marg wrote:Wow! Where do I begin...
Well for starters I'd appreciate it, if you would quote whatever section of my reply you are addressing and then address what I actually say.
I failed to see almost any point in what you were saying, so I could not address anything specific. The only thing I saw was a general lack of understanding of the scientific method. Just because you say you have proved a point does not make it so.
marg wrote:So first please answer my question that I posed to you previously. What postulates does science use?
I assumed you had been formally trained in science and just needed a refresher as to its foundations. Now that you ask a cogent question, I can give a cogent answer.
Examples of postulates used in science:
The following is quotes from "Principles of Physics," a text that was authored by Raymond A Serway and John W. Jewett, both respected professors in the field of physics, "Einstein based his relativity theory on two postulates: 1. The principle of realtivity: All laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. 2. The constancy of the speed of light: The speed of light in vacuum has the same value in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light."
Einstein's second postulate of course disagreed with the Newtonian mechanics postulate of the relativity of velocity.
The postulate of evolution says that all life evolved from basic amino acids. I would challenge you to design a scientific experiment to prove this. You can't, because it deals with past history, which, by definition, is past, and therefore cannot be repeated. You can dig up bones and describe some correlation to a possible evolutionary classification system, but correlation does not demonstrate causation. All evolutionary scientists accept their premise as a postulate.
The basic premise of all scientific measurement is based upon the postualtes of Greek geometry and algebra, and the physics postulates associated with time. (And if you question that math has postulates, you are either silly or ignorant.) ALL quantities are based/derivable from only two types of measurement: measurement of distance and measurement of time. These are the only two things that we can truly measure. All measuring instruments are physical devices that mechanically (or electrically) implement algorithms that calculate whatever we are measuring by using distance displacement and time. For example, a spring scale that "measures" weight (a force), "calulcates" this force by using the distance displacement of the scale as you stand on it to displace a pointer that moves along a calibrated scale to point at a number. You are not really measuring a force, you are really measuring a displacement but are relating it to a force. Displacement is a measurable quantity. Force is a "theoretical" quantity that can't be measured directly. The fact that things accelerate implies there is a force, but even acceleration is a theoretical quantity based upon displacement and time measurements. SO, the postualtes that measurements of time and distance are absolute (as assumed by Newton) formed the basis of Newtonian mechanics. Newton said, "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external." According to Einstein, a time measurement depdends on the reference frame in which the measurement is made." I could go into length contraction, but I with withold. Einstein postualted that distance and time and not absolute.
I get the impression that the word "postulate" is a dirty word to you. Postulates are not bad. They are absolutely necessary to move the development of science forward. However, this also means that NO science is absolute. It is constantly modified based upon new information, and old postulates are constantly being set aside for new ones.
At this point, I consider any further discussion unproductive. You have your opinions of what science is that I consider to be wrong, and I feel I have demonstrated that you need to spend some personal study time on topics in science.
Just because you disagree with a religion or are an atheist does not make you a scientist.