How was stating my arguement with while using the entire english language messed up? You are getting defensive too. The theory of evolution is not a fact, which is why it has the honourable title of "Theory." Also, the Theory of cells is an idea, it has not been proven as a fact. Again, I might sound repetitive, but it has not been proven. One thing that has been proven is that organic matter can be created from inorganic elements and electric charges.
Lhc
- Thread starter anonymous
- Start date
- Status
anonymous said:
JUST last week, i jabbed a took pick into my gums, then put it on a slide and looked. what did i see? i think you know what i saw... i saw CELLS.
there is not an educated person on this planet who doesnt think they are made up of cells.
The title of "Theory" is very misleading, because it actually means "Scientific Theory" which is not a normal theory (as i explained in my previous post)
If you believe the laws of physics are true, then you believe that well established, PROVEN theories, such as cell theory, and evolution are equally true.
Laws are facts in physics
Scientific Theories are facts in Biology
Last edited by a moderator:
The Cell Theory doesn't state that every living organism is made of cells, the theory states that a cell came from a cell. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.)
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.
It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.
Theories, however, are always changing, from discovery of different facts. Making them just theories until proven to be a fact.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.)
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.
It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.
Theories, however, are always changing, from discovery of different facts. Making them just theories until proven to be a fact.
Ral Partha
Sr Member
If I were your science teacher, I'd disown you right now just because I couldn't smack you over the head with this comment of yours. That's uncalled for. Whether you like it or not, Bloodl3tt3r is correct about his definition of a scientific theory (and yes, it's in the English language). The word "theory", in the context of our daily vernacular, has a very different meaning compared to that of scientific theory, as already explained by Bloodl3tt3r and Xavier. For you to say that "a theory is not a fact and that's a fact" shows that you really don't know what you're talking about.anonymous said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Bloodl3tt3r
Well-Known Member
Ral Partha said:
Never mind the fact that he also told me and Xavier to "learn to English". I think someone who thinks the word "English" is a verb should not try to teach us what other words mean... just a thought, mmmkay?
anonymous said:
Then you obviously don't understand. I didn't say the English language was wrong, I said that normal society's interpretation of some of the words of the English language are wrong.
I also lol at your phrase "learn to english" again.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is getting a little out of hand. Both groups are right to a degree but Ral and Xavier are closer to the truth.
Look at it like this anonymous. A theory is as you stated an interpretation based on observable facts. However, a scientific theory is one that has had it's interpretation validated through thousands of experiments and has a much greater weight to it than some random idea. Great example: gravity. We can measure the amount of force and it's effects but we have yet to find the subatomic particle responsible for it. We are 99.99% positive it exists but do not have the last fact in hand. Therefore still a theory. One of the big reasons for making this huge machine is to rectify that. Almost all scientific theories operate that way.
You are also right in saying that theories are revised over time. That is the nature of science. We adjust our models to fit new data. Anyone who says that evolution is the same unchanged mutation and natural selection idea Darwin put forth is a meathead. We've learned so much since then. Still, the basic idea has proven itself time and time again. The current state of any scientific theory is as close to the truth as we've gotten. And some of the shoddy statistics I've seen quoted as facts don't even hold a candle to the evidence supporting it.
It's important to remember that english is a bastard language as well. People modify existing words to suit their own purposes. Scientists don't. They take a word and give it an internationally accepted definition. That definition may be refined down the road by an international commitee but something like wiki or webster doesn't have a say in the matter. You think Eon, Era, and Epoch mean the same thing? They might just mean "a long time" colloquially but scientifically they have very specific conotations. When a scientist uses words like theory, they are implying these definitions.
So- If you want to hold a conversation on a scientific subject with someone of a scientific background remember that they will assume you are implying those definitions too.
'nuff semantics from everyone- everybody back on topic before lock
ANYBODY hear of any other expected discoveries besides the Higgs Boson and production of micro-blackholes?
Look at it like this anonymous. A theory is as you stated an interpretation based on observable facts. However, a scientific theory is one that has had it's interpretation validated through thousands of experiments and has a much greater weight to it than some random idea. Great example: gravity. We can measure the amount of force and it's effects but we have yet to find the subatomic particle responsible for it. We are 99.99% positive it exists but do not have the last fact in hand. Therefore still a theory. One of the big reasons for making this huge machine is to rectify that. Almost all scientific theories operate that way.
You are also right in saying that theories are revised over time. That is the nature of science. We adjust our models to fit new data. Anyone who says that evolution is the same unchanged mutation and natural selection idea Darwin put forth is a meathead. We've learned so much since then. Still, the basic idea has proven itself time and time again. The current state of any scientific theory is as close to the truth as we've gotten. And some of the shoddy statistics I've seen quoted as facts don't even hold a candle to the evidence supporting it.
It's important to remember that english is a bastard language as well. People modify existing words to suit their own purposes. Scientists don't. They take a word and give it an internationally accepted definition. That definition may be refined down the road by an international commitee but something like wiki or webster doesn't have a say in the matter. You think Eon, Era, and Epoch mean the same thing? They might just mean "a long time" colloquially but scientifically they have very specific conotations. When a scientist uses words like theory, they are implying these definitions.
So- If you want to hold a conversation on a scientific subject with someone of a scientific background remember that they will assume you are implying those definitions too.
'nuff semantics from everyone- everybody back on topic before lock
ANYBODY hear of any other expected discoveries besides the Higgs Boson and production of micro-blackholes?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bloodl3tt3r
Well-Known Member
Sigma-LS said:
From science to semantics. How fun. Anyways, I'm pretty sure their main focus is the Higgs Boson (God particle... so maybe *must not be mentioned here* does fit into science a little bit?), and the micro black holes are just a side thing that they think is interesting. I've heard mentions of looking for extra dimensions, dark matter, and the like, but nothing solid, so idk.
