| 1/22/2016 8:02:40 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
.. but kids should be instructed that evolution, at least the evolution of human from lower species, is just a hypothesis, not a proven fact.
I'll ask you again. Were you born stupid or was your brain damaged? Evolution is a fact. You can't know that because you're stupid. Just asking why you're stupid?
Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
|
| 1/22/2016 8:20:35 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
Yes, and any and all theories.
But I also believe that a world religions class should also be taught.
And also believe world politics should be taught, which includes all major systems.
That is what education is all about, learning about others, debate and igniting curiousity in their minds.
What good is it, to only teach about what you believe? Sooner or later the child is going to run across other beliefs. And the ability to make up their own minds is important.
Of course, it should be taught.
there are limited hours in a school day and I don't see that our k-12 system that we have in place does an adequate job of preparing our kids for the working world as it is. I don't see how teaching religions and the many world political systems do much to improve the situation. religion and politics? how would they subjectively be taught when there is no two people on the planet who can agree completely on how the systems work? such a course could be quite simplified, however. religion and politics-steer clear of both and prosper.
|
| 1/22/2016 8:32:16 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
You are mistaken, Aphro. No one has ever proven that man evolved from any other species. The evidence that the evolution hypothesis has can be summed up as follows: we evolutionists see thst amoebe can evolve into pramecia, so let's jump to the conclusion that man evolved from other species so we don't have to deal with that pesky commandment-giving God.
|
| 1/22/2016 10:22:40 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
You are mistaken, Aphro. No one has ever proven that man evolved from any other species. The evidence that the evolution hypothesis has can be summed up as follows: we evolutionists see thst amoebe can evolve into pramecia, so let's jump to the conclusion that man evolved from other species so we don't have to deal with that pesky commandment-giving God.
How many times do you need to be asked? Where you born stupid or did you have brain damage? You're an ignoramus and always will be. You don't know what science is or what scientific facts are because you're too stupid to learn anything more complicated than what is taught in 6th grade.
[Edited 1/22/2016 10:24:49 PM ]
|
| 1/22/2016 10:27:25 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
Please present your proof that man evolved from a lower species. (Please note I said proof, not conjecture.)
[Edited 1/22/2016 10:28:04 PM ]
|
| 1/23/2016 1:54:29 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
nonstandard
York, PA
53, joined Jun. 2009
|
The whole point of tge Genesis story is that God created everything out of nothing, that Adam and Eve were real people, that they fell from grace, and that they are the progenitors of the human race.
What is nothing ?
Science can observe , and study , physical structures , but it cant study what it cant see . Science can study behavior , and activity , but it cant study the source of the behavior , and activity .
Science has discovered forces , that can effect physical matter , but its physical matter that created them .
Being physical is the greatest blessing . Thinking we own it , or that it doesn't matter , is the greatest curse .
|
| 1/23/2016 2:15:47 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
nonstandard
York, PA
53, joined Jun. 2009
|
"Nothing turned a mass of density, into a sea of motion," says Nonstandard. Actually, that is one of St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs that God exists. How, Thomas asks, could the universe have been put in motion except by a Higher Power. Nothing, Thomas argues, that is not in motion goes into motion on its own---some outside power has to put it in motion.
Its a power we cant see , or assume . Its everywhere , its outside of everything , and its inside of everything . Every physical object houses the same invisible qualities of the environment that surrounds them .
When the vast mystery that everything moves in , is encased in a physical shell , these objects behave as if they have a mind of their own . This unique quality gives everything the ability to be whatever it may be .
We're a mammalian species because we have a brain built for survival , a brain that can assess , and calculate , for personal benefit .
What we are , can be influenced by a brain , but its ultimately determined by activity .
|
| 1/23/2016 5:28:29 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
Please present your proof that man evolved from a lower species. (Please note I said proof, not conjecture.)
Where you born stupid or did you have brain damage? As a stupid individual and uneducated you don't know anything more than a 6th grader. Evolution is a scientific fact. Because you're stupid you can't read and learn.
