Darwin as theory now parish policy

Isaac-Saxxon · 12-13-2006, 05:11 PM

Yes it does ! Now I know where computer programmers come from !
Isaac

FunnyGuy · 12-13-2006, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isaac-Saxxon

Yes it does ! Now I know where computer programmers come from !

I sometimes sit at my computer naked in my underwear, but I ain't no programmer! And I probably don't look as good either!

Isaac-Saxxon · 12-14-2006, 03:56 PM

Now there funny guy your avatar has a pug look to it. Do you know rhertz ?
Isaac

It is good to wear underwear while "sitting" at your computer saves a lot of clean up later

MattyMattyChooChoo · 12-17-2006, 02:21 PM

Alright. Sorry it took so long to reply after that first post.

I am against teaching A) Marco-evolution B) teaching theories as something undoubtedly true.

Macro-evolution is not proven at all. There is absolutely zero evidence for one species evolving into another. It doesn't happen now, we have no proof it happened in the past, so why the belief that it has/willdid happen? If it did happen in the past, what caused it to cease?

We have plenty of proof that Micro-evolution exists and still happens today. I am not at all disputing that.

First, gravity is a law, not a theory. I am a religious person (Roman Catholic), but let's leave that out of this. Logic requires that there must be an unmoved mover (God, higher power, creator, whatever) in the beginnings of the universe. The absence of one leaves a few options.

One could say that the universe just happened. How did it just happen? What caused the action of suddenly becoming? If it has always been, you fall into the problem of infinite regression.

I do not confirm nor deny that there was a "big bang", but the big bang had to start from something. If there was a "bang", was it a chemical "bang"? An explosion? From where originated the elements which exploded? Something must have created those elements.

In conclusion, my problem with public education is the very great and very real tendency to indoctrinate based on opinions and theories (things unproven) rather than educate and encourage critical thinking through discussion .

rhertz · 12-17-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isaac-Saxxon

Now there funny guy your avatar has a pug look to it. Do you know rhertz ?

I think it is safe to say that I don't know that cat!

But welcome aboard FunnyGuy!

joepole · 12-17-2006, 03:41 PM

There is no technical and specific difference between a scientific law and a theory, but in general something described as "a scientific law" is subject to less scrutiny and proof than something described as "a scientific theory." A scientific law is an idea that we say "let's assume this is true because it seems simple and universal enough." A theory is an idea that we say "this is the explanation that the evidence supports."

Gravity is an excellent example. For the longest time Newton's explanation of gravity was accepted as scientific law. In the last 100 years, however, general relativity has provided a much better explanation, proving the "law" wrong.

Snow Man · 12-17-2006, 04:51 PM

I like that idea. Independent thinking by all. Joepole you sound like a PHD or something in higher learning and I liked what you wrote. Matty you too sound as if you are from higher education (Master or better) I just have a BA so bear with me but I find it hard to think I came from a monkey or any other animal as far as that goes. God is real and evolution dose not have a unbroken thread it just does not exist on the scale of which we speak. I do think genetics change generation to generation but I have not seen anybody in the last ten thousand years that looked like a monkey. Joe you have some very valid points as far as man knows at this time but always a but the answer to this is in the mind and heart too. Lucy does not exist. I do not mean to disrespect either of you I enjoyed you post.
Snow Man

joepole · 12-17-2006, 11:34 PM

>Lucy does not exist.

Then who is:

?

MattyMattyChooChoo · 12-18-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joepole

There is no technical and specific difference between a scientific law and a theory, but in general something described as "a scientific law" is subject to less scrutiny and proof than something described as "a scientific theory." A scientific law is an idea that we say "let's assume this is true because it seems simple and universal enough." A theory is an idea that we say "this is the explanation that the evidence supports."

I found an article on google regarding laws, hypotheses, and theories. I'm not a scientist by any means, but I think there exists a flaw in using the phrase "theory of evolution", which encompasses A) Micro-evolution, something that has been observed and generally accepted B) Macro-evolution, something that is merely hypothesis and not at all proven.

Gravity (according to this article) is considered a law, or something generally accepted to be true and universal. If I am standing in my kitchen and I drop a coffee mug, it will fall to the floor.

