Evolution is not a scientific theory

[annielaurie]

Yeah!

You know, I think an answer to one of the points FD is trying to make can be glimpsed toward the end of Part 5 of 5, of the Manchester (2010) lectures of Brian Cox, here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&featu ... Fjxj9hpg_M" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

If both you and he watched only this final lecture, toward the last few minutes of it, I think you will see what I mean.

[Super Nova]

"The theory is that if you impale a unicorn with it's own horn, it dies."

My answer is Yes.

My rationale for the answer is below including the research I did the come up with the answer.

One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of unicorns or they they can be killed by their own horns, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5559

So I cannot rule out the existence of unicorns even though there is no evidence of their existence. This is only relevent to the question as I need to know what a unicorn is.

Since one has never been discovered, that modern man is aware of a few assumption need to be made.

- Without a detailed scientific profile of a unicorn I shall rely on this source for the definition of a unicorn and it attributes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn

Which states: that all its strength lies in its horn

Cosmas Indicopleustes, a merchant of Alexandria, who lived in the 6th century, and made a voyage to India, and subsequently wrote works on cosmography, gives a figure of the unicorn, not, as he says, from actual sight of it, but reproduced from four figures of it in brass contained in the palace of the King of Ethiopia. He states, from report, that "it is impossible to take this ferocious beast alive; and that all its strength lies in its horn. When it finds itself pursued and in danger of capture, it throws itself from a precipice, and turns so aptly in falling, that it receives all the shock upon the horn, and so escapes safe and sound."[9][10]

- While a virgin is not required to answer the question, I'll throw one in for good measure - we know they exist but are rare.

The myths refer to a beast with one horn that can only be tamed by a virgin

The unicorn, through its intemperance and not knowing how to control itself, for the love it bears to fair maidens forgets its ferocity and wildness; and laying aside all fear it will go up to a seated damsel and go to sleep in her lap, and thus the hunters take it.

- By impale I assume that this impalement will penetrate the heart or vital organ. This was not specific in the question.

- The question does not demand how the unicorn is impaled and therefore doesn't need it's removal or if it is possible to impale while attached to the uncorn - so this is not addressed.

So my logic goes simply like this:

"The theory is that if you impale a unicorn with it's own horn, it dies."

The horn is where all the uncorns power is.
The horn will have the power to penetrate the unicorn.
The question does not indicate ifthe impalement peirces vital organs - I will assume it does. (if not, then it may not die as is the case with any other animal)

Since the horn contains all of it's power then it has the power to kill the unicorn. The unicorn will die based on the assumption provided above.

FD: Any questions?

[Super Nova]

The key question now is

How do we validate this theory scientifically?

Isn’t it.

Step 1 - is to produce a model.
- Build a model based on knowns and assumption the unknowns
- Adjust the assumptions in the model until it is aligned with the theory
- Run simulations on the model
- Have prepared predictions based on the model
Step 2 – Seek observations predicted
- If the model has observable predictions – look for them
- E.g. When a unicorn dies by own horn it may emit a distortion in the magic ether of the universe
- Adjust model based on observations if they don’t match predictions
Step 3 – Seek out the unicorn
- Build devices or teams or whatever is required to directly or indirectly observe a unicorn death
- If first device does not succeed, design another
Step 4 – Publish theory for peer review including the results of all of the above
- Add extra minds to the problem
- Gain acceptance of your theory
- Get scientific community behind the search
Step 5 – Nobel Prize
- Evidence of unicorn death by own horn discovered
- Nobel prize awaits
- All sceptics fall away

OR

Step 5 – Theory discarded
- Theory not accepted by scientific community
- Paper filed away
- You go into hiding with reputation destroyed

It's still a theory. It just isn't recognised by the scientific community as having any real potential of being a scientific truth.

[mantra]

"The theory is that if you impale a unicorn with it's own horn, it dies."

My answer is Yes.

My rationale for the answer is below including the research I did the come up with the answer.

One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of unicorns or they they can be killed by their own horns, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5559

So I cannot rule out the existence of unicorns even though there is no evidence of their existence. This is only relevent to the question as I need to know what a unicorn is.

Since one has never been discovered, that modern man is aware of a few assumption need to be made.

- Without a detailed scientific profile of a unicorn I shall rely on this source for the definition of a unicorn and it attributes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn

All this only proves that so much science is bulldust and whoever can promote it the most successfully is believed and so the "theory" is deemed true.

Science should be based on material evidence or that's what the average person believes - not guesswork. What a furphy and what a great job those scientists, who are heavily subsidised by governments or private corporations, have to promote fantasy to the masses.

[IQS.RLOW]

Completely wrong. If there are two theories then a valid question is which one do you find has a more valid scientific weight

Which is quite a different question to "which do you accept?", for the inevitable answer will be "neither until tested".

It is not "quite a different question", pedant.

[annielaurie]

All this only proves that so much science is bulldust and whoever can promote it the most successfully is believed and so the "theory" is deemed true.

Science should be based on material evidence or that's what the average person believes - not guesswork. What a furphy and what a great job those scientists, who are heavily subsidised by governments or private corporations, have to promote fantasy to the masses.

No, it doesn't prove that.

Yes, science is based on material evidence, and a hell of a lot of work, involving teams who are experts in the various science disciplines, who collect and process data and run multiple tests on observable phenomena, then compare results.

This takes a lot of time and effort, backed by many years of education in maths and physics.

Yes, some projects are subsidized by governments or corporations, but real science still goes through the process of standard scientific method, in order to pass muster.

Don't let the idea of "guesswork" fool you. There is some guesswork in all the sciences.

But science is the most important discipline in the world today. Knowledge in the sciences and application of findings have resulted in modern advances in literally every area of our iives for the past hundred years.

Without science we would still be living as nineteenth century folks used to live, industrialized but without the high-tech advancements we have today.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Don't let the idea of "guesswork" fool you.

Indeed and as you speak to the discipline of science, so to should we appreciated that it is educated guesswork.

There is some guesswork in all the sciences.

There must be... it is what drives discovery and invention.

[The pretentious known as Sappho]

Guesswork? Wrong!

You may, in your cretinous,uneducated mind be groping towards the processes of induction and deduction. But it is inspired by observation and so is NOT guesswork.

[The dickhead known as monk]

But it is inspired by observation and so is NOT guesswork

educated guesswork- fuckwad

[annielaurie]

Yep, and we are talking about a hell of a LOT of education, folks.