Last edited by a moderator:
gamerguy55
Well-Known Member
Bloodl3tte3r, could you go back to normal colored text, please? It looks like someone smeared your post across my screen, it's very difficult to see small, dark-red, italicized words. I could just be blind, though.
Anyway, I'm still interested to see what happens when they run this thing at full power! ...but I guess I'll have to wait a few more weeks for that. :rolleyes
Did anyone else see these pics?
For some reason it's not letting me make the post with theses links:
http://i35.tinypic.com/256fu4g.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/284590...28c5c13.jpg?v=0
Anyway, I'm still interested to see what happens when they run this thing at full power! ...but I guess I'll have to wait a few more weeks for that. :rolleyes
Did anyone else see these pics?
For some reason it's not letting me make the post with theses links:
http://i35.tinypic.com/256fu4g.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/284590...28c5c13.jpg?v=0
Bloodl3tt3r
Well-Known Member
gamerguy55 said:Bloodl3tte3r, could you go back to normal colored text, please? It looks like someone smeared your post across my screen, it's very difficult to see small, dark-red, italicized words. I could just be blind, though.
Anyway, I'm still interested to see what happens when they run this thing at full power! ...but I guess I'll have to wait a few more weeks for that. :rolleyes
Did anyone else see these pics?
For some reason it's not letting me make the post with theses links:
http://i35.tinypic.com/256fu4g.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/284590...28c5c13.jpg?v=0
Turn up the brightness of your screen? Use a different skin? I'm using the jet skin and it's fine, but if it doesn't work with yours then use IP Blue or something.
Or you can just highlight it.
Anyways, as I was saying... yeah those pictures are great.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sean Bradley
Sr Member
What happened to this thread? Flaming? Religious arguments?
I'll give you guys one get out of jail free card on this because I think it's a good conversation to be having, but remember guys that this forum has rules and thise rules are to be followed regardless of the subject. Don't let your debate get you in trouble. Now I know that all the kids seem to think that the internet is for arguing but we do better here when we get along (fewer people get banned that way).
Please keep this discussion civil and productive. If someone doesn't agree with you, it's perfectly okay to want to find out why, but unnacceptable to call them names.
If the conversation can't be kept within the rules of this forum, it will be locked.
And on a completely unrelated note:
Sorry if I got a little rambunctious. My argument wasn't against you it was against the sensationalist coverage of the LHC. That post wasn't a retort to anything you said (like the previous) but just trying to point out the irrational fear that people seem to have about this experiment.
I firmly believe that the controversy about the LHC is being created by people who fear what they do not understand. I didn't mean to take counter-point against you.. just the LHC protesters. Whether you are for or against the LHC, using fear and ignorance to stir up attention is just cruel and unsubstantiated.
Alright, back to civility please.
I'll give you guys one get out of jail free card on this because I think it's a good conversation to be having, but remember guys that this forum has rules and thise rules are to be followed regardless of the subject. Don't let your debate get you in trouble. Now I know that all the kids seem to think that the internet is for arguing but we do better here when we get along (fewer people get banned that way).
Please keep this discussion civil and productive. If someone doesn't agree with you, it's perfectly okay to want to find out why, but unnacceptable to call them names.
If the conversation can't be kept within the rules of this forum, it will be locked.
And on a completely unrelated note:
anonymous said:
Sorry if I got a little rambunctious. My argument wasn't against you it was against the sensationalist coverage of the LHC. That post wasn't a retort to anything you said (like the previous) but just trying to point out the irrational fear that people seem to have about this experiment.
I firmly believe that the controversy about the LHC is being created by people who fear what they do not understand. I didn't mean to take counter-point against you.. just the LHC protesters. Whether you are for or against the LHC, using fear and ignorance to stir up attention is just cruel and unsubstantiated.
Alright, back to civility please.
Last edited by a moderator:
dung0beetle
Well-Known Member
Black Holes lose more mass than they absorb.
my 2 cents...
my 2 cents...
Well, my $0.02....
Scientists don't need to work on "Stuff that will really affect everyday life"
That's what engineers do. It's our job to figure out something useful to do with new knowledge.
The LHC might tell us why gravity exists. Once we know why, we might figure out how to make things like gravity drives. Anyone want to have a real ghost?
Scientists don't need to work on "Stuff that will really affect everyday life"
That's what engineers do. It's our job to figure out something useful to do with new knowledge.
The LHC might tell us why gravity exists. Once we know why, we might figure out how to make things like gravity drives. Anyone want to have a real ghost?
Odessa 086
Member
dungbeetle said:
Theory of the Hawking radiation says that as well. It's still nothing more than a theory but it is one of the most possible ones we have and the one that explains most things about the nature of black holes in the most logical way.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bloodl3tt3r
Well-Known Member
Fine fine, I'll bite. Back to real font... :-( you're so mean.
Anyways, yeah, exactly. Scientists aren't supposed to create things that help everyday life, they're supposed to discover the concepts behind those things.
Anyways, yeah, exactly. Scientists aren't supposed to create things that help everyday life, they're supposed to discover the concepts behind those things.
gamerguy55
Well-Known Member
That's terrible... :'(
When things like this are portrayed as doomsday/endoftheworld, this kind of stuff is bound to happen.
When things like this are portrayed as doomsday/endoftheworld, this kind of stuff is bound to happen.
I seriously doubt this machine will work at all, not the explosion/black hole/dooms day part, but I doubt scientist will discover anything new at all. We already have ideas how the world was made using science, I mean it happened thousands/millions/billions/long time ago before any of us were born, why should we really care? Money spent on a project that took 14 years to build could have been spent on globalizing new energy sources such as natural gas and hydrogen for vehicles.
- Status