Post Reply
Page 18 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 22 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Religious extremists at it again.....
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 1:08AM #171
christine3
Posts: 7,750

Apr 8, 2012 -- 9:04PM, jane2 wrote:


One year in a fast-tracked class the kids put plastic throw-up on my desk. I left it until just before the bell, watching all the nudging. I picked it up and asked in correct form : to whom does this belong? Told the claimer to get one that smelled next time. Total collapse........I loved those students.




That is soooo funny!  I had an orchestra teacher, Mr. Maguire, and we all loved that guy.  So much so, we'd play pranks on him.  One of the pranks was to pick up his little sports car and take it around the corner.  It was one of those small ones, light enough that four guys could lift and carry it.  OH how we'd laugh when Mr. Maguire came out of the orchestra room into the parking lot, look around, and look so confused that his car wasn't where he had left it!!!

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 4:03AM #172
Qwesam
Posts: 2,700

Apr 9, 2012 -- 12:37AM, mainecaptain wrote:

Apr 8, 2012 -- 11:31PM, jane2 wrote:


Apr 8, 2012 -- 10:17PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 8, 2012 -- 7:40PM, Cesmom wrote:

Wow!  That's amazing.  We were taught in science class that no progress is ever made without questioning theories and results.  Maybe it's a generational thing?


No, it's a purposeful misunderstanding thing. Questioning theories and results is a great thing. That's how science advances. Students asking questions about certain ideas is how they learn. Imposing religiously based questions on science is not how students learn or how science progresses.




Way to go, mm .........................




 




+1


2+


 


 

***Watching Foxnews makes you dumb and dumber than your friends who watch NO News. It is on the survey!

***Don’t listen to what Republicans say, look what they do to Women’s rights.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 11:31AM #173
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Evolution being "just a theory" is a maddeningly ignorant sentiment.


As with gravity, our understanding of the exact process is theoretical. That happens when we study things.


But the existance of the things being studied (evolution, gravity), it not in dispute. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 1:53PM #174
arielg
Posts: 9,116

They are al theories.  Some of them explain phenomena   for a while until a more encompassing theory comes along that expresses it better. The new theory is unquestioned  "reality" for a while. Until the next one expands  into something  better.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 2:32PM #175
Cesmom
Posts: 5,382

To refer to something as a theory and to refer to it as "just a theory" are two different things.  Saying something is a scientific theory is in no way belittling it's validity...just calling it what it is.

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 2:57PM #176
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 9, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Cesmom wrote:


To refer to something as a theory and to refer to it as "just a theory" are two different things.  Saying something is a scientific theory is in no way belittling it's validity...just calling it what it is.




The problem is, some people think that because the current understaning of evolution is theoretical, then that means its very existance is a "theory." 


That's a blatant misunderstanding and/or misuse of what the term "theory" means, in the scientific sense. It does not mean, something that's waiting to be proven as fact -- like a bill is waiting to be approved as a law.


Secondly, and more importantly, like gravity, evolution is known to exist. The existance isn't in scientific dispute. Only the process of how it works is open for discussion/theory. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 4:54PM #177
TemplarS
Posts: 6,958

Most of evolution is well understood and well demonstrated.   There are many details which are not.  Opponents seize on these details (which, as it happens,  are being debated scientifically by scientists who are all evolutionists) and try to throw this up as evidence the whole thing is wrong.


But things progress.


It used to be that the lack of "missing links" was the problem cited by creationists; now, it seems, science has progressed so far that, for example,  the scientific problem in human evolution is that there are too many possible "missing links"; so, of course, now creationists cite this as a problem too. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 7:08PM #178
mountain_man
Posts: 40,549

Apr 9, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Cesmom wrote:

To refer to something as a theory and to refer to it as "just a theory" are two different things.


That's right. Those that say "it's just a theory" have no clue what the word 'theory' means. They're just showing their ignorance of science and English. They want, no, NEED, the word to mean 'guess'. In science a theory is: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. (Source)


Saying something is a scientific theory is in no way belittling it's validity...just calling it what it is.


No, they are not. They are using the wrong definition, often on purpose and dishonestly. They are trying to use; a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. (same source)


Evolution has been proven beyond a doubt. The second definition does not apply. Evolution is not a guess, it is not conjectural, but as is anything in science; it is subject to experimentation.


Those two definitions cannot be used for the same word at the same time. That's called an equivocation. Pick ONE of those definitions and use it consistently. If you choose the second definition; you will be using the word, relative to evolution, and you would be wrong.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 8:19PM #179
lucaspa
Posts: 557

Apr 9, 2012 -- 1:53PM, arielg wrote:


They are al theories.  Some of them explain phenomena   for a while until a more encompassing theory comes along that expresses it better. The new theory is unquestioned  "reality" for a while. Until the next one expands  into something  better.



That does not always happen. For instance, has heliocentrism as a theory for the organization of our solar system been expanded "into something better"?  How about the theory that DNA exists in a double helix? 


Then of course there are the falsified theories.  They stay in the falsified list because the data that falsified them to begin with never goes away.  Flood Geology is in that list.  So is young earth.  And so is creationism.  I know of some creationists who hope that some new and "better" theory will replace evolution.  What they don't realize is that the replacement theory will never be creationism.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 8:32PM #180
lucaspa
Posts: 557

Apr 9, 2012 -- 2:57PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 9, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Cesmom wrote:


To refer to something as a theory and to refer to it as "just a theory" are two different things.  Saying something is a scientific theory is in no way belittling it's validity...just calling it what it is.




It is also in no way establishing its validity.  Once again, theories are general statements about the physical universe or some portion of it.  Theories can be:
1. Untested
2. Tested and supported
3. Tested and falsified.


The problem is, some people think that because the current understaning of evolution is theoretical, then that means its very existance is a "theory." 



This is the "just a theory" referred to above: the idea that "theory" = "wild guess with no evidence".


 It does not mean, something that's waiting to be proven as fact -- like a bill is waiting to be approved as a law.



Sometimes theories ARE just like that. They are untested.   String Theory is like that right now.  So are the various theories about mulitverse.  However, as you pointed out, evolution is not in that category of "untested".


Secondly, and more importantly, like gravity, evolution is known to exist. The existance isn't in scientific dispute. Only the process of how it works is open for discussion/theory. 



This, unfortunately, needs to be qualified a couple of ways.  "Evolution" is really at least 5 theories lumped under one heading:
"1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)
2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution).
3.The gradualness of evolution (no saltations, no discontinuities)
4.The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)
5. Natural selection."  Ernst Mayr, What Evolution IS. pg 86


Second, once theories become very well supported, we accept them (provisionally) as true and use them to build more complex or other theories.  For instance, the theory that the earth is round is a theory.  But it is so well supported that most people would call it "fact".  When airplane pilots or ship navigators plot a course from, say, Shanghai to San Francisco, they accept the earth as round when they make their new theory of the course they should follow.  That they end up where and when their theory (course) predicted becomes even more support for the earth being round.


Of the list above, numbers 1, 2, and 5 are so strongly supported as to be "fact".  Evolutionary biologists are still exploring how "gradual" evolution is, how species multiply, and the role of processes other than natural selection (such as evo-devo) in evolution.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 18 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 22 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook