Talk:Exact sciences

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Witnessing Evolution

Wasn't the whole point of the Lenski Experiment that it provided conclusive evidence of bacteria evolving a useful trait over thousands of generations, and the specimens that inherited the trait thrived compared to those that did not? That would be a contemporary witnessing of evolution, I'd think. --DinsdaleP 10:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)

By evolution, I mean the theory of evolution through natural selection, which posits that significant new species have come into being without intelligent intervention.
Whenever we discuss evolution, we need to cut through the mental fog and specify which aspects of evolution we're talking about. Most evolution opponents grant that a species can develop new characteristics in the wild (see microevolution). --Ed Poor Talk 10:26, 21 February 2009 (EST)
Perhaps it was just a contemporary witnessing of adaptation - an ability it's designer gave it to deal with differing environmental contexts. --Qwestor Talk 11:39, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Creation Science

Though I am a creationist, I would think that creation science should probably go into the same category as evolution, as a fuzzy subject. Anyone else have any thoughts? --JoshuaStanley 22:28, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I agree, as well as baraminology. WesleySHello! 23:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)
I'd agree with both of the above. If aspects of "exact" science the the validity of radiological dating is to be called into question on CP, then I don't see how anyone can consider creation science or baraminology to be "exact" sciences either. They don't have to be dismissed out of hand, but they certainly aren't as exact as mathematics or basic chemistry. --DinsdaleP 23:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)
I see that creation science and baraminology have both been removed from the exact sciences list. I regard that as an error. There is nothing fuzzy at all about creation. It is based on scripture and is as precise as any of the listed items. In fact it is probably more precise than any of them. It is in no way comparable to evolution which consists of guesses and speculation. If any of you can provide a cogent reason for the exclusion of creation science and baraminology then please do so. If not I intend to replace them. --EdmundB 18:49, 12 March 2009 (EDT)


I'm not sure that this belongs in the "fuzzy" category, despite the qualification that this refers to global warming theories. Meteorology involves a lot of hard science in terms of data collection, record keeping and analysis, and this part of it is good science despite the inability of it to be used to predict future weather with perfect accuracy. Trying to shoehorn this in as fuzzy science to criticize global warming theory is a stretch. --DinsdaleP 09:41, 26 February 2009 (EST)

This article is ironic, i hope.

I dont see how proof by contradiction is not as valid as the rest of mathematics. If you ask "is theorem a true?"and you mange to construct a contradiction based on theorem a, then you know it is not true.

I don't see how astronomy is not an exact science. As a matter of fact it is the first exact science on the planet and the mother of physics. No astronomer conceals that black holes are still unclear subjects and that the exact way in which the universe began is still a matter of active research.

I dont see why relativity should be excluded from physics.

I save my breath and don't talk about the rest.

--Stitch75 20:34, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I think it is your attitude that keeps getting you blocked. Nobody is perfect, though!
I suggest you read the reference before spouting off. Many conservatives support constructive proof. See also "Axiom of Choice".
Modern atheist astronomy has brought us mostly absurdities, from black holes to quasars to relativity.
You could use your breath to continue breathing as you read up on these subjects at this quickly-expanding resource, Conservapedia! Beware, though: some of the things you learn may take your breath away! BHarlan 00:25, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
Since I seem, despite holding a Phd in Physics and being not among the worst in mathematics among my fellow students, not being able to understand the 'conservative' mathematics, let me ask a simple question: in there any proof which can be carried out by contradiction, which can be shown to be wrong by other means? (i exclude Quines explicitely here). --Stitch75 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
We can discuss about black holes, but i would not see how relativity was found by astronomy alone. At least I was under the impression that relativity was needed to allow the Maxwell equations to exist. Finally the Michelson-Morley (and earth-bound interferometer) experiment suggested that aether does not exist. Last but not least the GPS systems constructed by the DoD and used heavily by the American armed Forces includes such obscure things as general relativity in its software. You surely don't suggest that the DoD and the American soldiers stick to atheistic snake oil? --Stitch75 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
Ok since nobody contradicted the arguments on relativity, i suggest to stop excepting it from the exact sciences. Moreover i suggest to put "biology" instead of evolution. One is a science, the other a process. --Stitch75 15:58, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
Read up on GPS -- it does not need relativity. I have reverted your censorship. BHarlan 16:04, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
I think, given your superior knowledge on relativity, maybe you could comment on the following article to enlighten us censoring physicists.
"INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE" [James A Buisson, Roger L. Easton, Thomas B. McCaskill U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)]: . I cite: "The (T-O) slope gives the frequency offset of +442.5 pp1012 with respect to the PMA clock. Inclusion of the PMA frequency offset of +0.6 pp1012 produces an NTS measured value of +443.1 pp1012. Comparison of this value to the predicted value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp1012 gives a difference of -3.1 "--Stitch75 21:05, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for the generous offer. Taken the average quality of the articles here about natural sciences i would be more on the side of improving them (which is what I do when i see an easy to correct definitive mistake). Up to that time i will rely on textbooks and the original articles in the libraries. --Stitch75 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)


i rewrote the page, since lists should no serve as an excuse for not forming sentences, and because in the list multiple levels of hierarchy were mixed (e.g. physics and evolution where mentioned on the same level, although one is a science and the other is a theory). Last but not least the term 'fuzzy subject' is definitely a little bit 'fuzzy'. The still 'fuzzy' but at least generally understood 'soft sciences' may be preferred. Last but not least the definition of the term itself was also fuzzy and needed more explanation (it still needs in respect to special status of mathematics). --Stitch75

Personal tools