149 replies to this topic

[SteveT]

Yeah, they're both better suited for history, because history classes have a more subjective overall tone. Plus, you can say things like, "theory of evolution" and no one gets the wrong idea.

[Alakhriveion]

Will, I thinkk they do. At my school, at least, the preceded most things with "theory of," as they should.

[Flint]

[quote]Originally posted by GraniteJJ+Sep 19 2004, 12:02 AM-->

Look, no one claims evolution to be truth. It is specifically called the "evolutionary theory". They teach it in schools because it is the only creation theory of world that doesn't have some religious ties. God's creation story is taught in Church. Science's creation story is taught in schools. The alien creation theory is taught on your freaky, monday night cult meetings.

There is nothing wrong with teaching the evolutionary theory in school. Even if it is wrong, it will probably still be taught in school. Why? Because it is a crucial part of science that will lead us to something more in the future. Teaching new generations evolution will give them a chance to further the study and eventually prove it, or disprove it.

They don't try to teach it as a lie. They don't try to teach it as undeniable truth. There is an area in between that they call "An idea to chew on."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/b][/quote]
That's what i've been trying to say this whole time, but either nobody was listening to me or I wasn't wording it correctly.. >>;

• Back to top

[arunma]

Originally posted by Alakhriveion@Sep 19 2004, 09:07 AM
Will, I thinkk they do.  At my school, at least, the preceded most things with "theory of," as they should.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A theory is basically a fact in science. So it doesn't help to call it the "theory of evolution." That's like putting it on the same level as atomic theory, or gravitational theory.

[Flint]

A theory is an idea that is generally accepted to be true, for the sheer fact that theres nothing to disprove it yet. School's aren't saying "this is true! believe in it or fail!". They're saying "this is a scientific way of understanding how life exists on earth."

[arunma]

Originally posted by Flint@Sep 19 2004, 10:29 AM
A theory is an idea that is generally accepted to be true, for the sheer fact that theres nothing to disprove it yet. School's aren't saying "this is true! believe in it or fail!". They're saying "this is a scientific way of understanding how life exists on earth."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My university biology textbook (but fortunately not the professor) took a whole page explaining about why evolution is not "just a theory" but a proven fact.

[SteveT]

[quote]Originally posted by flint+-->

What you just said renders everything tought in science meaningless. You make it sound as if NOTHING is true.[/b][/quote]

No. Like I said, actual theories have been experimentally proven. However, that does remind me that scientists, after the black body radiation incident, always keep in mind that their theories could be imperfect.

• Back to top

[Flint]

[quote]Originally posted by arunma+Sep 19 2004, 11:32 AM-->

My university biology textbook (but fortunately not the professor) took a whole page explaining about why evolution is not "just a theory" but a proven fact.
[/b][/quote]
Then I pity anybody who reads that.

• Back to top

[SteveT]

Laws are things that are so universal that they govern all of nature. They also take a mathematical form.

These include Newton's Laws of Motion (now modified by relativity and quantum theory) and the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, for example.

Also, calling something "only a theory" in a scientific sense is demeaning. They've been proven to be true.

[GraniteJJ]

Semantics of Laws, Theories and Hypothesis' In Modern Science

[Flint]

Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 19 2004, 12:31 PM
They've been proven to be true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then they should be more than a theory!

[SteveT]

Thank you. My explanation of the difference was flawed.

I, however, object to their inclusion of evolution on the basis of it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Flint, theories ARE true.

[GraniteJJ]

Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 19 2004, 12:40 PM
Thank you.  My explanation of the difference was flawed.

I, however, object to their inclusion of evolution on the basis of it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Flint, theories ARE true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt to you, because you are skeptical of it on religious grounds. When you're in that situation, they'd be hard-pressed to find anything that could prove it without a doubt to you.

[SteveT]

Even regardless of religious grounds, I'm skeptical of any theory about a phenomena to which teh scientific method cannot be applied.

Here's a pretty decent essay that sums up my sentiments: http://emporium.turn...C/cs/theory.htm

Although it's from teh Creation Science home page...the writer is biased, but the essay itself isn't too badly so. I'll keep looking.