[Edited 1/23/2016 5:28:47 AM ]
|
| 1/23/2016 5:39:19 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
nonstandard
York, PA
53, joined Jun. 2009
|
Corruption is often instigated by the lynching crew .
|
| 1/23/2016 9:04:15 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
Please present your proof that man evolved from a lower species. (Please note I said proof, not conjecture.)
can you present proof, not conjecture, that god created everything?
|
| 1/23/2016 5:59:54 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
Yes, I can, Jr. The beautiful and orderly universe could not have come into existence without having been created by a First Cause. Also, inanimate objects cannot set themselves in motion, so God---the First Cause of everything---must have set it into motion.
|
| 1/23/2016 7:03:37 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
nonstandard
York, PA
53, joined Jun. 2009
|
Yes, I can, Jr. The beautiful and orderly universe could not have come into existence without having been created by a First Cause. Also, inanimate objects cannot set themselves in motion, so God---the First Cause of everything---must have set it into motion.
You say , but I say otherwise . We know full well that no object is inanimate , and animate objects lay the carpet , for everything else to appear .
If there is a god , he doesn't need our help , or our support . If we need his , its because we're bad , not because we're good .
|
| 1/23/2016 7:10:28 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
nonstandard
York, PA
53, joined Jun. 2009
|
Is the magic carpet ride actually real , or was it dreamed up , to fly an oversized paperweight ?
|
| 1/24/2016 1:07:57 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
Jrbogie, God does not need us, true. But He loves us and wishes to be united with us. That's one reason He sent His Son to earth.
And we do need Him. Without Him we could not draw our next breath. And God loves us despite our sins.
|
| 1/24/2016 5:44:14 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
Yes, I can, Jr. The beautiful and orderly universe could not have come into existence without having been created by a First Cause. Also, inanimate objects cannot set themselves in motion, so God---the First Cause of everything---must have set it into motion.
Lud, you've proven you're utterly stupid. So what is the first cause of your stupidity? Born with a low IQ, mental damage from abuse or brain damage? It appears your mental illness may be caused by those things.
|
| 1/24/2016 5:52:04 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
When secularists run out of logical arguments, they resort to personal insults.
|
| 1/24/2016 5:57:43 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
clarence2
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
58, joined May. 2011
|
A secularist is a person who believes affairs of state should be free of religious interference. The word you're looking for is "troll".
|
| 1/24/2016 7:18:30 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
When secularists run out of logical arguments, they resort to personal insults.
Having a damaged mind is an insult to mental health. You wouldn't be rambling utterly stupid nonsense if you didn't have a damaged mind. What is the first cause of your damaged mind? Do you even know?
|
| 1/24/2016 1:33:30 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
Instead of the personal insults, why don't you present some evidence that the evolution hypothesis is true? Wouldn't that be more productive? Wouldn't that be more scientific?
|
| 1/24/2016 1:40:08 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
Instead of the personal insults, why don't you present some evidence that the evolution hypothesis is true? Wouldn't that be more productive? Wouldn't that be more scientific?
Lud, once again. You have a damaged mind that is an insult to mental health. You wouldn't be rambling utterly stupid nonsense if you didn't have a damaged mind. There is no such thing as a evolution hypotheses. This is further proof of your stupidity, low intelligence and delusional mental disorder. So answer this question. What is the first cause of your damaged mind? Do you even know?
|
| 1/24/2016 2:05:32 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
...well, I don't believe in it myself, but a lot of people do...
|
| 1/24/2016 4:13:23 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
isna_la_wica
Brantford, ON
62, joined Mar. 2012
|
there are limited hours in a school day and I don't see that our k-12 system that we have in place does an adequate job of preparing our kids for the working world as it is. I don't see how teaching religions and the many world political systems do much to improve the situation. religion and politics? how would they subjectively be taught when there is no two people on the planet who can agree completely on how the systems work? such a course could be quite simplified, however. religion and politics-steer clear of both and prosper.
Its done here.
My Daughters favourite class in grade 11 and 12, was World Religions. And world Politics was a course here even back in 1971, it was my favourite .
|
| 1/24/2016 4:17:37 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
...well, I don't believe in it myself, but a lot of people do...
