The Prophets...of Bajor? What's the deal?

[Odo's_Bucket]

Where do we have proof that humans are supposed to evolve into the Q?

Google the word theory. I'm sure there's a definition of the word posted somewhere.

A theory is a framework to explain a known thing, such as the theory of gravitation and the theory of evolution by natural selection. We do not know that humans in the ST universe evolved into the Q, thus your use of the word theory is incorrect. You should have used the word hypothesis. It's a common mistake.

As for the Prophets, it is a matter of faith. Gods and religions never seem to have proper explanations in the real world, so I see no reason why the writers needed to give an explanation for the Prophets. Maybe they were gods, maybe they were just highly evolved beings that were mucking about with stuff they didn't understand. It is up to you to decide.

Main Entry:the·o·ry Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural the·o·riesEtymology:Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōreinDate:1592 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another2: abstract thought : speculation3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

2: abstract thought :
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption

 

[TheGodBen]

^^^ The dictionary is not a good source for the definition of scientific terminology. For example, dictionary.com's page on abiogenesis:

[FONT=serif][/FONT]​

Abiogenesis: The now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation are two completely different things, and while Spontaneous Generation has been discredited, Aibiogenesis is a credible scientific theory which has a lot going for it. The people who write dictionaries do not have a clue about science, largely because it is not their job to understand science.

Like I said, a theory is a framework around known facts, it is something that research scientists aspire to create. They start with an idea which they form into a hypothesis. They then test this hypothesis and try to disprove it. If the hypothesis holds up they submit it for peer review. Other scientists then test it, then a theory forms around the hypothesis and the facts determined from testing it.

I'm very protective of the word theory. Creationist groups commonly say that evolution is "only a theory" completely oblivious to the fact that a theory is a very strong structure in science. Unfortunately, the word "theory" and "hypothesis" have become synonymous in the modern vernacular, and this is a bad thing for scientific understanding. Thus, I would appreciate it if you would use the word hypothesis in the future in place of theory in order to help the public's understanding of science (unless you are referring to a scientific theory, of course).

 

[Odo's_Bucket]

^^^ The dictionary is not a good source for the definition of scientific terminology. For example, dictionary.com's page on abiogenesis:

[FONT=serif][/FONT]​

Abiogenesis: The now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation are two completely different things, and while Spontaneous Generation has been discredited, Aibiogenesis is a credible scientific theory which has a lot going for it. The people who write dictionaries do not have a clue about science, largely because it is not their job to understand science.

Like I said, a theory is a framework around known facts, it is something that research scientists aspire to create. They start with an idea which they form into a hypothesis. They then test this hypothesis and try to disprove it. If the hypothesis holds up they submit it for peer review. Other scientists then test it, then a theory forms around the hypothesis and the facts determined from testing it.

I'm very protective of the word theory. Creationist groups commonly say that evolution is "only a theory" completely oblivious to the fact that a theory is a very strong structure in science. Unfortunately, the word "theory" and "hypothesis" have become synonymous in the modern vernacular, and this is a bad thing for scientific understanding. Thus, I would appreciate it if you would use the word hypothesis in the future in place of theory in order to help the public's understanding of science (unless you are referring to a scientific theory, of course).

Now you're arguing with dictionary definitions. Must be nice to have your own language all to yourself. Congrats on proving your mental inadequacies. Neither you nor I are scientists. When I use a word it is in the common vernacular and that is the only interpretation that should be taken from it. I have a theory. I don't need proof or explanations. That is why it's called a theory and not a fact and does not need to be supported by any. Sorry, you lose.

 

[TheGodBen]

Now you're arguing with dictionary definitions. Must be nice to have your own language all to yourself. Congrats on proving your mental inadequacies. Neither you nor I are scientists. When I use a word it is in the common vernacular and that is the only interpretation that should be taken from it. I have a theory. I don't need proof or explanations. That is why it's called a theory and not a fact and does not need to be supported by any. Sorry, you lose.

Have I done something to offend you? I informed you about something and asked kindly that you consider my recommendation, in return you attack me and claim I am mentally inadequate. I find that quite rude, and frankly I am offended. There was no need to resort to such unpleasantness. You can choose to ignore me all you wish, but there is no need to act like an ass.

