Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
muffy

Macclesfield, UK

#107312 Dec 5, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>No, Muffy.
Nobody who has even the remotest knowledge of science says that.
Can you prove a scientific theory?
muffy

Macclesfield, UK

#107313 Dec 5, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, Muff, testing gravity has moved forward considerably. And the story of Galileo dropping cannonballs of the Leaning Tower is almost certainly apocryphal.
And, scientifically, "testimonial evidence" is no evidence at all - any more than a testimonial on a late-night commercial.
Shame, I like the story. It makes science seem accessible, as though an interested person could take part without needing even a moderately large hadron collider.

I understand why a few dozen testimonies might be rejected, but how can literally billions be ignored? How is it that the testimony of a dozen people can sentence a man to death in a court of law but billions can be dismissed as deranged, weak-willed kooks by scientists?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#107314 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
Shame, I like the story. It makes science seem accessible, as though an interested person could take part without needing even a moderately large hadron collider.
I understand why a few dozen testimonies might be rejected, but how can literally billions be ignored? How is it that the testimony of a dozen people can sentence a man to death in a court of law but billions can be dismissed as deranged, weak-willed kooks by scientists?
2,000 years of failure to appear has it's effect on people with respect to evidence.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107315 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
Shame, I like the story. It makes science seem accessible, as though an interested person could take part without needing even a moderately large hadron collider.
I understand why a few dozen testimonies might be rejected, but how can literally billions be ignored? How is it that the testimony of a dozen people can sentence a man to death in a court of law but billions can be dismissed as deranged, weak-willed kooks by scientists?
science IS accessible. the fact that you even (almost) know what THE large hadron collider is, is testimony to this fact.

if only you were smart enough to take this readily available knowledge and use it properly...
cancer suxs

Owatonna, MN

#107316 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is "creation stuff" deemed "opinion and myth" unless God is proved, but when "scientists" are asked to prove evolution they come back with "uh you can't prove a theory"?
I could say frutu the island monster created the world...Wouldn't you want some proof he existed.

Evolution does have some proof. There is proof behind evolution.....Creation has zip zero zilch proof. In fact most of the proof of evolution proves creation is wrong.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107317 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is "creation stuff" deemed "opinion and myth" unless God is proved, but when "scientists" are asked to prove evolution they come back with "uh you can't prove a theory"?
Science NEVER proves anything. It is ALWAYS tentative, as it needs to have the potential for error in order to make scientific predictions. That's how science works. You CAN disprove things, but not prove them. "Proof" is only for math and alcohol.

So instead what science deals with is facts and evidence. Something which evolution has plenty of.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107318 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
This makes more sense I suppose. So if all the evidence supports evolution, why is anyone still studying it? I'm pretty sure scientists aren't still dropping weights off the Tower of Pisa to see if gravity is still working.
Also, why is the personal testimony of the millions of people that have been touched by God dismissed and not taken as evidence of a God that chooses to act primarily through Man?
Okay, this is so daft even the kittens facepalmed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107319 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
Shame, I like the story. It makes science seem accessible, as though an interested person could take part without needing even a moderately large hadron collider.
I understand why a few dozen testimonies might be rejected, but how can literally billions be ignored? How is it that the testimony of a dozen people can sentence a man to death in a court of law but billions can be dismissed as deranged, weak-willed kooks by scientists?
Cuz scientists are all big meaniepoos.
Ami in Miami

Miami, FL

#107320 Dec 5, 2013
Wonder what that little Old Pope is thinking right about now.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/400-000-year-o...

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#107321 Dec 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>science IS accessible. the fact that you even (almost) know what THE large hadron collider is, is testimony to this fact.
if only you were smart enough to take this readily available knowledge and use it properly...
Man... if only there were a device available the gave people access to crap loads of information just by typing a few words and searching...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#107322 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
This makes more sense I suppose. So if all the evidence supports evolution, why is anyone still studying it? I'm pretty sure scientists aren't still dropping weights off the Tower of Pisa to see if gravity is still working.
Actually, scientists are doing studies of gravity even today. Not as crude as dropping weights from a tower, but they are definitely looking at the details of how gravity works. For example, there are very delicate experiments that measure the force of gravity between two balls of known size. There are experiments looking for gravitational waves. There are experiments looking at frame dragging. There are experiments seeing if different materials actually do fall that the same rate.

it is the nature of science to always push the boundaries of knowledge. Simply because Newton's law of gravity worked for centuries doesn't mean it didn't need to be replaced by Einstein's theory when deficiencies came out. And it is possible the Einstein's theory will need to be modified when the next decimal place of accuracy in our experiments is achieved.

Science *never* gives absolute proofs of general statements. Even the theory of gravity is being tested and re-tested at increasing accuracy to see if the ideas that worked at one level of resolution still work at deeper ones.