That's why you need to see a psychiatrist. You're in denial about suffering from mental disorder. You're not well educated either. Not having a sound mind and being scientifically illiterate is fertile ground for religious delusions.
|
| 1/24/2016 4:53:03 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
67, joined May. 2010
|
No.
|
| 1/24/2016 5:21:28 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
Its done here.
My Daughters favourite class in grade 11 and 12, was World Religions. And world Politics was a course here even back in 1971, it was my favourite .
not sayin' it isn't done. sayin' it does nothing to prepare a kid for adulthood.
|
| 1/24/2016 6:47:20 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
67, joined May. 2010
|
|
| 1/24/2016 7:21:39 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
Yasureoktoo
Seattle, WA
61, joined Dec. 2014
|
Its done here.
My Daughters favourite class in grade 11 and 12, was World Religions. And world Politics was a course here even back in 1971, it was my favourite .
Avery serious problem with world religions, and I will use Islam for an example.
You will not learn from the original text, but rather learn what the teacher wants you to learn. They will intentionally keep you from reading the text, giving you only the Qur'an, and not telling you the proper way to read it, or which verses are valid, and even why many are not.
|
| 1/24/2016 7:26:04 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
Yasureoktoo
Seattle, WA
61, joined Dec. 2014
|
Ask your daughter if she was given the "Sirat Rasuall Allah", more commonly known as Ishaq's Sira to read. Probably the most important book.
I will bet she was not.
This is the biography of Muhammed, and Islam does not want infidels to read it.
They even have orders from Muhammed himself not to let the kaffir see it.
|
| 1/24/2016 7:43:56 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
Aphro's personal insults continue. He still does not present any evidence in favor of the evolution hypothesis.
|
| 1/24/2016 7:56:00 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
Aphro's personal insults continue. He still does not present any evidence in favor of the evolution hypothesis.
You're too stupid to understand science. There is no such thing as evolution hypothesis Are you a high school dropout?
|
| 1/24/2016 8:02:39 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
Okay, for argument's sake lets call it the evolution theory (technically, hypothesis is the better word here). Aphro, without resorting to personal insults, let's see you present evidence for this "theory".
[Edited 1/24/2016 8:03:15 PM ]
|
| 1/24/2016 8:27:47 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
Okay, for argument's sake lets call it the evolution theory (technically, hypothesis is the better word here). Aphro, without resorting to personal insults, let's see you present evidence for this "theory".
why would you ask someone here for evidence supporting a scientific theory? you'd be much better served by reading what evolutionary biologists have to say on the topic. my guess is that there is more on the internet alone to keep you busy for years if indeed you do have an interest. my guess is, however, that you won't bother which is fine. not everybody need have the desire for continued learning.
|
| 1/25/2016 9:34:30 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
Cut and paste and post some of it then.
|
| 1/25/2016 11:14:19 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
Cut and paste and post some of it then.
ha. other activities require that my time is limited on the internet, lud. if you won't bother to do a simple search then you just verified what I expected. if an internet search is a problem for you i'd suggest that Stephen hawking's, "the universe in a nutshell," as relatively simple reading.
|
| 1/25/2016 11:31:47 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
thebard58
Hermiston, OR
57, joined Jul. 2010
|
not sayin' it isn't done. sayin' it does nothing to prepare a kid for adulthood.
And teaching evolutionary theory does?
I would say that understanding of world religion, and world politics, is more beneficial than knowledge of evolutionary theory, since both of those areas have a direct effect upon individual lives, and society, whereas the only place where evolutionary theory has any sort of direct application/effect is in medicine.
|
| 1/25/2016 11:34:25 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
I say by all means teach the evolution hypothesis, but make sure students understand tge crucial differences between hypothesis, theory, and fact.
|
| 1/25/2016 11:39:24 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
I say by all means teach the evolution hypothesis, but make sure students understand tge crucial differences between hypothesis, theory, and fact.
it's obvious that you don't understand the difference between hypothesis and scientific theory as you continue to refer to evolution as a hypothesis. I did pay attention in school and understand fully the difference between the two. posted this before and obviously it had no effect whatsoever on your understanding but here it is again;
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g., electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).
|
| 1/25/2016 11:41:09 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
clarence2
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
58, joined May. 2011
|
.