Secondly, while it is true that I am not currently working in the sciences, I do have a B.Sc. and I try to keep up to date with the latest scientific progress. I care a great deal about science and hate to see it twisted by those who are trying to undermine it. That is why I explained the difference between a hypothesis and theory to you, because I want to stop this idea that a theory is something without merit.

I have already explained to you that a theory does need facts to support it, otherwise it is not a theory it is a hypothesis.

 

[Odo's_Bucket]

Now you're arguing with dictionary definitions. Must be nice to have your own language all to yourself. Congrats on proving your mental inadequacies. Neither you nor I are scientists. When I use a word it is in the common vernacular and that is the only interpretation that should be taken from it. I have a theory. I don't need proof or explanations. That is why it's called a theory and not a fact and does not need to be supported by any. Sorry, you lose.

Have I done something to offend you? I informed you about something and asked kindly that you consider my recommendation, in return you attack me and claim I am mentally inadequate. I find that quite rude, and frankly I am offended. There was no need to resort to such unpleasantness. You can choose to ignore me all you wish, but there is no need to act like an ass. Definition 2, b : An unproved assumption. No facts required.

Secondly, while it is true that I am not currently working in the sciences, I do have a B.Sc. and I try to keep up to date with the latest scientific progress. I care a great deal about science and hate to see it twisted by those who are trying to undermine it. That is why I explained the difference between a hypothesis and theory to you, because I want to stop this idea that a theory is something without merit.

I have already explained to you that a theory does need facts to support it, otherwise it is not a theory it is a hypothesis.

No, it does not need facts to support it. That's why it's a theory and not a fact. Read the definition again. ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The definitions are in the dictionary. I don't care about the scientific use of a word. It does not apply in the common vernacular. Definition 6, b : an unproved assumption. Facts are not required in order to make an unproved assumption. Which is what my theory is, an unproved assumption. Hence, I have a theory.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

Um...no. Humans have been around a few hundred thousand years. We're not even close to a million yet.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

That link has nothing to do with how long humans have existed. It is all about the age of the Universe.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

GodBen is right about the scientific meaning of "theory" versus "hypothesis"; just because your source didn't go into detail doesn't invalidate what he said. Even any elementary-school science teacher will attest to the correctness of what he's saying.

 

[Odo's_Bucket]

Um...no. Humans have been around a few hundred thousand years. We're not even close to a million yet.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

That link has nothing to do with how long humans have existed. It is all about the age of the Universe.

and humans have existed as a species for a few million years.

Directly from the page.

 

[Odo's_Bucket]

GodBen is right about the scientific meaning of "theory" versus "hypothesis"; just because your source didn't go into detail doesn't invalidate what he said. Even any elementary-school science teacher will attest to the correctness of what he's saying.

No he is wrong. Buy a dictionary and read it. I am not speaking in a scientific manner. I am not stating a hypothesis, because I plan no study of said hypothesis. I formed a theory ; an unproved assumption based on conjecture and speculation in the form of an abstract thought, therefore it is a theory. In the definitive sense of the word it is a theory.

 

[Odo's_Bucket]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory


2: abstract thought : speculation



6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture

 

[Odo's_Bucket]

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-theory.htm

quote:

"The word “theory” means a number of different things, depending on the context.
For laypeople, a theory is simply an idea. Some people use “theory” like “hypothesis,” positing an idea which needs to be tested. At other times, an idea may be dismissed as “just a theory,” with the implication that it cannot be proven and it is only a rough idea, not a firm fact or opinion."

 

[Odo's_Bucket]

You guys should take the time to read this.

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/WhatTheory.HTM

 

[Jono]

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

That link has nothing to do with how long humans have existed. It is all about the age of the Universe.

and humans have existed as a species for a few million years.

Directly from the page.

People are obviously thinking of humans as the group running around today, which is only a few hundred thousand years old. The homo genus, which we are a part of is goes back way further, a couple of million years, which human also refers to and is obviously used in the NASA article.

 

[Odo's_Bucket]

That link has nothing to do with how long humans have existed. It is all about the age of the Universe.

and humans have existed as a species for a few million years.

Directly from the page.

People are obviously thinking of humans as the group running around today, which is only a few hundred thousand years old. The homo genus, which we are a part of is goes back way further, a couple of million years, which human also refers to and is obviously used in the NASA article.

