Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A test of Angel's Scientific Knowled

Expand Messages
  • infidel_111
    You re close to being correct about how science uses the word theory. In the American vernacular, theory often means imperfect fact - part of a
    Message 1 of 7950 , Oct 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      You're close to being correct about how science
      uses the word theory.<br><br> In the American
      vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a
      hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to
      theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the
      creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and
      intense debate now rages about many aspects of the
      theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists
      can't even make up their minds about the theory, then
      what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President
      Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group
      in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was
      campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a
      scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been
      challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed
      in the scientific community to be as infallible as
      it once was." <br> Well evolution is a theory. It is
      also a fact. And facts and theories are different
      things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
      Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of
      ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go
      away when scientists debate rival theories to explain
      them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced
      Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend
      themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans
      evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by
      Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be
      discovered. <br><br> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute
      certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and
      complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics
      flow deductively from stated premises and achieve
      certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical
      world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth,
      though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely
      for a style of argument that they themselves favor).
      In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
      degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
      consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
      tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in
      physics classrooms. <br><br> Evolutionists have been very
      clear about this distinction of fact and theory from
      the very beginning, if only because we have always
      acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the
      mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.
      Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his
      two great and separate accomplishments: establishing
      the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory -
      natural selection - to explain the mechanism of
      evolution.
    • proleus
      ... best ... The undersurface of airforce one is mirror polished. The reason for doing so is that it reflects the blue tint of the sky downward. Close up, a
      Message 7950 of 7950 , Mar 30, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In deathtoreligion@y..., bestonnet_00 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > --- In deathtoreligion@y..., proleus <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > > LOL
        > >
        > > Personally, I think polished (mirror-like) silver would be the
        best
        > > color (assuming your surface coating absorbed radar, that way you
        > > would have a severe optical distortion while in the air making
        > > optical tracking difficult.
        >
        > That's going to be very easy to see.
        >
        > You want it to blend in, not stand out as a reflection in the sky
        > would.

        The undersurface of airforce one is mirror polished. The reason for
        doing so is that it reflects the blue tint of the sky downward. Close
        up, a mirror coated aircraft will be visible, but only as a distorted
        blob. At a distance, that distortion would be negligable. Combine the
        fact that the craft reflects the tint of the sky in all directions
        (sun reflection goes upward only so it isn't a factor as long as the
        craft flies high) and the fact that it absorbs incomming radar, and
        shields it's own thermal emissions, such a craft would be very hard
        to see indeed.

        FYI I am not refering to just mirror polished, I mean literally as
        reflecting as a mirror you would see on a wall.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.