And teaching evolutionary theory does?
I would say that understanding of world religion, and world politics, is more beneficial than knowledge of evolutionary theory, since both of those areas have a direct effect upon individual lives, and society, whereas the only place where evolutionary theory has any sort of direct application/effect is in medicine.
Evolution and the theory of how it takes place is important to everyone because it's about the profound questions of who we are, where we came from, and how we fit into the overall picture of nature and the universe. learning about these topics is brain food - rather than more mundane topics applicable to everyday life. Also, our countries need to maintain their leadership in science to stay competitive with developing countries, so the teaching of evolution and other science subjects in schools may inspire the next generation of great American scientists.
|
| 1/25/2016 11:44:27 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
clarence2
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
58, joined May. 2011
|
.
I say by all means teach the evolution hypothesis, but make sure students understand tge crucial differences between hypothesis, theory, and fact.
These are they:
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
~ Stephen Jay Gould
Perhaps the most misunderstood term is scientific theory. To many non scientists, a theory is nothing more than an idea, a guess, a belief, or a hypothesis. To a scientist, however, a theory is one of the most powerful statements that science can make about how the natural world works. A scientific theory is a logical and unifying structure of ideas that accounts for a large body of observations and, therefore, explains something important about nature. Examples are the theories of special and general relativity, the theory of evolution, and the theory of plate tectonics. Much of physics does not make any sense unless viewed within the framework of relativity. The theory of evolution and the theory of plate tectonics have the same importance to biology and geology, respectively. A theory is the closest that science can come to the "truth." This is why scientists were so upset when President Ronald Reagan said that evolution was "only a theory." He was equating an important scientific theory, for which there is convincing evidence and that is universally accepted by knowledgeable scientists, with a hypothesis or a guess, and he was dead wrong.
Despite the confidence scientists have in current theories and laws, none of them is absolutely guaranteed to endure. Science arrives at its description of nature by a series of increasingly better approximations. New findings may modify scientific facts, laws, and theories and lead to new and quite different conclusions from those previously thought to be true. Occasionally, when overwhelming evidence is brought to bear, a whole field of science may undergo a revolution of sorts a "paradigm shift." The discovery of atomic structure around the turn of the twentieth century did that for chemistry and physics, just as the discovery of plate tectonics in the 1960s did for geology and Charles Darwin's 1859 descent with modification, now known as the theory of evolution, did for biology.
~ G. Brent Dalrymple
NO MAGIC, PLEASE
While the law of cause and effect encourages scientists to seek causative agents to explain the existence of observable effects, there are limitations on the kinds of explanations that are acceptable. A fundamental premise of science is that natural laws do not change with time. We presume that the laws describing the properties and behavior of matter and energy today operate everywhere in the Universe and have operated throughout the history of the Universe. Where scientists have in the past thought that some anomaly was defying the laws, they later learned that they had not been examining the anomaly properly or that the original law was inadequate—and then understanding of the scientific law changed accordingly.
If natural laws are constant and predictable, then it follows that supernatural agents may not be invoked in science; magic, witchcraft, or intervention by a supreme being are excluded as possible causes. This does not mean that a supreme being does not exist or that Earth was not created by some miraculous event, only that such an explanation is forbidden in the world of science. Why is this? If science were not restricted to natural explanations, there would be little reason to seek them, for everything could instead be explained easily by calling upon supernatural acts. Admittedly this would save a lot of effort and expense, but it would also result in a rather unpredictable and useless science. Science takes as one of its starting points the premise that nature is decipherable, and that it is reasonable and profitable to ask questions about the history of the Universe, including the age of Earth.
~ G. Brent Dalrymple
A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. if the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, although it can never be proved to be correct.'
~ Stephen Hawking
[Edited 1/25/2016 11:46:45 AM ]
|
| 1/25/2016 11:49:34 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
And teaching evolutionary theory does?
I would say that understanding of world religion, and world politics, is more beneficial than knowledge of evolutionary theory, since both of those areas have a direct effect upon individual lives, and society, whereas the only place where evolutionary theory has any sort of direct application/effect is in medicine.
never said teaching evolution does anything did I? if religion and politics affect your life that's your concern. I allow neither in my life. I haven't opined on the teaching of evolution or any scientific area of study in k-12. but as you say science indeed does have a direct effect in medicine and other areas. i'm not an educator and it's not for me to decide a curriculum that will prepare children to become productive adults. I do know that class time is limited and subjects should be chosen carefully.
|
| 1/25/2016 11:50:52 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
thebard58
Hermiston, OR
57, joined Jul. 2010
|
Clarence
Good posts for the question.
But I would still argue that you can not classify the evolution of the species as a "fact"... if for no other reason than the fact that it can not be verified by controlled experimentation.
|
| 1/25/2016 12:07:00 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
clarence2
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
58, joined May. 2011
|
.
Clarence
Good posts for the question.
But I would still argue that you can not classify the evolution of the species as a "fact"... if for no other reason than the fact that it can not be verified by controlled experimentation.
Fossils are factual, and they show gradual change of organisms, from the first three billion years of earth history when there was nothing more complex on the earth than bacteria, to the past 600 million years when multicellular organisms have been the order of the day, with the relatively rapid evolution of animal phyla that took place during the so-called Cambrian explosion. The appearance of simpler organisms preceded that of more complex ones - there were no birds, reptiles and mammals during the Cambrian era for instance. An estimated 99.9% of all species that ever lived are now extinct, with currently extant species the descendants of extinct ones, the lineages of which can be traced by examining the fossil record. Study of molecular evidence in DNA also supports the evolutionary relationships that specialists infer by studying fossils and the anatomy of modern animals.
Controlled experimentation on precisely how genetic evolution creates new traits has been undertaken by such as Richard Lenski, who has conducted a 20+ year experiment with E coli that has charted, among other changes, the bacteria evolving the ability to use a food source that was previously unusable by the organism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lenski
|
| 1/25/2016 12:08:30 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
Clarence
Good posts for the question.
But I would still argue that you can not classify the evolution of the species as a "fact"... if for no other reason than the fact that it can not be verified by controlled experimentation.
as hawking relates, no theory can be proven as fact. you and other god fearing folks here seem to refuse to undertake understanding what a scientific theory actually is as it relates to the scientific method even after several posted references on the topic.
|
| 1/25/2016 12:18:42 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
thebard58
Hermiston, OR
57, joined Jul. 2010
|
Clarence
The fossil record is insufficient as proof.
If it were complete and obvious, then there would be no need for the explanation sought by the "punctuated equilibrium" concept.
And DNA only proves that all living species have similarities in structure, not that any particular species evolved from common ancestors.
|
| 1/25/2016 12:22:55 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
thebard58
Hermiston, OR
57, joined Jul. 2010
|
JR
I don't really care what Mr. Hawking says.
When I learned science, the definition of a "fact" was a "theory" that could be validated by, and not in any way falsified by, properly executed experimentation (control of variables, and accurate, unbiased observation of all effects).
|
| 1/25/2016 12:26:26 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
Clarence
The fossil record is insufficient as proof.
If it were complete and obvious, then there would be no need for the explanation sought by the "punctuated equilibrium" concept.
And DNA only proves that all living species have similarities in structure, not that any particular species evolved from common ancestors.
the fossil record is not proof. the record is fact, however. the record does exist and has been growing continually. again, a good scientific theory can never be proved to be correct.
|
| 1/25/2016 12:27:15 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
JR
I don't really care what Mr. Hawking says.
When I learned science, the definition of a "fact" was a "theory" that could be validated by, and not in any way falsified by, properly executed experimentation (control of variables, and accurate, unbiased observation of all effects).
ha. of course you don't care what hawking said.
|
| 1/25/2016 12:31:57 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
thebard58
Hermiston, OR
57, joined Jul. 2010
|
As far as Mr. Hawking goes...
