Science under attack in Texas

[Againsheila]

You know, I just don't know how anybody can believe that....not believing in evolution, that I get..evolution is a theory, not necessarily a fact.....but believing the world is less than 10,000 years old? He's just wearing blinders. How could he get a doctorate without learning that the world is a heck of a lot older than that? Did he not take geology at all? Does he think dinosaurs never existed?

I appreciate your recognition that a 10,000 year old earth is silly, but please don't perpetuate the "evolution is a theory" line. In scientific terms, the existence of atoms, germs causing disease, and the effects of gravity are all theoretical in the same way that evolution is considered theoretical. So unless you're willing to say that it's understandable to question whether atoms exist or whether germs cause disease then saying evolution is a theory not a fact is misrepresenting what the scientific understanding of theory means.

Unless you can show me, absolute proof of evolution, it's still just a theory. A theory, btw is better than an hypothesis as at least it has some evidence to back it up. We still have missing links.

Even if we fill in those missing gaps, that still doesn't disprove the Bible. What may have taken a blink of an eye for God can take millions of years for us, and vice a versa.

 

[YWN666]

evolution is a theory, not necessarily a fact.....

Another one who doesn't understand the scientific definition of the word theory.

 

[YWN666]

You know, I just don't know how anybody can believe that....not believing in evolution, that I get..evolution is a theory, not necessarily a fact.....but believing the world is less than 10,000 years old? He's just wearing blinders. How could he get a doctorate without learning that the world is a heck of a lot older than that? Did he not take geology at all? Does he think dinosaurs never existed?

I appreciate your recognition that a 10,000 year old earth is silly, but please don't perpetuate the "evolution is a theory" line. In scientific terms, the existence of atoms, germs causing disease, and the effects of gravity are all theoretical in the same way that evolution is considered theoretical. So unless you're willing to say that it's understandable to question whether atoms exist or whether germs cause disease then saying evolution is a theory not a fact is misrepresenting what the scientific understanding of theory means.

Unless you can show me, absolute proof of evolution, it's still just a theory. A theory, btw is better than an hypothesis as at least it has some evidence to back it up. We still have missing links.

PLEASE look up the scientific definition of the word theory. You obviously don't know what it means.
A theory is not a guess that becomes fact through accumulation of evidence. A theory EXPLAINS the facts so when you say "it's just a theory", you're saying "it's just an explanation". The word theory does NOT imply doubt.

 

[Againsheila]

I appreciate your recognition that a 10,000 year old earth is silly, but please don't perpetuate the "evolution is a theory" line. In scientific terms, the existence of atoms, germs causing disease, and the effects of gravity are all theoretical in the same way that evolution is considered theoretical. So unless you're willing to say that it's understandable to question whether atoms exist or whether germs cause disease then saying evolution is a theory not a fact is misrepresenting what the scientific understanding of theory means.

Unless you can show me, absolute proof of evolution, it's still just a theory. A theory, btw is better than an hypothesis as at least it has some evidence to back it up. We still have missing links.

PLEASE look up the scientific definition of the word theory. You obviously don't know what it means.
A theory is not a guess that becomes fact through accumulation of evidence. A theory EXPLAINS the facts so when you say "it's just a theory", you're saying "it's just an explanation". The word theory does NOT imply doubt.

Oh grow up, you're just mad that AFTER you insulted my intelligence I proved I know what the word theory means. The word theory implies there is no implicit proof, only facts that when put together lead to the theory. Once it's proven, it is no longer "theory".


BTY, an hypothesis is a guess that through accumulation of evidence lead to a theory. Once there is complete proof, the word theory no longer applies, it becomes fact.

Science is one of my worst subjects and I'm better at it than you.

 

[N4mddissent]

You know, I just don't know how anybody can believe that....not believing in evolution, that I get..evolution is a theory, not necessarily a fact.....but believing the world is less than 10,000 years old? He's just wearing blinders. How could he get a doctorate without learning that the world is a heck of a lot older than that? Did he not take geology at all? Does he think dinosaurs never existed?

