|
On September 14 2009 07:25 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 07:05 JacobDaKung wrote:On September 14 2009 06:53 igotmyown wrote:On S
eptember 14 2009 06:13 NicolBolas wrote:On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote:
About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist? Asked and answered. Gravity is a verifiable fact: matter attracts matter. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts matter with a force in inverse proportion to the square of the distance and in direct proportion of the two masses, with a constant of proportionality G. And this is demonstrably wrong. There are other terms involved; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity corrected Newtonian gravitation. Even if there were no relativistic drifts, gravity would not be a fact, and it is not a fact. Technically, it could be an extremely miniscule coincidence (less likely than finding a specific particle in the entire universe) of random movement. Science does not do facts, and assertions like this is what allows people to obfuscate evolution as a mere theory. Something being a fact just means that it is observeble, noting more nothing less. Gravity is a fact, or dont you observe it every day? short note book for what scientist mean: fact - observeble theory - compilation of facts, predictions and explainations to facts (supported by evidence, ofc) gravity is not a fact, why do you discuss things you are absolutely ignorant off. Actually if we get really anal about gravity which was considered a law, it has proven to be a flawed concept since newer theories speak more of a curvature in space rather than an invisible attraction force.
gravity is a fact, its observable that matter attracts matter.
the theories related to gravity try to explain how and why it works.
|
and you'll note that while gravity was "wrong" (not really), the revisions to it are so minor that they dont really apply in everyday life. So if anyone is out there hoping we suddenly come up with evidence that evolution is wrong....
keep hoping
|
On September 14 2009 03:28 Kaialynn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 03:25 uNiGNoRe wrote:
I don't see how you can "believe" in evolution. It's a fact... I don't "believe" that earth isn't flat, I know it. Because Evolution is a theory. Theory in scientific terms implies a hypothesis. Hypotheses can ONLY be proved wrong, they can NEVER be proven right, according to the science world. That's why.
Completely wrong.
|
Theories are based off strings of facts, which have yet to be proven as a whole ~_~
|
|
|
On September 14 2009 03:39 Failsafe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote:
I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
What if God is just creating different bacteria and we're watching it happen?
wow are you serious? i never thought of it like that... + Show Spoiler +because im not an idiot -_-
|
How can people not believe in evolution? It's pretty much the most reasonable explanation for our existence. Well, other than aliens putting us here 
|
I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
|
On September 14 2009 08:33 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 08:24 Sadist wrote:On September 14 2009 06:13 B00ts wrote:On September 14 2009 05:17 3 Lions wrote:
I'm Christian and I don't believe in evolution.
But I see absolutely no problem with showing this movie in theaters... Look, I understand why people have views like this...I do. But to be frank, saying you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe that the sun is the center of our solar system... I don't mean to be insulting, in fact I think its just a lack of knowlege that causes this (im not saying ur un-educated). No one is required to learn the theory of evolution, and if you are a believer in creation, why would you ever bother? Another point I'd like to make... Is to attempt to strike down the idea that you you cannot have both evolution AND creation. Just because evolution exists, does not destroy creation theory. So God created all things... Why can't he have given them all the ability to evolve? The only reason that isn't in the bible (new or old testament) is because the science didn't exist yet... I can't say much about the old testament... but please remember that the new testament was not given to us in a beam of holy light from God, but that it was compiled and written by of large group of old men in Rome. There were some scripts and scrolls it is based off of, including peices of the gospels (not even writting by them themselves), but it was, in fact, edited, 'censored' so to speak, by this group (i forget what they were called at the time). Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing early Catholisism (and hence all Christianity), I'm merely stating facts. Just because the new testament isn't 1st hand from Jesus or God, does not mean they do not exist. the reason evolution isnt in the bible is because the Bible isnt "the perfect word of god" or whatever the hell the evangelicals want to call it. Its just a book of stories.....and quite foolish stories. Well, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a lot of good in the bible, and while it has been used for bad things, it has also been an excellent guide for generations of people. It is foolish to believe anything blindly and absolutely, but it doesn't make it foolish.
There are quite a few dumb ass stories in the bible. Particularly the old testament. Realisticly the bible shouldnt be looked at with any more level of respect for its teaching lessons than any of the myths written prior or after. Toy Story can teach just as many life lessons as the Bible
|
On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote:
I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
Both those people are cowards imo. But the 2nd one does not represent what science is about at all. If people thought like that nobody would ever be able to build upon science. Science is about trying to find out the "truth" about reality. Whereas religion thinks they have already solved it.
|
On September 14 2009 09:04 IdrA wrote:
gravity is a fact, its observable that matter attracts matter.
Not it's not. It's observable that matter moves towards matter.
~Moves in the sense of acceleration, obviously.
|
On September 14 2009 06:45 Bebop Berserker wrote:
Why is it that these threads always get derailed into the dumbest arguments. A hypothesis means its a logical conclusion based on little evidence. A theory means that it seems accurate, but hasn't had overwhelming proof in its favor vs. other theories. A law is the highest honor science can put on a hypothesis which means that logically there is NO other way things could work to the scientific community at that moment.
I think besides Canada, America, and "third world" countries 85%+ believe in evolution. But i might be talking out my ass.
A law is not "higher" than a theory; It serves a different purpose. Laws generalize a body of observations, but they don't explain the "why" behind those observations.
|
On September 14 2009 10:23 armed_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 09:04 IdrA wrote:
gravity is a fact, its observable that matter attracts matter. Not it's not. It's observable that matter moves towards matter. ~Moves in the sense of acceleration, obviously.
