Originally posted by CoconutThe moon is not "flying" away from the earth, but it is moving away from the earth. The earth's rotation is speeding it up, and so it is moving away.
Science must be:
1. Observable
2. Repeatable
3. Failiable
Faliable of course meaning it can be proved false given a certain scenario. Example: If cars suddenly began floating, the scientific force called gravity would be in severe question. If the moon started flying away from the earth, the theory of relativity would be challenged. The thing is, no a ...[text shortened]... ical (both sciences) evidence for AND against it, but the theory of evolution cannot be science.
Originally posted by rheymansand that has what to do with anything? As long as it's still in orbit, gravity and the theory of relativity hold true.
The moon is not "flying" away from the earth, but it is moving away from the earth. The earth's rotation is speeding it up, and so it is moving away.
And the earth's rotation is speeding up? Is that why we all find less hours in the day? 😕
Originally posted by Coconut24 hour in my day.
and that has what to do with anything? As long as it's still in orbit, gravity and the theory of relativity hold true.
And the earth's rotation is speeding up? Is that why we all find less hours in the day? 😕
I live on earth tho.
that could account for it.
Coconut,
From Science and Creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences
"The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes."
Is the National Academy of Sciences wrong too in accepting the TOE as a scientific theory?
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWell they are saying that creation is not a science, which I already said. They're also saying that evolution has scientific support, which I also said. What they miss saying is that evolution has a ton of scientific holes as well. I won't go into them because there are already a million threads on this.
Coconut,
From Science and Creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences
"The theory of evolution..."
Is the National Academy of Sciences wrong too in accepting the TOE as a scientific theory?
I don't even have a problem teaching it in school, because a lot of people do believe it, and it's a main part of the scientific community, not to mention it's a lot more complicated to explain and understand than Genesis 1. Educate people on evolution, but don't teach it as fact. And don't ignore the missing pieces. Educate people fully, not only the parts that support evolution.
1 edit
Originally posted by CoconutCognitive dissonance?
Well they are saying that creation is not a science, which I already said. They're also saying that creation has scientific support, which I also said. What they miss saying is that evolution has a ton of scientific holes as well. I won't go into them because there are already a million threads on this.
I don't even have a problem teaching it in school ...[text shortened]... n't ignore the missing pieces. Educate people fully, not only the parts that support evolution.
They're also saying that creation has scientific support, which I also said.
"In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
Let's see those tons of "scientific holes" for the theory that "has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines..
edit:
Educate people on evolution, but don't teach it as fact.
Nobody teaches TOE as a fact. They teach TOE as a theory that explains the FACT of evolution. You are confusing theory with fact.
A fact in science is not absolute truth, it is something repeatedly observed and accepted as true for practical purposes.
Originally posted by CoconutYes indeed. Teach the origin, the method, the flaws..the whole story. Don't forget to educate students on dogma in all its forms--religious, historical, political...
Educate people on evolution, but don't teach it as fact. And don't ignore the missing pieces. Educate people fully, not only the parts that support evolution.
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaSorry... I meant to say evolution. My bad. Edited post
Cognitive dissonance?
[b]They're also saying that creation has scientific support, which I also said.
"In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
Let's see those tons of "scientific holes" for the theory
[/b][/b]
I'm sure you can find lots of books or resources on problems with the theory. I won't go into much, as I already said. The main one that follows it all through is the fact that things lose complexity and order when left alone. For evolution to have happened, millions and millions of random mutations had to take place to make things MORE complex. Like a tornado blowing through a junkyard and a Boeing 757 being built.
Why is it so much easier to destroy things than build them? Because there is only one way for things to be right, and infinity ways for it to be wrong. It takes intelligence to make things work.
Originally posted by CoconutIt doesn't take intellgence to make things work. If there are two organisms, both able to reproduce, and organism A (due to its differences from B) is more capable of surviving its environment to an age where it can reproduce, organism A will have its characteristics expressed in the next generation more so than organism B.