[GraniteJJ]

Yeah, but that guy right there is a scientist with an agenda. Which is why this study of evolution vs. creationism is such an unscientific piece of shit. Everyone has something to prove, and it isn't whether the theory is right or wrong. They're using these to prove whether GOD is real or not.

Anybody who tries to prove creation doesn't care about us being created by ANY divine creator. They figure that as soon as creationism is proven, it proves that the God, Yhwh, has gone and made something fantastic.

The people who go to prove evolution feel that it will show there is NO God. They aren't proving evolution to show that we came from one type of amoeba and a dog came from a different type. They're doing it to prove God doesn't exist.

That's why, I don't much care for either of them, although I'd prefer to study evolution because it has more things to study then creationism. Unless someone DOES have God on their speed dial, or perhaps God signed his "art" somewhere on the back of the canvas, and we just have to dig below the planets surface to find it.

[Alakhriveion]

You're streching "fact." There are no facts, to have a fact, I'd have to say with absolute certainty that something has not only behaved every time in the same way in the past, but it will also do so in the future. You can't do that. All you can have are theories which are more valid than one another. There's no real evidence AGAINST evolution, within it's own bounds, evolution works, and there's no better theory out there. Thus, we accept it as truth, to the degree we can do so. Granted, that not much, but it's as god as "The theory of Steve's existance," For which there's currently very little evidence. (No offense, I'm sure your much more corporial in real life.)

[SteveT]

Well, if there's very little evidence, it's more along the lines of "The Hypothesis of Steve's Existence," presented to answer the question of "Where are Steve's posts coming from?"

Obviously, the universe is can be boiled down to probablity. There's always a tiny, tiny chance of anything happening. Laws basically state that from what we've seen, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of a certain outcome. Probabilites of the other outcomes are so minute as to be negligeable.

And Granite, that was insightful, to say the least. As I said before, since you by their very nature they cannot be experimentally tested, they both belong in the history textbooks, not science ones.

[Alakhriveion]

No it's a theory- I ran a test and you responded to my posts. So we've got the beginnings of an idea, leaning towards "Steve Exists."

For the record, I'm not trying to prove god doesn't exist, that's not what I do. I'm just arguing in favor of what I, and most others, believe is the most valid theory. Of all theories for the existance of different species, is the most probable.

[SteveT]

Yes, I suppose that your Hypothesis can be promoted now.

I am also not using this to promote deism or atheism. My thoughts on evolution have always been that it's completely irrelevant to my religious beliefs. (Which is another debate entirely.) I just hate when people call guesswork science.

And Alak, when you say "most probable," you do realize that Statistics is not kind to evolution, right?

[arunma]

Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 19 2004, 12:18 PM
My thoughts on evolution have always been that it's completely irrelevant to my religious beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you start a new thread and explain?

[Alakhriveion]

That's filled with two things:

1. Carefully thought out ignorances of certain parts of the things they attack, namely, the important ones.

2. Attacks on the theories of individuals.

Granted, people on the side of evolution do this all the time as well, but I'd suggest that if you want a source, use a book.

[SteveT]

Arunma, sure, but not right now.

Alak, good advice. That wasnt' the best essay upon further inspection.

[GraniteJJ]

Originally posted by Da_#1_Link@Sep 19 2004, 03:50 PM
I'm bullshitting things here without reading through the topic.

Yes, separation of church and state is nowhere in the document, but neither is separation of powers. Anyone want to argue that the separation of powers is not a constitutional doctrine?

Also, in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, no theological or biblical arguments, and no prayers asking for divine guidance or approval were offered.

Yeah, I'm tired already. I'll come back later, maybe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um...thanks for the input... :S

[Flint]

How about we move the evolution stuff to a new thread, and get back to separation of church and state here?

[Alakhriveion]

I think the evolution thing ended.

[Oberon Storm]

I think the separation thing has passed too.

[Flint]

And that's exactly why you're about to get lynched.

[Alakhriveion]

NO NECROPOSTING! START A NEW TOPIC!