My reaction, what immediately comes to mind when people cite him as an authority... is the song "Cult of Personality" by Living Color.
(The same goes for Marx, BTW)
[Edited 1/25/2016 12:32:48 PM ]
|
| 1/25/2016 12:41:03 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
clarence2
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
58, joined May. 2011
|
.
Clarence
The fossil record is insufficient as proof.
If it were complete and obvious, then there would be no need for the explanation sought by the "punctuated equilibrium" concept.
Scientists don't claim the fossil record offers a complete frame by frame picture of how evolution has taken place. Fossilization is rare, and the active geology of the planet destroys many fossil deposits, leaving a picture that is spotty in some areas, but nonetheless supports a view that life has evolved. Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis is part of an internal debate among evolutionary biologists about how evolution takes place and leaves apparent discontinuities in the fossil record instead of a recording of gradual change. It has its proponents and opponents. Richard Dawkins, and I believe Charles Darwin himself were aware of these problems and give their hypotheses of multi-speed evolution, with some species undergoing long periods of relative stasis, while other species exposed to new environments and selection pressures having relatively fast bursts of evolutionary change.
And DNA only proves that all living species have similarities in structure, not that any particular species evolved from common ancestors.
Study of DNA can resolve difficult to judge evolutionary relationships, or find unexpected ones, such as the fact that hippos are the closest living relatives to whales, for instance. At first glance, hippos aren't particularly similar in physical structure to whales I'd say.
[Edited 1/25/2016 12:41:20 PM ]
|
| 1/25/2016 12:42:49 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
As far as Mr. Hawking goes...
My reaction, what immediately comes to mind when people cite him as an authority... is the song "Cult of Personality" by Living Color.
(The same goes for Marx, BTW)
after years of reading your posts there is little or no difficulty understanding what your reaction will be to anything that differs from your own thinking bard.
|
| 1/25/2016 12:55:35 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
clarence2
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
58, joined May. 2011
|
.
As far as Mr. Hawking goes...
My reaction, what immediately comes to mind when people cite him as an authority... is the song "Cult of Personality" by Living Color.
(The same goes for Marx, BTW)
You'd have to critique Hawking's description of the term "theory" in the quote rather than citing the Argument from Authority objection. This is fallacious if the person is a genuine authority on the subject under discussion, and especially so if the specialist's observations concur with those of other specialists who are also respected authorities for good reasons, such as the other scientists whose definitions I cited.
[Edited 1/25/2016 12:56:11 PM ]
|
| 1/25/2016 3:10:51 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
.
As far as Mr. Hawking goes...
My reaction, what immediately comes to mind when people cite him as an authority... is the song "Cult of Personality" by Living Color.
(The same goes for Marx, BTW)
You'd have to critique Hawking's description of the term "theory" in the quote rather than citing the Argument from Authority objection. This is fallacious if the person is a genuine authority on the subject under discussion, and especially so if the specialist's observations concur with those of other specialists who are also respected authorities for good reasons, such as the other scientists whose definitions I cited.
hawking's being a genuine authority in a field of science means nothing to bard and other god fearing folks. they choose to discuss science not as scientists or those of us with an interest in science would discuss it, rather they would choose to discuss science with their "knowledge" gained from scripture. but they at least understand that any scripture fails miserably under the strict scrutiny of the scientific method so they are left with nothing. and yet we continue to see them begin threads about science such as this.
|
| 1/25/2016 3:15:33 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
Bard presents scientific evidence...FJO presents scientific evidence. How do tge evolution believers react? Not with their own evidence, but by saying Bard and FJO have no evidence!
|
| 1/26/2016 7:58:00 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
Bard presents scientific evidence...FJO presents scientific evidence. How do tge evolution believers react? Not with their own evidence, but by saying Bard and FJO have no evidence!
where did bard present evidence?
|
| 1/26/2016 12:41:46 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
thebard58
Hermiston, OR
57, joined Jul. 2010
|
Clarence
I believe you are correct, in that Darwin himself admitted that the rarity of fossilization made it impossible to actually present definitive proof, which is why the "Origin of the Species" was, and remains a "theory", as opposed to something that is sufficiently documented, validated, and experimentally supported as to be considered "fact".