I appreciate your recognition that a 10,000 year old earth is silly, but please don't perpetuate the "evolution is a theory" line. In scientific terms, the existence of atoms, germs causing disease, and the effects of gravity are all theoretical in the same way that evolution is considered theoretical. So unless you're willing to say that it's understandable to question whether atoms exist or whether germs cause disease then saying evolution is a theory not a fact is misrepresenting what the scientific understanding of theory means.

Unless you can show me, absolute proof of evolution, it's still just a theory. A theory, btw is better than an hypothesis as at least it has some evidence to back it up. We still have missing links.

Even if we fill in those missing gaps, that still doesn't disprove the Bible. What may have taken a blink of an eye for God can take millions of years for us, and vice a versa.

A scientific theory. Just like germs cause disease and matter is made of atoms. They are all considered valid and sound scientific explanations. As long as you are just as willing to question the other theories in science, then I have no problem. It is blatant ideological to consider the scientific community's acceptance of evolutionary theory as somehow less accurate or less authoritative than the scientific community's acceptance of germ theory or atomic theory simply because it poses ideological difficulties.

As far as evidence, the shared instances of transposons (which are often used in identification for paternity and criminal cases), pseudogenes, and most convincingly, at least seven common instances of shared ERV genetic coding between humans and chimps pretty much closes the book on common descent in my opinion. And the fact that shared genetic anomalies progress throughout and confirm the phylogentic tree- along with transitional fossils like tiktaalik make me wonder how anyone could still doubt the theory.

 

[Toro]

It doesn't matter, the Bible was written by man, inspired by God. No where in the Bible does it say dinosaurs never existed. There is nothing in science which contradicts the Bible, and even if there was, well, God is flawless, man isn't.

The very opening passage of the bible contradicts science. Genesis says that God created the earth in six days. Science says that the earth was created from remnants of the big bang over billions of years.

 

[Diuretic]

It doesn't matter, the Bible was written by man, inspired by God. No where in the Bible does it say dinosaurs never existed. There is nothing in science which contradicts the Bible, and even if there was, well, God is flawless, man isn't.

The very opening passage of the bible contradicts science. Genesis says that God created the earth in six days. Science says that the earth was created from remnants of the big bang over billions of years.

Aw, it was close though

 

[Diuretic]

Scientific theory changes when the theory no longer explains or when a better explanation comes along. Medical science believed in miasma theory as a cause of some diseases. Now it doesn't.



Miasma theory of disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KittenKoder]

Unless you can show me, absolute proof of evolution, it's still just a theory. A theory, btw is better than an hypothesis as at least it has some evidence to back it up. We still have missing links.

PLEASE look up the scientific definition of the word theory. You obviously don't know what it means.
A theory is not a guess that becomes fact through accumulation of evidence. A theory EXPLAINS the facts so when you say "it's just a theory", you're saying "it's just an explanation". The word theory does NOT imply doubt.

Oh grow up, you're just mad that AFTER you insulted my intelligence I proved I know what the word theory means. The word theory implies there is no implicit proof, only facts that when put together lead to the theory. Once it's proven, it is no longer "theory".


BTY, an hypothesis is a guess that through accumulation of evidence lead to a theory. Once there is complete proof, the word theory no longer applies, it becomes fact.

Science is one of my worst subjects and I'm better at it than you.

Um ... quite the other way actually. The event of evolution is fact, we see it everyday in virus' and to a less frequent extent insects. We have even seen it in amphibians recently. It is indisputable fact that it happens, the only "theory" is what evolutionary tracks we have no complete records of, one of those being humans. The laws of evolution are already proven and follow logic, the theories based on those laws however are currently unprovable one way or the other.