Sorry... I meant to say evolution. My bad. Edited post
I'm sure you can find lots of books or resources on problems with the theory. I won't go into much, as I already said. The main one that follows it all through is the fact that things lose complexity and order when left alone. For evolution to have happened, millions and millions of random mutatio ...[text shortened]... gs to be right, and infinity ways for it to be wrong. It takes intelligence to make things work.
In the next generation, if a mutation occurs, making one of organism A's children different from the other, and that mutation improves child Aa's chances of survival, then child Aa is more likely to transmit its characteristics to the next generation than child Ab. And so on, and so on, and so on...
This simple characterisation of the nature of change in populations of organisms has the explanatory power to encompass pretty much all of what we observe in the animal and plant kingdoms today.
This is a very stripped down, slightly biased (and probably lacking because of it) description of the theory of evolution. No intelligence is required, and certainly no force working to reduce entropy either....
a) Where is the intelligence?
b) Why is it not scientific?
Joe
2 edits
Originally posted by CoconutLike a tornado blowing through a junkyard and a Boeing 757 being built.
Sorry... I meant to say evolution. My bad. Edited post
I'm sure you can find lots of books or resources on problems with the theory. I won't go into much, as I already said. The main one that follows it all through is the fact that things lose complexity and order when left alone. For evolution to have happened, millions and millions of random mutatio ...[text shortened]... gs to be right, and infinity ways for it to be wrong. It takes intelligence to make things work.
This is an incorrect analogy. The TOE doesn't claim that the fact of evolution was random or that it needs such leaps.
I've seen that analogy regarding abiogenesis (the beginning of life). That is a different subject from evolution and the TOE has no stance on it.
For evolution to have happened, millions and millions of random mutations had to take place to make things MORE complex.
And millions and millions of mutations happened that made something less adapted to the environment, but that's when natural selection clicks in and the more adapted individuals become dominant in a gene pool.
Probably much more than millions and millions of mutations were needed. But it's hard to mentally grasp what it means almost 4000 million years of millions and millions of organisms reproducing and altering the genepool for such a long time.
Originally posted by CoconutYou won't go much into presenting the supposed problems with evolution? Why? Is it because you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about? Is it because you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of evolution? Could that be it?
Sorry... I meant to say evolution. My bad. Edited post
I'm sure you can find lots of books or resources on problems with the theory. I won't go into much, as I already said. The main one that follows it all through is the fact that things lose complexity and order when left alone. For evolution to have happened, millions and millions of random mutatio ...[text shortened]... gs to be right, and infinity ways for it to be wrong. It takes intelligence to make things work.
Ah yes, the tired old Boeing 757 cliche trotted out one more time. Is that part of the standard cirriculum in Creationism 101? It must be, because it seems every creationist has memorized that one by rote. Once again, if you understood ANYTHING at all about evolution, you'd see how ridiculous that analogy is.
Only one way for things to be right? Huh? There are tens of thousands of species on this planet. Every one of them is different in some way. Is any one more "right" than any other? No. Clearly there are many different ways to be right. It doesn't take intelligence to make evolution work, but it does require some intelligence to understand how evolution works.
Read something besides your creationist propaganda for a change.
Originally posted by kyngjNatural selection. very good. You're right that no intelligent intervention is required for nature to take it's course in this scenario. Animals can even change species over enough time and changes of environment/characteristics. The line is drawn, though, if you say following a human's geneology back far enough, that it was once an ape. That is where things cannot proceed by chance.
It doesn't take intellgence to make things work. If there are two organisms, both able to reproduce, and organism A (due to its differences from B) is more capable of surviving its environment to an age where it can reproduce, organism A will have its characteristics expressed in the next generation more so than organism B.
In the next generation, if a mut ...[text shortened]... t its characteristics to the next generation than child Ab. And so on, and so on, and so on...
Humans are obviously special. We don't natural select, we don't evolve into different species of man (color, appearance yes, but everyone can still breed together). We are so highly developed with computers, buildings, clothes, houses, that no other animal, living or dead, can rivel what has been accomplished by man. And we are here by chance? But I guess this is a whole other discussion.