You'd have to critique Hawking's description of the term "theory" in the quote rather than citing the Argument from Authority objection. This is fallacious if the person is a genuine authority on the subject under discussion, and especially so if the specialist's observations concur with those of other specialists who are also respected authorities for good reasons, such as the other scientists whose definitions I cited.
I understand that a certain definition/interpretation of the fallacy "appeal to authority" allows this. (Such a supposition is used in the legal arena, under the term "expert witness").
However, the definition that I was first taught (when participating in formal debate) does not. And the reason is really rather easy to comprehend.
What constitutes "authority"?
Or, in other words, by what standard would you declare that one must recognize any particular individual, or group, as an "authority"?
You might say "those who have engaged in special study", or "those who are acknowledged by their peers".
But, aside from the fact that there is much disagreement among "specialists", in any given field, how many times have the "experts" come to find that they were incorrect?
And "peers" may inherently contain the element of similar perspective.
One might use the era of the controversy between Ptolemy and Copernicus for an example.
Another might be that the statements of Galileo were in direct contradiction to the "authorities" of the time.
And Darwin's concepts were definitely not congruous with the "authorities" of his time. (Or, as I understand it, very well received).
So, logically, rationally, it is easily discerned (IMO) that one can use only the observed/observable datum for the development of a logical preposition.
The opinion of another, regardless of reputation or standing, is not logically supporting evidence. (BTW The same logic applies to ad populum).
The final argument, regarding "theory" vs "fact"...
In actuality, remaining consistent to the Latin root, would demand that we use the word "fact" only for that which is observed, rather than any deduction or conclusion drawn from said facts.
Whereas- "an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events" is the very definition of theory. (Excerpt from Mirriam-Webster).
[Edited 1/26/2016 12:43:53 PM ]
|
| 1/26/2016 8:46:50 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
clarence2
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
58, joined May. 2011
|
.
I believe you are correct, in that Darwin himself admitted that the rarity of fossilization made it impossible to actually present definitive proof, which is why the "Origin of the Species" was, and remains a "theory", as opposed to something that is sufficiently documented, validated, and experimentally supported as to be considered "fact".
Evolution, as in the central principle of species originating through descent from common ancestry is nowadays considered sufficiently well supported to be accepted as fact, while evolutionary theory — the explanatory model for how evolution operates — is subject to revision, update and improvement as more information about the processes involved are investigated. In his writings on problems of the theory, Darwin indicates the relative scarcity of fossil evidence in the 19th century when he lived, but things have moved on since then and subsequent fossil findings have only confirmed and strengthened evolutionary theory. And the case for evolution doesn't rest solely on fossils. The largest body of evidence resides in the study of living species, and the signs they show of having evolved from common ancestors, such as homology, atavisms, vestigial structures, and poor design. The evidence from biogeography also represents powerful evidence for evolution.
Part of the definition of a successful theory is that it should make testable predictions. Darwin predicted that Africa, the home of most extant ape species, would be the place to search for human ancestors. And he was right. All of the fossils of ancient hominids that show a mosaic of human and apelike traits come from Africa.
You'd have to critique Hawking's description of the term "theory" in the quote rather than citing the Argument from Authority objection. This is fallacious if the person is a genuine authority on the subject under discussion, and especially so if the specialist's observations concur with those of other specialists who are also respected authorities for good reasons, such as the other scientists whose definitions I cited.
I understand that a certain definition/interpretation of the fallacy "appeal to authority" allows this. (Such a supposition is used in the legal arena, under the term "expert witness").
However, the definition that I was first taught (when participating in formal debate) does not. And the reason is really rather easy to comprehend.
What constitutes "authority"?
Or, in other words, by what standard would you declare that one must recognize any particular individual, or group, as an "authority"?
You might say "those who have engaged in special study", or "those who are acknowledged by their peers".
But, aside from the fact that there is much disagreement among "specialists", in any given field, how many times have the "experts" come to find that they were incorrect?
