It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists, General Public Have Divergent Views On Science, Report Says

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

Because you need hard evidence to make that case - and there is none. By contrast, there are volumes of evidence supporting evolution, dating of fossils and DNA analysis. There are over 500 recognized scientific journals that publish research on a wide variety of topics in evolution.

Speculation will never be evidence.




posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

That's ridiculous. The complete human genome has been decifered as well as the Neanderthal genome.

The ancient Sumerian manuscripts suggest that the "Anunnaki" may have been on this planet at one time. But they did not "seed" anything. According to the translation, they genetically modified primates on Earth who continued to evolve.

Whether any of that is true is pure speculation. But research that comes out of the lab is not speculative - it's hard evidence that anyone can refute and prove wrong - all you have to do is go into the lab and prove that it's wrong.

To date, there isn't a single Creationist that I know of who's ever attempted to refute legitimate science with hard evidence -



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien


ok i will try , there is no d.n.a evidence of tampering because we as humans are just begining our d.n.a sequencing and manipulation and are just babies in this field if we consider this to be real.
maybe evolution doesnt go as far as we concieve it now.
maybe when they arrived there was life but not as diverse as we know it now so this led to us becoming a genetic college.
maybe all the animals here come from different planets in space.

where did the seeders of earth come from i do not know but maybe we cannot get to their dimension yet.

So... present your evidence for all of this. Until you do, this is just idle speculation.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: WatchingY0u


Well that explains how they pushed thru the federal reserve act and the Patriot Act and all the other laws that makes Americans look foolish for allowing, according to evolution you all came from apes or fish or whatever animal the theory claims you came from.

What do those things have to do with evolution?



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Having read some of the replies to this thread, I'll go a step beyond the Pew report that served as the basis for the OP and point out that there are some fundamental misunderstandings about what science is and how it works circulating here. UC Berkeley offers some great open resources about science and its methodology that I think more people in this thread should take advantage of.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero
When it's all said and done it's called, the THEORY of evolution. It's a theory, it's not real. Its just an advanced story of santa claus or the tooth fairy, now if you want to put your belief in a theory, that's on you.


edit on 30-1-2015 by WatchingY0u because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: WatchingY0u
A "theory" in science can also be factual by reason of overwhelming HARD evidence. Evolution is a FACT, not speculation.
The mountains of HARD evidence is self evident.

"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). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously."



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423
No, a theory is a hypothesis, a hypothesis is basically a guess. Lol, evolution is not a fact. LOL!

Yeah, and I bet before they found out the earth was round they said the earth being flat was a fact ahhahaa.. And what about the sun revolving around the earth, they said that was a fact also just because how we perceive the movements of the sun from the perspective on the earth. You people are really silly.
edit on 30-1-2015 by WatchingY0u because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: WatchingY0u
a reply to: Phantom423
No, a theory is a hypothesis, a hypothesis is basically a guess. Lol, evolution is not a fact. LOL!

Evolution is just as theoretical as gravity.

Your feet still on the ground?



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420
But you can defy gravity tho. You can't compare gravity to evolution.
There is no gravity in space and that's not a theory.

edit on 30-1-2015 by WatchingY0u because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: WatchingY0u
a reply to: Phantom423
No, a theory is a hypothesis, a hypothesis is basically a guess. Lol, evolution is not a fact. LOL!

Yeah, and I bet before they found out the earth was round they said the earth being flat was a fact ahhahaa.. And what about the sun revolving around the earth, they said that was a fact also just because how we perceive the movements of the sun from the perspective on the earth. You people are really silly.


You obviously don't know the English language either. A theory is an idea that has been tested and verified to the extent that instrumentation will allow. An hypothesis is a PROPOSAL to TEST an idea which has not been previously tested. Big difference. If you can find another definition in your version of the English language, I'm sure that everyone would like to see it.

A list of famous "theories" - note that evolution is right up there:

Most scientific fields have been made over with a revolutionary theory at least once in recent centuries. Such makeovers, or paradigm shifts, reorder old knowledge into a new framework. Revolutionary theories succeed when the new framework makes it possible to solve problems that stymied the previous intellectual regime. Here are my favorite revolutions. I’m hoping for more before I die.

10. Information theory: Claude Shannon, 1948
It’s not exactly the most revolutionary theory, since there really wasn’t a predecessor theory to revolutionize. But Shannon certainly provided the mathematical foundation for a lot of other revolutionary developments involving electronic communication and computer science. Without information theory, bits would still be just for drills.

9. Game theory: John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, 1944 (with important embellishments from John Nash in the 1950s)
Developed for economics, where it has had some successes, game theory didn’t quite completely revolutionize that field. But it has been widely adopted by many other social sciences. And evolutionary game theory is an important branch of the study of evolutionary biology. Game theory even applies to everyday activities like poker, football and negotiating for higher pay for bloggers. There is also even such a thing as quantum game theory, which is bound to revolutionize something someday. John Nash won a Nobel Prize for his contributions to game theory, and his troubled life inspired the excellent book A Beautiful Mind. But don’t expect to learn anything about game theory by watching the movie version.

8. Oxygen theory of combustion: Antoine Lavoisier, 1770s
Lavoisier did not discover oxygen, but he figured out that it was the gas that combined with substances as they burned. Lavoisier thereby did away with the prevailing phlogiston theory and paved the way for the development of modern chemistry. It was a much safer revolution for Lavoisier than the political one that soon followed in France, so revolutionary that Lavoisier lost his head over it.

