pedro.m.reis
Newbie but eager to learn
Well, i want to thankyou all for this thread. I learned some nice new things like there are institutions that all they do is to try to prove this creationism theory. I honesty thought that only the catholic church and some small religion groups defended this. I didnt even knew that there are several creationism theories. I learned a bunch of new terms also (quasi-science, junk science, etc). All in all it was a good day.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Silva Lining said:Mystery solvedNickTrop said:
LOL - Of course! It's all very clear now.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Did you hear about people challenging the teaching of microorganisms? These people don't believe in them, just as strongly as they believe in Creationism.Davor said:
Faith is good. Blind unbending faith, though, is dangerous (Middle Ages anyone?)
NickTrop
Veteran
Gabriel M.A. said:
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Fred Flintstone.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Yes. However, in science, a theory is the highest and most valid form of knowledge that exists. A theory is a model that explains and predicts observable facts. As such it necessarily encompasses all the observable facts in its domain. If it does not support observable facts, then it becomes worthless, at which point it actually ceases to be a theory.colyn said:
Don't be confused by street usage of the word "theory"; if we want to talk science, we should be ready to accept scientific terminology. If on the other hand we want to avoid scientific terminology, then what is called a theory in science is pretty close to what people call a "proven fact" in natural language.
Well, the difference is that one is supported by physically observable evidence, the other isn't, and that one holds under the scrutiny of the scientific method, the other doesn't. So what you are saying could really be rephrased as: "If you believe in science, then science is right for you. If on the other hand you believe in faith, then faith is right for you."colyn said:
That's of course a valid viewpoint. Nothing per se is wrong with faith. But let's not confuse the two.
Philipp
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well if a microogranism tried to teach me anything, you bet I damn well better challenge it!Gabriel M.A. said:
MikeL
Go Fish
colyn said:
Colyn, you do not understand science. If you were to understand what the practice of science is and it's strengths and limitations, you would not quote David B. and make the statements you make.
Science is not about choice, or about debate. It's about developing a theory from evidence and information we see around us. Evolution is a theory from evidence. That evidence is incomplete, and will never be complete (fossil record). Global warming is the worst set up experiment ever, since we only have one planet, and can therefore never get at causation. But the weight of the evidence is so strong for those who understand the evidence, they have decided to put forth their theory. The rate of change in greenhouse gases is very very high. Things are melting at rates we have never seen. All the evidence points to a strong correlation between our actions and these responses. This is over a very short time scale relative to what we've seen in the geologic record.
Scientists do debate theory, but both sides of those debates come from evidence. It is frustrating that scientists have failed so miserably to convey to people what science is and more importantly it's limitations. It requires evidence. It is like a court of law, imperfect due to people but overall the strength of the evidence is what rules. With no evidence, it can't do anything. It can not answer questions that many of us care about (who are we, where are we going, etc.). That is the strength of religion and faith. But for questions where we have access to evidence, science is the best tool we have.
The theory of evolution requires evidence, and we see that evidence in science journals and our everyday life. The weight of evidence is so strong that the most skeptical in society (scientists, who make you 'show evidence or shut up') now accept the theory as they do gravity.
I have no problems with creationism or intelligent design, but they are not science. Theories yes, but science, uh.....no. Their strength is that they do not need evidence but require faith. If only people were educated about what science is, they would understand that it threatens no one's belief or faith. I have faith that the practice of science (very different from it's use by politicians or pundits on all sides) will improve our understanding of how the world works, but only for those questions we ask for which evidence exists or can be generated.
Many have already posted what I said above, but I thought I would reiterate since scientists have failed miserably to communicate what it is and what it isn't to the general public.
Edit: Oh yeah, let the ad hominem begin!
Last edited:
mich8261
Well-known
dazedgonebye said:
Actually it has been shown that this was due to pollution particles in the atmosphere which blocked the sun's rays. Same effect as when Mt Pinatubo blew up in the Philipines causing global temperatures to drop. This pollution was actually masking the effects of greenhouse gases. Once we cleaned up the pollution, we lost the ND filter. This is why some scientists are advocating fighting fire with fire by sending particles in the high atmosphere to compensate for global warming.
Sparrow
Veteran
mich8261 said:
Nuke the Sahara?..............that might just work
:angel:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
lol - the teaching of, not by microorganisms. Although, you have to wonder nowadays...the main problem is administration, though.rxmd said:Well if a microogranism tried to teach me anything, you bet I damn well better challenge it!
A poorly run car mechanic shop would have a certified Ford SUV mechanic repairing the manual transmission for an Audi Quattro. I don't know why they have Math teachers teaching anything other than Math.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Well, ok. But that Barney company is headquartered in Texas...NickTrop said:
Sparrow
Veteran
ErikFive said:
The first millennium party got a bit out of hand?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Speaking of inconvenient truths, although geology is a "complex" field (compared to the B&W statements of "that's B.S." and "the X tells me so"), many elements found on Earth are actually older than Earth itself.ErikFive said:
I found a little "simplified" something that touches on that subject:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Students in Kansas, read at your own risk
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
:sigh: And even more noise with "scientific" data...
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/rotation.html
Can we just go out and take pictures of this Earth, center of the Universe?
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/rotation.html
Can we just go out and take pictures of this Earth, center of the Universe?
MikeL
Go Fish
Speaking of Adam and Eve, were they around in year 0 or year 1? That always confuses me.ErikFive said:
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
colyn said:
Not completely true
A theory is supported by observation, but even an extremely high number of observation does not equate to a proof.
Take Newton dynamics, you can make millions of observations and find countless proofs of its truth, yet as soon as you get near relativistic velocity it all falls into a heap.
That said Newton's theory, despite being wrong, is a damn good theory and describes the behavior moving objects more than accurately enough at everyday speeds, and with equations much simpler than having to deal with special relativity; so no one in his right mind would use Einstein theory unless he really has to.
At the end of the day a scientific theory is nothing more than a way to describe the observed behavior of something, as such it is always open to correction if the object gets observed under conditions not previously replicable.
There is only one science that can give you definitive and irrefutable proofs, maths, and even that is based on unproven axioms.
That said it is easy to see if a scientist is doing his job or is just being paid to discredit someone else: a real scientist observes a phenomenom, and produces a theory that best describes it within the limits of our knowledge, that is what science is about.
Some pseudo scientists instead tend to make up some theory with minimal observation, and instead of trying to find proofs for it, put all their efforts in discrediting other theories, thinking that this will prove theirs; this is the kind of people you should be extremely suspicios about, they don't use a correct scientifical method, so their conclusions are completely untrustworthy.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
MikeL said:
Obviously it wound have........to.............be
Dam… that means I let the fireworks off a year early
mikeh
-
Hmmm.......I'm far from being qualified to enter this argument, but in my view Creationists have a huge amount of difficulty understanding the diffrence between a "theory" and an "hypothesis".
ywenz
Veteran
If you're concerned about the environment to that degree, why not just buy a digital camera that you'll use for the rest of your live and join green peace?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
fgianni said:
Mathematics seems to get stumped on the concept of "Infinity" (or as some would rather call it, "undefined"). Many see in this Divine implications. To tell you the truth, I have.
But work is underway to publish recently rediscovered work by Archimedes where he came about solving the "issue" of Infinity in math. People closely involved with recovering this find admit that this is "huge" (no pun intended). The pseudofunny thing is, that this sole copy of this work was recycled by a monk so he could make a copy of Scripture.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/infinity.html
We'll see.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.