 

[KittenKoder]

It doesn't matter, the Bible was written by man, inspired by God. No where in the Bible does it say dinosaurs never existed. There is nothing in science which contradicts the Bible, and even if there was, well, God is flawless, man isn't.

The very opening passage of the bible contradicts science. Genesis says that God created the earth in six days. Science says that the earth was created from remnants of the big bang over billions of years.

Actually, using that as a reason to not believe in it is about as weak as saying that since it doesn't mention evolution of humanity that evolution is wrong. There is also a passage in there that does actually address this, whether added in hindsight or not it does show that those who believe in a "young earth" really don't know much about their own religion, but it makes it possible still. Time is different to different species on earth as we see it, and so to would time be very different to a god or any supremely powerful being, thus a day in the creation theory could be billions of years, which fits nicely in most scientific theories anyway.

 

[Againsheila]

PLEASE look up the scientific definition of the word theory. You obviously don't know what it means.
A theory is not a guess that becomes fact through accumulation of evidence. A theory EXPLAINS the facts so when you say "it's just a theory", you're saying "it's just an explanation". The word theory does NOT imply doubt.

Oh grow up, you're just mad that AFTER you insulted my intelligence I proved I know what the word theory means. The word theory implies there is no implicit proof, only facts that when put together lead to the theory. Once it's proven, it is no longer "theory".


BTY, an hypothesis is a guess that through accumulation of evidence lead to a theory. Once there is complete proof, the word theory no longer applies, it becomes fact.

Science is one of my worst subjects and I'm better at it than you.

Um ... quite the other way actually. The event of evolution is fact, we see it everyday in virus' and to a less frequent extent insects. We have even seen it in amphibians recently. It is indisputable fact that it happens, the only "theory" is what evolutionary tracks we have no complete records of, one of those being humans. The laws of evolution are already proven and follow logic, the theories based on those laws however are currently unprovable one way or the other.

I'm not sure if you'd call it evolution or mutation. What's happening with frogs these days I think is more mutation than evolution.

Never the less, evolution remains a theory and should be taught in science. Again, even if we find the 'missing links", it still doesn't disprove God or the Bible. As I said before the Bible was written by man, inspired by God. As such, it's not foolproof.

I do not think God ever intended anyone to be blind to science, nor blinded by science.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh grow up, you're just mad that AFTER you insulted my intelligence I proved I know what the word theory means. The word theory implies there is no implicit proof, only facts that when put together lead to the theory. Once it's proven, it is no longer "theory".


BTY, an hypothesis is a guess that through accumulation of evidence lead to a theory. Once there is complete proof, the word theory no longer applies, it becomes fact.

Science is one of my worst subjects and I'm better at it than you.

Um ... quite the other way actually. The event of evolution is fact, we see it everyday in virus' and to a less frequent extent insects. We have even seen it in amphibians recently. It is indisputable fact that it happens, the only "theory" is what evolutionary tracks we have no complete records of, one of those being humans. The laws of evolution are already proven and follow logic, the theories based on those laws however are currently unprovable one way or the other.

I'm not sure if you'd call it evolution or mutation. What's happening with frogs these days I think is more mutation than evolution.

Never the less, evolution remains a theory and should be taught in science. Again, even if we find the 'missing links", it still doesn't disprove God or the Bible. As I said before the Bible was written by man, inspired by God. As such, it's not foolproof.

I do not think God ever intended anyone to be blind to science, nor blinded by science.

Mutation is part of evolution, life needs a trigger for it's changes. If the change causes the species to be strong it survives after it, eventually the changes increase until it's a whole new species, if it makes it weaker it dies off quickly and usually leaves nothing behind. The larger and more complex a species the less noticeable the changes and the longer the "test" of validity takes.

Though you are right, in itself science does not contradict nor verify the bible, though you must admit many christians do not see as clearly as you on that.