In the topic under discussion, which is the meaning of how the term "theory" is used by the scientific community, disagreement among specialists would approach zero, and my citing of those scientists who are all eminent in their fields to expound their definitions is completely justified. Compare their explanations with those posted below.
And "peers" may inherently contain the element of similar perspective.
One might use the era of the controversy between Ptolemy and Copernicus for an example.
Another might be that the statements of Galileo were in direct contradiction to the "authorities" of the time.
And Darwin's concepts were definitely not congruous with the "authorities" of his time. (Or, as I understand it, very well received).
Remember we're talking about something uncontroversial and straightforward here — what the term "scientific theory" means in context of the scientific method — and not something that is particularly open to conjecture and disagreement, unless you can cite equally well respected bodies of specialist opinion that disagree significantly.
So, logically, rationally, it is easily discerned (IMO) that one can use only the observed/observable datum for the development of a logical preposition.
The opinion of another, regardless of reputation or standing, is not logically supporting evidence. (BTW The same logic applies to ad populum).
So, are you saying there is no acceptable fixed definition of what the term "scientific theory" means and complete anarchy is the order of the day — presumably with the opinions of non-specialists being equally if not more valid than the experts? If this is what you're saying, and anarchy rules, could you explain exactly how science has managed to progress as it has?
[Edited 1/26/2016 8:49:52 PM ]
|
| 1/26/2016 8:47:19 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
clarence2
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
58, joined May. 2011
|
Continued..
The final argument, regarding "theory" vs "fact"...
In actuality, remaining consistent to the Latin root, would demand that we use the word "fact" only for that which is observed, rather than any deduction or conclusion drawn from said facts.
Whereas- "an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events" is the very definition of theory. (Excerpt from Mirriam-Webster).
I see what you mean here, but scientists do distinguish the fact that evolution clearly has been proved to have happened and is still happening from the "theory" which as Merriam Webster explains, is a set of ideas that explains the facts.
Here are some further arguments from respected authorities that I have no problem with. Note that the second one emphasizes my point that evolution is an accepted fact to the scientific community.
Definitions from scientific organizations
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[9]
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[2]
Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
[Edited 1/26/2016 8:48:19 PM ]
|
| 1/26/2016 11:03:14 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
67, joined May. 2010
|
No
|
| 1/27/2016 6:26:07 AM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
the trouble in discussing science topics with god fearing folks, Clarence, is we don't even speak the same language. just look at all of the posts discussing simple words like 'theory' and 'hypothesis,' every definition of a scientific theory from the science community that you posted and still they'll go to Mariam Webster. so they cannot even accept the working model of a scientific theory within the strict scrutiny of the scientific method.
I often think of what it would be like to bring Isaac newton from back in time to now and sit him down on my couch and turn on my big screen hd tv. he'd be astounded but probably not surprised and begin with questions and with my very limited knowledge in all things science, i'd begin probably telling him about electricity and radio and other things that would be foreign to the man who was arguably the smartest on the planet three hundred years ago. but I think he'd listen, for a while at least, asking questions for the purpose of learning and not argue knowing it wasn't me that did all the work but people not unlike him. he'd of course tire of me and my juvenile knowledge in time and would be off talking to the likes of hawking and his pals but at least I steered him in a direction where he could learn. a sit down with my church going brother results in getting no further than god created everything. discussion over. from that point on it's all about what is and is not a theory. obviously the baseball game we were watching was a real snooze to get us into a religion/science back and forth but next time we each promise to stay with the game we both know where we don't have to first define the term 'earned run average.'
|
| 1/27/2016 10:20:59 PM |
Do u believe in teaching evolution in school |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
Where is tge vast body of evidence in favor of evolution? Where is the scientific method that proved it? What happened to the species immediately preceding human beings---why aren't they still around? Monkeys, apes, chimpanzees, and other primates are still around. If evolution is so certain, why can't scientists mate a couple of apes, produce neanderthals, and produce some cro-magnums, and produce some humans?
That's the whole problem, evolutionists! The science is utterly lacking here!
|