I don't know about any new technologies or relativity etc., though I would like to learn more.

Al Swearengen · 12-18-2006, 07:09 PM

The two need not be mutually exclusive.

joepole · 12-18-2006, 11:18 PM

Newtonian gravity is, indeed, considered a law, but that doesn't mean it's true, just that it's accepted as correct for most purposes. It certainly doesn't hold up a quantum scales. If it did none of us would be here.

12-13-2006, 05:11 PM	#1
Isaac-Saxxon SBLive! Veteran Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,421 Rep Power: 340	Does this chart help any? Yes it does ! Now I know where computer programmers come from ! Isaac

12-14-2006, 03:56 PM	#3
Isaac-Saxxon SBLive! Veteran Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,421 Rep Power: 340	I sometimes sit at my computer naked in my underwear Now there funny guy your avatar has a pug look to it. Do you know rhertz ? Isaac It is good to wear underwear while "sitting" at your computer saves a lot of clean up later

12-17-2006, 04:51 PM	#7
Snow Man Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 91 Rep Power: 0	encourage critical thinking through discussion I like that idea. Independent thinking by all. Joepole you sound like a PHD or something in higher learning and I liked what you wrote. Matty you too sound as if you are from higher education (Master or better) I just have a BA so bear with me but I find it hard to think I came from a monkey or any other animal as far as that goes. God is real and evolution dose not have a unbroken thread it just does not exist on the scale of which we speak. I do think genetics change generation to generation but I have not seen anybody in the last ten thousand years that looked like a monkey. Joe you have some very valid points as far as man knows at this time but always a but the answer to this is in the mind and heart too. Lucy does not exist. I do not mean to disrespect either of you I enjoyed you post. Snow Man

12-18-2006, 07:09 PM	#10
Al Swearengen Advanced Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 849 Rep Power: 269	Evolution vs creationism AKA "The Monkeymen vs The Bible Thumpers" The two need not be mutually exclusive.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-17-2006, 02:21 PM	#4
MattyMattyChooChoo Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Shreveport Posts: 86 Rep Power: 0	Alright. Sorry it took so long to reply after that first post. I am against teaching A) Marco-evolution B) teaching theories as something undoubtedly true. Macro-evolution is not proven at all. There is absolutely zero evidence for one species evolving into another. It doesn't happen now, we have no proof it happened in the past, so why the belief that it has/willdid happen? If it did happen in the past, what caused it to cease? We have plenty of proof that Micro-evolution exists and still happens today. I am not at all disputing that. First, gravity is a law, not a theory. I am a religious person (Roman Catholic), but let's leave that out of this. Logic requires that there must be an unmoved mover (God, higher power, creator, whatever) in the beginnings of the universe. The absence of one leaves a few options. One could say that the universe just happened. How did it just happen? What caused the action of suddenly becoming? If it has always been, you fall into the problem of infinite regression. I do not confirm nor deny that there was a "big bang", but the big bang had to start from something. If there was a "bang", was it a chemical "bang"? An explosion? From where originated the elements which exploded? Something must have created those elements. In conclusion, my problem with public education is the very great and very real tendency to indoctrinate based on opinions and theories (things unproven) rather than educate and encourage critical thinking through discussion .

12-17-2006, 03:41 PM	#6
joepole SBLive! Veteran Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,606 Rep Power: 281	There is no technical and specific difference between a scientific law and a theory, but in general something described as "a scientific law" is subject to less scrutiny and proof than something described as "a scientific theory." A scientific law is an idea that we say "let's assume this is true because it seems simple and universal enough." A theory is an idea that we say "this is the explanation that the evidence supports." Gravity is an excellent example. For the longest time Newton's explanation of gravity was accepted as scientific law. In the last 100 years, however, general relativity has provided a much better explanation, proving the "law" wrong.

12-17-2006, 11:34 PM	#8
joepole SBLive! Veteran Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,606 Rep Power: 281	>Lucy does not exist. Then who is: ?

12-18-2006, 11:18 PM	#11
joepole SBLive! Veteran Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,606 Rep Power: 281	Newtonian gravity is, indeed, considered a law, but that doesn't mean it's true, just that it's accepted as correct for most purposes. It certainly doesn't hold up a quantum scales. If it did none of us would be here.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)