Joined: Dec. 2006
|Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)|
|I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.|
There are no absolute proofs in science, you are confusing it with math. We're asking for testable ID hypotheses, not for an absolute proof.
|Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person. |
This is such bullshit. Most dynamical systems are chaotic, which means that small uncertainties in our knowledge of a system's coordinates and velocities grow exponentially in time. It means that, for most systems, we cannot predict their exact state after a certain period of time. Even for such simple systems as a bunch of atoms bouncing inside a cubic box.
That intrinsic uncertainty does not mean that we cannot say anything about the system. To the contrary, dynamical chaos guarantees that we can describe the statistical properties of the system with a high accuracy. Statistical physics is a very successful branch of science. We can't predict much about microstates of large ensembles of particles, but we know quite a lot about their macrostates.
If you are not:
please Logout »