 

[dilloduck]

Um ... quite the other way actually. The event of evolution is fact, we see it everyday in virus' and to a less frequent extent insects. We have even seen it in amphibians recently. It is indisputable fact that it happens, the only "theory" is what evolutionary tracks we have no complete records of, one of those being humans. The laws of evolution are already proven and follow logic, the theories based on those laws however are currently unprovable one way or the other.

I'm not sure if you'd call it evolution or mutation. What's happening with frogs these days I think is more mutation than evolution.

Never the less, evolution remains a theory and should be taught in science. Again, even if we find the 'missing links", it still doesn't disprove God or the Bible. As I said before the Bible was written by man, inspired by God. As such, it's not foolproof.

I do not think God ever intended anyone to be blind to science, nor blinded by science.

Mutation is part of evolution, life needs a trigger for it's changes. If the change causes the species to be strong it survives after it, eventually the changes increase until it's a whole new species, if it makes it weaker it dies off quickly and usually leaves nothing behind. The larger and more complex a species the less noticeable the changes and the longer the "test" of validity takes.

Though you are right, in itself science does not contradict nor verify the bible, though you must admit many christians do not see as clearly as you on that.

Life most likely took a trigger to begin too.

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm not sure if you'd call it evolution or mutation. What's happening with frogs these days I think is more mutation than evolution.

Never the less, evolution remains a theory and should be taught in science. Again, even if we find the 'missing links", it still doesn't disprove God or the Bible. As I said before the Bible was written by man, inspired by God. As such, it's not foolproof.

I do not think God ever intended anyone to be blind to science, nor blinded by science.

Mutation is part of evolution, life needs a trigger for it's changes. If the change causes the species to be strong it survives after it, eventually the changes increase until it's a whole new species, if it makes it weaker it dies off quickly and usually leaves nothing behind. The larger and more complex a species the less noticeable the changes and the longer the "test" of validity takes.

Though you are right, in itself science does not contradict nor verify the bible, though you must admit many christians do not see as clearly as you on that.

Life most likely took a trigger to begin too.

Precisely ... and thus why no matter how much they learn about what causes what, it cannot prove for or against any religious myth. Even if we can see these triggers happen naturally that does not mean they were not influenced or even started by some other hand, but as to what that hand is, until it comes down in front of everyone to claim credit then it's just theory. For all we know aliens from another galaxy started it all here.

 

[Againsheila]

Um ... quite the other way actually. The event of evolution is fact, we see it everyday in virus' and to a less frequent extent insects. We have even seen it in amphibians recently. It is indisputable fact that it happens, the only "theory" is what evolutionary tracks we have no complete records of, one of those being humans. The laws of evolution are already proven and follow logic, the theories based on those laws however are currently unprovable one way or the other.

I'm not sure if you'd call it evolution or mutation. What's happening with frogs these days I think is more mutation than evolution.

Never the less, evolution remains a theory and should be taught in science. Again, even if we find the 'missing links", it still doesn't disprove God or the Bible. As I said before the Bible was written by man, inspired by God. As such, it's not foolproof.

I do not think God ever intended anyone to be blind to science, nor blinded by science.

Mutation is part of evolution, life needs a trigger for it's changes. If the change causes the species to be strong it survives after it, eventually the changes increase until it's a whole new species, if it makes it weaker it dies off quickly and usually leaves nothing behind. The larger and more complex a species the less noticeable the changes and the longer the "test" of validity takes.

Though you are right, in itself science does not contradict nor verify the bible, though you must admit many christians do not see as clearly as you on that.

And many Christians do, I think that problem is you only need one like the Dr in the article to make us all look bad. I still want to know how he got a doctorate without realizing that the world is a heck of a lot older than 10,000 years.

 

[Diuretic]

The Vatican recognises evolution (well now it does). The folks who hold the young earth idea tend to have a very fundamental view of their religion and in literal rather than hermeneutical interpretations of the Bible. I think it has to be said that those folks are seen as, well let's say, not in the mainstream. As the Vatican (which has some smart theologians and scientists as well) says, evolution isn't contradictory of the existence of God or of the truth of the Bible.