That gravity is, is a fact
How, Why, Where, and all the details beyond the observable facts of gravity are very much theories, and are very much -what gravity is-... This is just how science works, it's really pathetic that this isn't understood and taught in High Schools.
and Laws are just theories. Newton's Law was proved wrong by Einstien, and sometime in the future String Theory and/or Quantum Loop Theory aim to disprove Einstien. Nothing in Science is ever set in stone, and if we can add a few decimal places onto our understanding it's for the better, and not a discredit to the current understanding.
|
On September 14 2009 05:47 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 05:05 Iplaythings wrote:
the hardcore believing part of america never siezes to amase... Made my night cus of the ignorance of them No reason to be ignorant towards people who have religious beliefs. Your attitude doesn't help anyone and merely ignites opposition.
No reason to be lacking in knowledge towards people who have religious beliefs. Your attitude doesn't help anyone and merely ignites opposition...?
wat
|
On September 14 2009 10:38 Motiva wrote:
That gravity is, is a fact
How, Why, Where, and all the details beyond the observable facts of gravity are very much theories, and are very much -what gravity is-... This is just how science works, it's really pathetic that this isn't understood and taught in High Schools.
No, it's not. You can observe that all matter moves in such a manner that it seems there is an attraction, but saying that there is in fact an attraction is already theorizing. Gravity is very much a theory.
|
On September 14 2009 09:04 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 07:25 baal wrote:On September 14 2009 07:05 JacobDaKung wrote:On September 14 2009 06:53 igotmyown wrote:On S
eptember 14 2009 06:13 NicolBolas wrote:On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote:
About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist? Asked and answered. Gravity is a verifiable fact: matter attracts matter. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts matter with a force in inverse proportion to the square of the distance and in direct proportion of the two masses, with a constant of proportionality G. And this is demonstrably wrong. There are other terms involved; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity corrected Newtonian gravitation. Even if there were no relativistic drifts, gravity would not be a fact, and it is not a fact. Technically, it could be an extremely miniscule coincidence (less likely than finding a specific particle in the entire universe) of random movement. Science does not do facts, and assertions like this is what allows people to obfuscate evolution as a mere theory. Something being a fact just means that it is observeble, noting more nothing less. Gravity is a fact, or dont you observe it every day? short note book for what scientist mean: fact - observeble theory - compilation of facts, predictions and explainations to facts (supported by evidence, ofc) gravity is not a fact, why do you discuss things you are absolutely ignorant off. Actually if we get really anal about gravity which was considered a law, it has proven to be a flawed concept since newer theories speak more of a curvature in space rather than an invisible attraction force. gravity is a fact, its observable that matter attracts matter. the theories related to gravity try to explain how and why it works.
you put a smile on my face Baal  you actually accused someone being absolutely ignorant. TL is a good place to learn humility.
|
On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote:
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
what garbage
Classical physics still exists, and still describes our daily interactions as well as ever. QM is just another wrinkle in the fabric
The existance of QM doesnt somehow make classical physics wrong on a large scale.
|
On September 14 2009 08:33 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 08:24 Sadist wrote:On September 14 2009 06:13 B00ts wrote:On September 14 2009 05:17 3 Lions wrote:
I'm Christian and I don't believe in evolution.
But I see absolutely no problem with showing this movie in theaters... Look, I understand why people have views like this...I do. But to be frank, saying you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe that the sun is the center of our solar system... I don't mean to be insulting, in fact I think its just a lack of knowlege that causes this (im not saying ur un-educated). No one is required to learn the theory of evolution, and if you are a believer in creation, why would you ever bother? Another point I'd like to make... Is to attempt to strike down the idea that you you cannot have both evolution AND creation. Just because evolution exists, does not destroy creation theory. So God created all things... Why can't he have given them all the ability to evolve? The only reason that isn't in the bible (new or old testament) is because the science didn't exist yet... I can't say much about the old testament... but please remember that the new testament was not given to us in a beam of holy light from God, but that it was compiled and written by of large group of old men in Rome. There were some scripts and scrolls it is based off of, including peices of the gospels (not even writting by them themselves), but it was, in fact, edited, 'censored' so to speak, by this group (i forget what they were called at the time). Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing early Catholisism (and hence all Christianity), I'm merely stating facts. Just because the new testament isn't 1st hand from Jesus or God, does not mean they do not exist. the reason evolution isnt in the bible is because the Bible isnt "the perfect word of god" or whatever the hell the evangelicals want to call it. Its just a book of stories.....and quite foolish stories. Well, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a lot of good in the bible, and while it has been used for bad things, it has also been an excellent guide for generations of people. It is foolish to believe anything blindly and absolutely, but it doesn't make it foolish.
The best moral teaching there is (and one that is not at all unique to the Bible), the ethic of reciprocity, makes several appearances in the Bible. But, in the context of the Bible, it loses all meaning.
Love thy neighbor... unless he's gay, or had sex with a woman during her period, or is a witch, or is someone who does not follow YHWH but came near the place of worship, or is just one of those fucking Canaanites.
|
On September 14 2009 10:56 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote:
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
what garbage Classical physics still exists, and still describes our daily interactions as well as ever. QM is just another wrinkle in the fabric The existance of QM doesnt somehow make classical physics wrong on a large scale.
it was an example.
But read my reply to that above.
|
On September 14 2009 03:34 Weaponx3 wrote:
some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
Evolution is the accepted scientific theory for the development of life on Earth -- "theory" in Science terms means a very well tested hypothesis that has time and time again shown to be true.
People who say it is "very flawed" are very uneducated in the subject.
The only reason people don't believe in evolution is because of their religious beliefs (at least the vast majority). Can you see what's wrong here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
