody can change the site…
@A…
can you tell me what the cause of gravity is? what mechanisms it uses? from where it originates? why matter exhibits the property of ‘gravity’? has the particle of gravity, the graviton, been discovered and proven yet?
people like to dismiss the gravity analogy as pointless because you’d literally have to be retarded to deny that gravity exists, at least to a lay person. but the fact of the matter is that we know very little about gravity, other than it appears to occur. we know much less about it than we do about evolution. it’s just that gravity doesn’t challenge a small, noisy, minority of american’s religious beliefs that it isn’t attack by the scientifically illiterate public
@taznomad… i can persoanlly testify on andi’s behalf that he’s not an ignorant bigot… as if that’s much of a complement.
he’s one of the more open and honest people on YA! and (from what i can tell) is as critical of his own beliefs as he should be of anyone else’s
i don’t think you can get less ignorant than that
the grand pinnicale of epistomological beliefs is that the only think you know for certain is that you don’t know everything
having seen him openly admit that he’s wrong or that he doesn’t know something, i’d say he’s there…
But enough ass-kissing
@sarahtipan…
If they wanted blood they could do much worse. For instance they could actually point out exactly how wrong your "answer" (which is really more of a non-sequitur) is
Sure. Just work out the likely problem that the wind will be so strong as they fall down it’ll be hard to hear them.
References :
Gravity is a law.
@Person below me- Anyone who wants to can edit Wikipedia. I can put that Charlie Chaplin invnted peanut butter if I wanted to. That doesn’t make it true.
References :
http://www.jimloy.com/physics/gravity.htm
Gravity is a theory proven by the fact of the apple falling. Laws are based off of theories. We’ve proven the theory of gravitational force through experimentation just like we’ve proven the "theory" of evolution through millions of millions of facts such as the human body shares 96% of its DNA with monkeys.
-Billy
References :
atheist
you don’t need an experimental model, it fall short upon the definition of "scientific theory"
point in case, exodiafinder doesn’t know the definition, and is apparently confused over the definition of terms like ‘theory’ and ‘law’
just to help those in need that have so far answered this question…
in science, a theory is defined as "an explanation for observed phenomenon" and a law is "a concise description of observed phenomenon"
in summation, a law is something that we see in nature, and a theory is our explanation for why/how it happens
@imaliberal… the parodic "intelligent falling" also shows that apples will fall… are you calling "intelligent falling" a law
facts and laws are different
laws can be wrong, facts cannot
don’t equate an apple falling with gravity being true 😉
(ps, thumbs down was not from me, although i have criticized you)
re-edite for exodiafinder…
change the evolution page to say nothing except "evolution is false" if ANYbody can change the site…
@A…
can you tell me what the cause of gravity is? what mechanisms it uses? from where it originates? why matter exhibits the property of ‘gravity’? has the particle of gravity, the graviton, been discovered and proven yet?
people like to dismiss the gravity analogy as pointless because you’d literally have to be retarded to deny that gravity exists, at least to a lay person. but the fact of the matter is that we know very little about gravity, other than it appears to occur. we know much less about it than we do about evolution. it’s just that gravity doesn’t challenge a small, noisy, minority of american’s religious beliefs that it isn’t attack by the scientifically illiterate public
@taznomad… i can persoanlly testify on andi’s behalf that he’s not an ignorant bigot… as if that’s much of a complement.
he’s one of the more open and honest people on YA! and (from what i can tell) is as critical of his own beliefs as he should be of anyone else’s
i don’t think you can get less ignorant than that
the grand pinnicale of epistomological beliefs is that the only think you know for certain is that you don’t know everything
having seen him openly admit that he’s wrong or that he doesn’t know something, i’d say he’s there…
But enough ass-kissing
@sarahtipan…
If they wanted blood they could do much worse. For instance they could actually point out exactly how wrong your "answer" (which is really more of a non-sequitur) is
References :
Not an atheist, but damn sarah, you crazy!
Okay… but with all of them gone, who will BUY ALL THESE STUPID BIBLES?
References :
i’m sorry to burst your bubble but the FACT is that we know so much about gravity that it has been turned into a scientific LAW.
gravity and evolution r two very different things. please don’t make pointless statements in order to turn creationists away from preaching so much. it just makes us look weaker.
References :
I think that’s what Hitler did when people suggested Mein Kumpf was just a theory.
Thumbs down? Gee you atheists must really want to see blood :/
References :
Or maybe what happened to Duane Gish during one of his debates with someone who accepted evolution: his opponent arranged to have a live wire available, and challenged Gish to touch it to show the audience that electromagnetism was "just a theory". Gish’s response, predictably, was to publicly declare that he wouldn’t debate that individual again.
References :
I’m always up for testing a theory, but don’t get neurotic about it.
I understand what you’re saying and I know to whom and what of you are speaking.
References :
I think your comparison for Evolution theory and gravitational theory as viewed by people with any sense is naive and childish. I also think your ‘experiment’ lacks conscious consideration of any true viable ends other than being a smart ass. Which shows an unwillingness, or inability (probably), to have a conversation with persons who choose to open the floor for debate. In short, you’re ignorant.
References :
Exodia, Gravitational theory, or General Relativity as it’s most easily recognized by, is the unified theory of special relativity and Newton’s law of gravitation.
Is this stuff really that hard to get?
Edit: And if you have an issue with any article on wikipedia, check the citations.
References :