 

[N4mddissent]

I'm not sure if you'd call it evolution or mutation. What's happening with frogs these days I think is more mutation than evolution.

Never the less, evolution remains a theory and should be taught in science. Again, even if we find the 'missing links", it still doesn't disprove God or the Bible. As I said before the Bible was written by man, inspired by God. As such, it's not foolproof.

I do not think God ever intended anyone to be blind to science, nor blinded by science.

Mutation is part of evolution, life needs a trigger for it's changes. If the change causes the species to be strong it survives after it, eventually the changes increase until it's a whole new species, if it makes it weaker it dies off quickly and usually leaves nothing behind. The larger and more complex a species the less noticeable the changes and the longer the "test" of validity takes.

Though you are right, in itself science does not contradict nor verify the bible, though you must admit many christians do not see as clearly as you on that.

And many Christians do, I think that problem is you only need one like the Dr in the article to make us all look bad. I still want to know how he got a doctorate without realizing that the world is a heck of a lot older than 10,000 years.

I never tell anyone they can't have their religious views compatible with science. I try focus criticism on letting ideology (religious, political, or otherwise) trump scientific facts. I happen to not believe the bible, but it wasn't always the case, so I understand the arguments for compatibility and many of the creationist arguments that try to discredit science. That is the behavior that really frustrates me- When someone claims absolute certainty, with a conclusion based in their belief, and then tries to shoe-horn the facts into conforming with their ideas. I haven't seen you do that, but many do. A survey a couple of years ago suggested that as much as 40% of the U.S. population believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's sad, really.

One last thing, and I don't mean this negatively, but it seems you were taught a common misconception. I actually had science teachers who taught me this as well, before I discovered that actual scientists think it is silly and wrong. I'm referring to the hypothesis-theory-Law chain of progression. Hypothesis gets some confirmation it becomes a theory. A theory gets complete confirmation it becomes a law. This whole idea is incorrect. Real scientists use the word theory to mean a broad explanation that covers a wide range of related natural phenomena. If a theory is accepted by general scientific consensus, then it is regarded as accurate as any fact in science. That is why scientists nearly have a stroke when they hear people criticize evolution as "only a theory". I don't think they realized how widespread the popular misconception of scientific theories is.

 

[Red Dawn]

Unless you can show me, absolute proof of evolution, it's still just a theory. A theory, btw is better than an hypothesis as at least it has some evidence to back it up. We still have missing links.

PLEASE look up the scientific definition of the word theory. You obviously don't know what it means.
A theory is not a guess that becomes fact through accumulation of evidence. A theory EXPLAINS the facts so when you say "it's just a theory", you're saying "it's just an explanation". The word theory does NOT imply doubt.

Oh grow up, you're just mad that AFTER you insulted my intelligence I proved I know what the word theory means. The word theory implies there is no implicit proof, only facts that when put together lead to the theory. Once it's proven, it is no longer "theory".


BTY, an hypothesis is a guess that through accumulation of evidence lead to a theory. Once there is complete proof, the word theory no longer applies, it becomes fact.

Science is one of my worst subjects and I'm better at it than you.

Its crystal clear that you have absolutly no formal training in science, and I'm sure you've never had any science education beyond high school biology, or an introductory college level survey class.


You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. There are no theories that become "fact" in science. Theories always remain theories. Some theories are so thoroughly tested that they become basic tenets of science. But nothing in science ever becomes a "fact" in the way that word is used in layman's lexicon.

Evolution is one of the most firmly established theories in science. Its on a par with atomic theory and the theory of gravity. Has anyone ever actually SEEN an electron? No, but atomic theory is so firmly grounded by testing, that it has become a basic tenet of science. Evolution is on a par with that.

