Technology0 min ago
What Is A Law?
How do scientists determine what is a law?
I understand it to mean that if the same process or experiment, repeated over and over again, results in the same outcome, then that is a law.
Afterwards, any suggestion of a different outcome, or different initial conditions, would be recognised as a violation of that law.
Am I correct?
I understand it to mean that if the same process or experiment, repeated over and over again, results in the same outcome, then that is a law.
Afterwards, any suggestion of a different outcome, or different initial conditions, would be recognised as a violation of that law.
Am I correct?
Answers
"So, abiogenesis is a violation of the observed law of biogenesis. Yes?" No. Biogenesis isn't a "law", in the sense that you are trying to apply the term.
20:11 Mon 19th Oct 2020
I am not sure if a discussion that
god's law of foo-ing has been unproven by event X - which we all agree occurred and so it isnt a law anymore....
(foo that for a game of soldiers - yes?)
is a useful way to spend an evening, Mamas URL on science has quite a good longish discussion
Kuhns Structure of Scientifc Revolutions is still the current best read on the subject of how one theory displaces another
( paradigm shift)
I liked " oh Herr Planck, how did you persuade all those old professors about quantum theory?"
Planck - they died
but you are never going to get - "and I tell you verily that the Good Lord slew and struck down all the doubters of Plancks theory - and I say to you they will be fodder for pigs and sundry base animals! So saith the Lord ma God!" ( yes?)
god's law of foo-ing has been unproven by event X - which we all agree occurred and so it isnt a law anymore....
(foo that for a game of soldiers - yes?)
is a useful way to spend an evening, Mamas URL on science has quite a good longish discussion
Kuhns Structure of Scientifc Revolutions is still the current best read on the subject of how one theory displaces another
( paradigm shift)
I liked " oh Herr Planck, how did you persuade all those old professors about quantum theory?"
Planck - they died
but you are never going to get - "and I tell you verily that the Good Lord slew and struck down all the doubters of Plancks theory - and I say to you they will be fodder for pigs and sundry base animals! So saith the Lord ma God!" ( yes?)
// God can't violate laws he made? Can He?
As for common sense, life from inert chemicals? //
I don’t know, is God subject to scientific laws or not? If not then it’s outside science. If so then God should be able to be described in terms of science and then it’s feasible to include them both in the same sentence.
We are definitely alive and made from inert chemicals yes.
Re common sense I was thinking more about bringing people back to life, water into wine that sort of thing.
As for common sense, life from inert chemicals? //
I don’t know, is God subject to scientific laws or not? If not then it’s outside science. If so then God should be able to be described in terms of science and then it’s feasible to include them both in the same sentence.
We are definitely alive and made from inert chemicals yes.
Re common sense I was thinking more about bringing people back to life, water into wine that sort of thing.
// Or did it all just happen by itself, as some scientists claim?//
nope that is not a law - laws arent about that
oh - - well what about the Law about where Jupiter came from?
nope there isnt a "Jupiter comes from Y law"
Laws arent about that
well what IS the law about abiogenesis
Nothing - no law - this isnt the subject of laws
nope that is not a law - laws arent about that
oh - - well what about the Law about where Jupiter came from?
nope there isnt a "Jupiter comes from Y law"
Laws arent about that
well what IS the law about abiogenesis
Nothing - no law - this isnt the subject of laws
// We are definitely alive and made from inert chemicals yes.//
o god do you realise they were arguing about this in 1850?
Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is 60% water
was the his grace 60% water AND some vital force?
alive or dead he looked just about the same xc he didnt breathe
and yes boys and girls latest ! they decided there was no vital force and here we are on a monday night 170 y later .....
o god do you realise they were arguing about this in 1850?
Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is 60% water
was the his grace 60% water AND some vital force?
alive or dead he looked just about the same xc he didnt breathe
and yes boys and girls latest ! they decided there was no vital force and here we are on a monday night 170 y later .....
Theland, I don't care what scientists claim... I don't follow anyone else. Clearly, something "caused it" as life hasn't always been here.
To me, inert chemicals reacting, is far far more likely, than a supernatural god, who came from nowhere... creating life from nowhere. How on earth would that happen?
Can I just ask again please,- what do you consider as "living"?
To me, inert chemicals reacting, is far far more likely, than a supernatural god, who came from nowhere... creating life from nowhere. How on earth would that happen?
Can I just ask again please,- what do you consider as "living"?
Living? Hmmm. I guess that is both a scientific and a philosophical question, and to try and answer it, all you have is little old me, proud owner of a certificate in woodwork for making me mum a teapot stand.
But, my Neanderthal definition, provisional of course, and open to revision, is sympathetic to life being, at its most basic, ''reactive to stimuli.''
But, my Neanderthal definition, provisional of course, and open to revision, is sympathetic to life being, at its most basic, ''reactive to stimuli.''