Right. I agree. But if the species of human ancestor that existed a few million years ago could evolve into us in the present then we could evolve into an offspring species that might exist a few million years from now. That is all my thought is based on.

 

[RoJoHen]

Isn't the modern human theorized to have evolved from crossbreeding of two different species? Neanderthals and...um...that other one (just got back from our employee Christmas party; slightly drunk). So there may be similar species that were around for a few million years, but I am not thinking of those in this instance.

I have no doubt that humans have the potential to evolve into something pretty extraordinary, but to think we are capable of evolving into the Q, a race that is able to do, quite literally, anything is just silly.

The only reason we're at all different from the ancient homo sapiens is because we've had time to figure stuff out. I just don't think we'll ever evolve to God-like status with magical powers.

 

[Jono]

^ In the past people have often thought a lot of notions to be silly that today are reality. Powered flight. Space travel. A non-white American been elected to the office of the president. It might seem silly and fanciful but given time and the will humanity has proved that it is capable of extraordinary things.

 

[Timo]

...If anything, recent history attests to a definite trend in humans to acquire powers and qualities typical of gods. It would only be natural for the general trend to continue, so that humans both deliberately and incidentally continue to pursue godhood, and eventually acquire at least all the qualities associated with past and present gods, and quite possibly exceed them to some degree.

On the subject of "theory", it's pretty much a lost battle: 99% of mankind considers the word to indicate "unproven thing", so trying to argue that the "theory of evolution" has merit is a futile effort compared with rephrasing it as, say, the "model of evolution". After all, we all in the 99% group know that "models" are solid, real things made of verifiably existing plastic or cardboard.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[TheGodBen]

On the subject of "theory", it's pretty much a lost battle: 99% of mankind considers the word to indicate "unproven thing", so trying to argue that the "theory of evolution" has merit is a futile effort compared with rephrasing it as, say, the "model of evolution". After all, we all in the 99% group know that "models" are solid, real things made of verifiably existing plastic or cardboard.

It may be a lost battle, but I'm not going to give up on trying. It's like the difference between there, their and they're; just because a lot of people don't know the differences between those three words doesn't mean that they are the same thing. In this case Odo's Bucket told someone to look up a definition of the word "theory", and since his own definition of the word was wrong I decided to correct him with a smile. I do this because science is important to me and I prefer for people not to have a mistaken understanding of it.

If I had seen somebody on another message board referring to Star Track: Deep Space Five staring Captain Janeway, I would correct that too. If somebody is going to talk about something it is best if they actually understand what they are talking about.

 

[Odo's_Bucket]

On the subject of "theory", it's pretty much a lost battle: 99% of mankind considers the word to indicate "unproven thing", so trying to argue that the "theory of evolution" has merit is a futile effort compared with rephrasing it as, say, the "model of evolution". After all, we all in the 99% group know that "models" are solid, real things made of verifiably existing plastic or cardboard.

It may be a lost battle, but I'm not going to give up on trying. It's like the difference between there, their and they're; just because a lot of people don't know the differences between those three words doesn't mean that they are the same thing. In this case Odo's Bucket told someone to look up a definition of the word "theory", and since his own definition of the word was wrong I decided to correct him with a smile. I do this because science is important to me and I prefer for people not to have a mistaken understanding of it.

If I had seen somebody on another message board referring to Star Track: Deep Space Five staring Captain Janeway, I would correct that too. If somebody is going to talk about something it is best if they actually understand what they are talking about.

The scientific definition of the word theory is the one that is wrong. The word existed with one definition, the common vernacular definition, then scientists came along and decided to redefine it. Sorry it doesn't work that way. You can't just change the language to suit your need. The original and correct definition of a theory requires no facts in support of said theory. Sorry. You lose. Did you even go to the link? Probably not.

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/WhatTheory.HTM

 

[RoJoHen]

^ In the past people have often thought a lot of notions to be silly that today are reality. Powered flight. Space travel. A non-white American been elected to the office of the president. It might seem silly and fanciful but given time and the will humanity has proved that it is capable of extraordinary things.

I think there is a huge difference between using knowledge to build a machine to do something extraordinary (space travel) or overcoming diversity in the case of Obama...and the ability to make the entire universe bend to your will.

Again, I'm not saying we're not capable of acquiring great powers, but Q-like powers? That needs to stay in the fictional world.