If you ever had a good science teacher, you would know this. Theories like evolution and atomic theory are never proven as "fact". There's no way to prove beyond every possible shadow of a doubt that they are 100% reflective of truth about the natural world. But, they are so firmly rooted in testing, that there are simply no other credible explanations to replace them.


This is how science works. Singling out evolution as some sort of weak-ass theory, is just a smoke screen for those who live in fear that the fossil record somehow disproves their bible. Its a emotional reaction. One that is not based on knowledge of the scientific method.

 

[Againsheila]

Mutation is part of evolution, life needs a trigger for it's changes. If the change causes the species to be strong it survives after it, eventually the changes increase until it's a whole new species, if it makes it weaker it dies off quickly and usually leaves nothing behind. The larger and more complex a species the less noticeable the changes and the longer the "test" of validity takes.

Though you are right, in itself science does not contradict nor verify the bible, though you must admit many christians do not see as clearly as you on that.

And many Christians do, I think that problem is you only need one like the Dr in the article to make us all look bad. I still want to know how he got a doctorate without realizing that the world is a heck of a lot older than 10,000 years.

I never tell anyone they can't have their religious views compatible with science. I try focus criticism on letting ideology (religious, political, or otherwise) trump scientific facts. I happen to not believe the bible, but it wasn't always the case, so I understand the arguments for compatibility and many of the creationist arguments that try to discredit science. That is the behavior that really frustrates me- When someone claims absolute certainty, with a conclusion based in their belief, and then tries to shoe-horn the facts into conforming with their ideas. I haven't seen you do that, but many do. A survey a couple of years ago suggested that as much as 40% of the U.S. population believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's sad, really.

One last thing, and I don't mean this negatively, but it seems you were taught a common misconception. I actually had science teachers who taught me this as well, before I discovered that actual scientists think it is silly and wrong. I'm referring to the hypothesis-theory-Law chain of progression. Hypothesis gets some confirmation it becomes a theory. A theory gets complete confirmation it becomes a law. This whole idea is incorrect. Real scientists use the word theory to mean a broad explanation that covers a wide range of related natural phenomena. If a theory is accepted by general scientific consensus, then it is regarded as accurate as any fact in science. That is why scientists nearly have a stroke when they hear people criticize evolution as "only a theory". I don't think they realized how widespread the popular misconception of scientific theories is.

Um, I know actual scientists, one of my best friends is one. It's not a misconception, it's fact. Hypothesis, theory, law.....that's the way it goes. It's that way in Math too. A theory does have facts to support it, just not enough to make it law. Evolution is a theory, Gravity is law. Get it?

The problem is that since the 70's, public schools have been so out against Christian/Judeo beliefs that they teach evolution as fact more as an attack against Judeo/Christian beliefs than as science. So anyone that calls it a theory, which is what it is, is immediately attacked, as seen in this thread previously. I would rather they teach it as a theory and encourage those future scientists to go out and prove it.

They haven't yet found all the links...I want to know where we came from, why Caucasians are the way they are, why do Negros (and just so you know, I use the word negro here because when I was in school there were 3 races, Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. You could be black AND Caucasian, believe it or not. Blacks that have the flat nose and big lips are Negroid the others are Caucasoid, it's not meant as an insult to anyone) have an extra tendon, why do Asians have slanted eyes? Evolution could explain it...but it doesn't yet.

OH, and call me crazy, but I don't think it's beyond possibility that we could have come from outer space, at least some of us. I wish we could make a television that could look into the past and we could tune into whenever we want and actually see history and/or science as it happens.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

OH, and call me crazy, but I don't think it's beyond possibility that we could have come from outer space, at least some of us. I wish we could make a television that could look into the past and we could tune into whenever we want and actually see history and/or science as it happens.

We came from the 12 colonies of Man, the Lords of Cobol say so. It is written. The thirteenth colony, far out in the universe, is lost. It's called..... Earth![ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=xHD1uPVkyk0]YouTube - Battlestar Galactica Opening Theme from 1978[/ame]