Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”

I am not volunteering, and I don't meet the requirements.I do have some comments.Neo-Darwinism is a scientific theory. Typically, a scientific theory consists of research guidelines, methods, terminology. Theories are tentative, and are not themselves observed facts. Rather, they are methodologies one follows in order to observe facts.People sometimes talk of the fact of evolution. I don't recall seeing talk of the fact of neo-Darwinism.I am inclined to think that your proposed debate is a non-starter, because it is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of a theory such as neo-Darwinism.

It is interesting that you pick that example.I am guessing that you work in electricity or in electronics or a related area, and that your forum name "Eye-Squared-R" is derived from I²R, which is a formula for power.The interesting thing about your example, is that it is wrong. In fact, Ohm's law is the definition of resistance, so its truth is known a priori. For reference, check the Wikipedia page.What Ohm observed, was the approximate proportionality of voltage and current. The Wikipedia page on Ohm's law describes this.Taken as saying that current is proportional to voltage, Ohm's law is false and well known to be false. Take as the definition of resistance, Ohm's law is true by definition and is very useful.Call an electrical circuit linear if the current is exactly proportional to the voltage for that circuit. Otherwise, call the circuit non-linear.As best I can tell, all circuits are non-linear. Most are approximately linear, but not exactly linear. We have a large technology (digital electronics) whose existence depends on non-linear circuits. Nevertheless, Ohm's law (taken as a definition) is heavily used within digital electronics. That it is used is a matter of the pragmatism of science. Ohm's law turns out to be very useful.Giving allowance for the fact that circuits are usually not exactly linear, resistance is typically understood as This allows us to talk of the forward resistance of a diode, and the back resistance of a diode where the diode itself is a highly non-linear circuit element.My point is that scientific theories and laws are not observed facts about the world. The role of theories and laws is far more complex than that.

Yes it can. And what you wrote can be viewed as bullshit.The difference, of course, is that the first of those "can be viewed" statements is obviously false, while you are providing plenty of evidence that the second is true. No offense Eye-Squared-R, but I know far more about the physics of electricity than you are even capable of knowing. No, I did not attempt to discredit you with a quick Wiki reference. I just pointed out your obvious mistake, then added a Wiki reference to aid the casual reader of this thread (if there are any casual readers remaining).If you had half a clue on what you are talking about, you would not have said anything so foolish as: I²R can also be viewed as Heat.Incidentally, I was underwhelmed by your attempted snow job on reactance. Whoever wrote that wiki information evidently knows far more about the physics of electricity than you are capable of knowing. If you had understood the significance of what you just wrote about reactance, you would not have made such a silly mistake.

I am amazed that you persist in your public display of ignorance. It is not as if you were not given enough hints.Heat is one (of several) forms of energy.Power is a rate (energy per unit time).Saying that those are the same is one of the most obvious and foolish of errors that somebody could make in physics.

I have held soldering irons, though usually not by the wrong end.No scientifically literate person would equate power and heat.In normal discussions, if somebody had equated power and heat I would let it pass as a typical non-scientists confusion. However, in Message 23 you went out of your way to criticize my scientific knowledge, all the while spewing scientific nonsense throughout that post. You set yourself up for criticism.I see that cavediver has already pointed out your mistakes (again), so I won't further press it in this post. I will say more in a response to another of your recent posts.

I am responding to this, because you are criticizing me by proxy, while ostensibly replying to lyx2no. Apparently your problems are not limited to scientific literacy. You seem to have difficulty reading. That "Taken as saying ..." clause is a conditional, which you seem to be ignoring. The normal ("proper") application of Ohm's law does not follow that conditional assumption. In Message 23 you wrote " Ohm’s law applies to both constant and variable current where ever the medium includes any resistance " and that is quite wrong. The relation between current and voltage is actually expressed by a more complex equation involving an integral (for the effect of capacitance) and a derivative (for the effect of inductance) in addition to the linear term due to resistance. Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used.

By putting it in color, you only emphasize your mistake. Power is not measured in calories. If you drove an electric car uphill, part of the energy from that "I²R" would finish up as the potential energy of the car being at a higher altitude. Your inability to read is not an endearing quality. Yet, in the very message that I am replying to, you said:

quote:

---

Equation 4: Heat calories = Power calories

---

That certainly has the appearance of saying that power is equal to heat in units. And you even did that in bold colors.

Since you seem to have a serious difficulty with reading, I shall try to explain it for you. Message 41, the post of lyx2no that you refer to, is irony. It is full of sarcasm. lyx2no was laughing at you. In fact he was ridiculing you.