7. Plate tectonics: Alfred Wegener, 1912; J. Tuzo Wilson, 1960s
Wegener realized that the continents drifted around as early as 1912. But it wasn’t until the 1960s that scientists put the pieces together in a comprehensive theory of plate tectonics. Wilson, a Canadian geophysicist, was a key contributor of some of the major pieces, while many other researchers also played prominent roles. (Keep in mind that plate tectonics should not be confused with Plates Tectonic, a good name for a revolutionary science-theme restaurant.)

6. Statistical mechanics: James Clerk Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann, J. Willard Gibbs, late 19th century
By explaining heat in terms of the statistical behavior of atoms and molecules, statistical mechanics made sense of thermodynamics and also provided strong evidence for the reality of atoms. Besides that, statistical mechanics established the role of probabilistic math in the physical sciences. Modern extensions of statistical mechanics (sometimes now called statistical physics) have been applied to everything from materials science and magnets to traffic jams and voting behavior. And even game theory.

5. Special relativity: Albert Einstein, 1905
In some ways special relativity was not so revolutionary, because it preserved a lot of classical physics. But come on. It merged space with time, matter with energy, made atomic bombs possible and lets you age slower during spaceflight. How revolutionary do you want to get?

4. General relativity: Einstein, 1915
General relativity was much more revolutionary than special relativity, because it ditched Newton’s law of gravity in favor of curved spacetime. And opened scientists’ eyes to the whole history of the expanding universe. And provided science fiction writers with black holes.

3. Quantum theory: Max Planck, Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born, Paul Dirac, 1900–1926
Quantum theory ripped the entire fabric of classical physics to shreds, demolished ordinary notions of the nature of reality, screwed up entire philosophies of cause and effect and revealed peculiarities about nature that nobody, no matter how imaginative, could ever have imagined. Seriously, it’s hard to believe it’s only Number 3.

2. Evolution by natural selection: Charles Darwin, 1859
Darwin showed that the intricate complexity of life and the intricate relationships among life-forms could emerge and survive from natural processes, with no need for a designer or an ark. He opened the human mind to pursuing natural science unimpaired by supernatural prejudices. His theory was so revolutionary that some people still doubt it. They shouldn’t.

1. Heliocentrism: Copernicus, 1543
One of the greatest insights ever, conceived by some ancient Greeks but established only two millennia later: the Earth revolves around the sun (as do other planets). It’s Number 1 because it was the first. Where did you think word revolutionary came from, anyway? (It was only rarely used to mean what it does today before Copernicus put revolutions in the title of his revolutionary book.)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: WatchingY0u
a reply to: peck420
But you can defy gravity tho. You can't compare gravity to evolution.
There is no gravity in space and that's not a theory.


Why not? And actually, you're wrong - there is gravity in space. Look it up.


edit on 30-1-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: WatchingY0u
a reply to: iterationzero
When it's all said and done it's called, the THEORY of evolution. It's a theory, it's not real. Its just an advanced story of santa claus or the tooth fairy, now if you want to put your belief in a theory, that's on you.



You do not understand what a scientific theory is. Well done for being another data point for the OP.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: WatchingY0u
a reply to: Phantom423
No, a theory is a hypothesis, a hypothesis is basically a guess. Lol, evolution is not a fact. LOL!


A theory is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a hypothesis. And yes, evolution is both a scientific theory and a scientific fact. You should really get on familiar terms with the concepts before trashing them.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423
Look, if you believe you came from a fish or an ape, that's you and your belief. I know my origins, and just so happens the source of my information is proven, which that is non of your business. The people who control the world don't believe in evolution. Now, I'm done debating for now I would appreciate it if you not reply. Thank you have a nice day.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
At the core of every debate about evolution is an incredible level of ignorance about the principles of the theory itself.

It's always the same arguments "we didn't come from monkeys!", "it's only a theory!", "where's all the transitional fossils!", "if we came from apes why are there still apes!", "them dumb ol' scientists used to think the world is flat!"

It's really not worth debunking the same straw man arguments over and over again. It's not possible to settle the argument by presenting a solid case because the evolution-deniers have already proven that they're unwilling to or incapable of making an effort to understand scientific research.

There's overwhelming evidence to support the TOE but some people prefer to believe an ancient story written in a book. This proves that the issue for them is not about evidence or the lack thereof, it's about invalidating any conflicting story even if that means stooping to an incredible level of intellectual dishonesty.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: WatchingY0u
Now, I'm done debating for now I would appreciate it if you not reply. Thank you have a nice day.



So your debate style is to try to get the last word by telling your opponent to bugger off?

That's impressive.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: WatchingY0u
a reply to: Phantom423
Look, if you believe you came from a fish or an ape, that's you and your belief. I know my origins, and just so happens the source of my information is proven, which that is non of your business. The people who control the world don't believe in evolution. Now, I'm done debating for now I would appreciate it if you not reply. Thank you have a nice day.



Humans have over 95% genetic commonality with primates. And evolution DOES NOT say that you came from a monkey. It says we have a common ancestoral link. The genes don't lie.

And your response is the typical ignoramous answer - leave the room, hide under your bed, but never, NEVER respond to the question and NEVER acknowledge the facts. If you have FACTS to support your position, then post them.

Not holding my breath.....


edit on 30-1-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Science should be a package deal. If you don't believe in evolution?

OK

Sorry bud we're out of internets, airplanes, antibiotics, phones and cars, but you won't be needing those anyway without electricity. Have fun rubbing those two sticks together.
edit on 30-1-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: WatchingY0u

I just posted this a day or two ago in another thread, hopefully it helps with your continuing education about how science works.

The word "theory" has a very different meaning in science than it does in a colloquial sense.

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

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.


And 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.

If you want to argue against the scientific basis for evolution, that's fine. But at least make some effort to understand what a theory is, what the theory of evolution claims, and what the evidence is supporting it.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join