But what we *can* do is show that certain ideas are false by showing the evidence contradicts them. Even then, those ideas may be useful as good approximations when more detail is not required. So, for example, we *know* that Newton's law of gravity fails in some situations. It does not correctly describe the orbit of Mercury, for example. Einstein's theory of general relativity has replaced Newton's law of gravity for very detailed studies. But, Newton's laws are accurate enough to send probes to Mars or to keep communication satellites in orbit in the right locations.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#107323 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
Also, why is the personal testimony of the millions of people that have been touched by God dismissed and not taken as evidence of a God that chooses to act primarily through Man?
because we know that different people who are 'touched by God' give very different accounts of that experience, that they make contradictory claims about what 'God wants' and that there is no way to test between the competing viewpoints. Look at the variety of different beliefs about God. Wars are fought over these differences. But there is absolutely no way to test or verify who is correct and who is incorrect in any objective fashion.

And *that* is why the personal testimony of millions of people is not evidence for the existence of a God: it is too self-contradictory and tied into the hopes and fears of those having the experiences. That makes the testimonies unreliable as evidence.
muffy

Glasgow, UK

#107324 Dec 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And *that* is why the personal testimony of millions of people is not evidence for the existence of a God: it is too self-contradictory and tied into the hopes and fears of those having the experiences. That makes the testimonies unreliable as evidence.
When I look at pages like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
and I read that a "2011 study found that 65% of medical studies were inconsistent when re-tested, and only 6% were completely reproducible", or "47 out of 53 medical research papers on the subject of cancer were irreproducible", why should I believe that science is any more consistent?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107325 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
When I look at pages like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
and I read that a "2011 study found that 65% of medical studies were inconsistent when re-tested, and only 6% were completely reproducible", or "47 out of 53 medical research papers on the subject of cancer were irreproducible", why should I believe that science is any more consistent?
think about how hard it is to remove variables from humans...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107326 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
When I look at pages like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
and I read that a "2011 study found that 65% of medical studies were inconsistent when re-tested, and only 6% were completely reproducible", or "47 out of 53 medical research papers on the subject of cancer were irreproducible", why should I believe that science is any more consistent?

It is precisely because of the requirement for reproducibility that science can maintain consistency. The opinion of one individual is not taken as correct until it can be confirmed (or refuted) by other researchers. It is that gauntlet that ensures erroneous results are eliminated.
muffy

UK

#107327 Dec 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It is precisely because of the requirement for reproducibility that science can maintain consistency. The opinion of one individual is not taken as correct until it can be confirmed (or refuted) by other researchers. It is that gauntlet that ensures erroneous results are eliminated.
That's certainly a nice aspiration, but are you confident that that's actually being done? How much confirmation is actually taking place if the majority of published research doesn't contain enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated?

https://peerj.com/articles/148/

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107328 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's certainly a nice aspiration, but are you confident that that's actually being done? How much confirmation is actually taking place if the majority of published research doesn't contain enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated?
https://peerj.com/articles/148/
how much of that published research is accepted as scientifically sound? are you including idiots like Shubee and his fantastic claims of scientific research? it is published...
muffy

Glasgow, UK

#107329 Dec 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>how much of that published research is accepted as scientifically sound? are you including idiots like Shubee and his fantastic claims of scientific research? it is published...
When I quoted "47 out of 53 medical research papers on the subject of cancer were irreproducible", I was referring to the survey done for Nature. I thought they were pretty reputable because I've actually heard of them, but I don't actually know. Are they in the habit of publishing the work of idiots?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107330 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
When I quoted "47 out of 53 medical research papers on the subject of cancer were irreproducible", I was referring to the survey done for Nature. I thought they were pretty reputable because I've actually heard of them, but I don't actually know. Are they in the habit of publishing the work of idiots?
and again, how does one factor out all the variables in humans for such research? should this research not be published? is anyone saying these tests and research are proof of anything?

you seem to have found one little fact unrelated to anything else and are having a party with it...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107331 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's certainly a nice aspiration, but are you confident that that's actually being done?
I expect that there have been some errors made over the years but I would have to answer, yes, I am.
muffy wrote:
How much confirmation is actually taking place if the majority of published research doesn't contain enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated?
https://peerj.com/articles/148/
You have to realize that before anything gets published in a science journal, it is reviewed by editors to make sure it is valid and not some nonsense. Assuming it passes muster, it is then published for the world's scientists to either confirm or shred.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 4 min Princess Hey 334
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 5 min Analog man 77,661
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 6 min Hoosier Hillbilly 55,272
Keystone XL Pipeline 10 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 14 min Harrison Freebird 24,109
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 18 min Hoosier Hillbilly 7,399
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 26 min Parden Pard 4,109
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr wichita-rick 152,513
Is it possible to....... 5 hr CJ Rocker 578
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 6 hr Mega Monster 7,582
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 7 hr Sarah 25,711
More from around the web