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.
A scientific Theory means something very different from “theory” in the lay sense, and constitutes the best explanation of natural phenomena based on a preponderance of evidence. It incorporates facts, laws, strong inferences, and tested hypotheses. Theories are different than hypotheses in that they have been confirmed by many independent observations from different investigators. In science, a theory is a unifying concept, and has great explanatory power. Although hypotheses are quite often disproved, it is extremely rare for theories to be overturned or discarded.
georgiascience.org...
Originally posted by CazMedia
Look at what the sticker says,
Now tell us, is this a true or false statement?
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Originally posted by CazMedia
This isnt about weather or not church and state are being mingled
its about speaking the truth.
Look at what the sticker says,
Now tell us, is this a true or false statement?
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
If you can try to explain how this is a false statement.
however,
if this statement, reguardless of who said it or why, is true,
then,
What is the problem with who is speaking this truth or why they say it?
Originally posted by Nygdan
Evolution is an observable fact. The Theory of Evolution is that it occurs primarily thru a mechanism of natural selection. Evolution is also not a theory that has anything to do with the origin of living things. Furthermore, stateing that evolution should be critically considered but not other theories is bogus, and clearly the sticker only exists because of religious opposition to it.
The FACT is, despite scientific THEORY, millions of people believe, for whatever and varied reasons(different gods), that some form of creationism is the origin of life.
Originally posted by spacemunkey
although Darwinism is the theory of evolution, based on scientific study, other people believe in god creating everything on earth and they believe this because someone said so in a book written 2000 years ago by a friend of a friend of a friend of the author/authors, even though there is no evidence to show this because god moves in mysterious ways.
How can they possibly, logically, think they are protecting science by OMITTING information about other theories concerning the origins of life?
Protecting the integrity of science education will contribute directly to the future of our students, our quality of life, and to the prosperity of the state of Georgia.
Why cant these things be hypothesis?
Often non-scientific theories rely on supernatural or paranormal phenomena or belief in things that cannot be tested. Even though certain non-scientific beliefs may be widely held, they do not conform to the criteria for valid science.
Just because mankind hasnt YET found a way to quantify, measure, or otherwise explain something (in this case god and/or creationism) doesnt mean they cant or wont. As they say science can and does come up with new ways to do so all the time,
Scientific explanations are not absolute, but can change (and have changed) in the face of new observations and measurements. This means that science is a self-correcting enterprise.
Originally posted by CazMedia
FredT,
Dont answer my questions, its ok, ignoring them doesnt make them go away!
Why wont you say weather or not the sticker states truth or not?
Is it because you cant change truth from truth despite your desire to condem the messenger for speaking it?
Is it fact or theory, pick one please.....Did you look up the difference between fact and theory? While theories incorporate some facts, they also incorporate assumptions, which is why theory isnt called fact, its called theory.
Evolution is an observable fact. The Theory of Evolution is .........
Umm no, your comparing a school based upon teaching ONE ideology, with a supposedly open educational system. (private vs public schools)
It's the same as if I went to a Sunday school and put stickers in the bible that say, "God is a null hypothesis. There is no proof that god exists. It's quite possible that the bible is nothing but a fictional story."
I guess your unaware that ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE is being studied by legitimate practicing doctors now eh? You must have never heard about the scientific studies that examine the effects of prayer and health/healing eh?
can we get a Christian Science tag for medical books? "Even thought this book will teach you how to repair the human body it is just a theory, an alternative exists for curing medical problems"
Gosh, note the terms used in there like "abstract principles", "plausible" (yet not proven), and the big one " working hypothesis"...ohh noo not hypothesis...thats not even THEORY by your cited articles definitions...again not proof positive. But go on and push your false assumptive premise anyway.
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ries
1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena —see ATOMIC THEORY, CELL THEORY, GERM THEORY
3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation —the·o·ret·i·cal /"thE-&-'ret-i-k&l, "thi(&)r-'et-/ also the·o·ret·ic /-ik/ adjective —the·o·ret·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb
Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
NO, Darwinism is a theory based off of evolution, not evolutionary theory itself. The historical development of a related group of organisms thru time is actually called phylogeny....I know big scientific words hurt our heads, but subtle differences make all the difference in scientific studies sometimes.
although Darwinism is the theory of evolution
Originally posted by CazMedia
while it is quite possible that god doesnt exist, will you acknowlege that he COULD? or is your mind too small to grasp that idea?
Let me ask you this, Caz. What do you think when you see something like this?
"Abortion is killing a child."
It's true, right? But it also tells alot about the person displaying that message, does it not? You know immediately where they stand on the issue. Not only is it the truth, but it's also a statement against those who are pro-choice. See what I mean? Would it be ok to put that in a text book too, since it's true?
I do acknowledge that it's possible. Yet, it's highly unlikely
Yes we were "less advanced" and certantly more closed minded in most ways, yet in many we continued to use our imaginations to circumvent old ways of thinking...and suddenly man flies!!!
How long did man say the world was flat?
For decades a small band of self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals had been spouting their heretical nonsense that the Earth was in fact round. Citing "proof" based on nothing more than assumptions, half-truths and blind guesses, they dazzled the populace with their " . . . undeniable mathematical and scientific evidence . . . that the world is shaped not like a pancake, but an orange!"
Rightly wishing to dispel notions regarding the alleged citrus-like shape of our planet, the Church was able to either silence or execute nearly all the fanatics. But a small handful remained, continuing to spread their blasphemous speeches and to promote their heretical ideals involving the very center of the universe.
Originally posted by Damned
That's because it takes millions of years.
We should, through specifice repetition of influences and multiple breedings be able to reproduce some kind of increased complexity in the gene pool. Here I should note that the article you mentioned concerning voles only indicates an increased diversity of the gene pool not complexity of the genome itself. These two are very different concepts. Diversity simply suggests many variations of a kind. Complexity however, suggests an increase in the system design.
We'll never be able to witness it.
If you don't believe in the big invisible friend in the sky (which is merely a null hypothesis), there is no other scientific theory to explain this.
There is proof of actual changes in DNA, due to climate/condition changes.
Whale fossils also show evidence.
There are many examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Examples include large-scale transitions such as from reptiles to birds (like the controversial archaeopteryx) and from reptiles to mammals, as well as more detailed transitions, such as those among the many hominids or the development of horses. The fact that, despite the rarity of fossilization, we have a wealth of transitional fossil data and that the fossil data generally conforms to the phylogenetic tree is strongly supportive of the idea of evolution.
Originally posted by Johannmon
Evolution suggests only that it take a number of generations not years.
Any science that excludes from the start the possiblilty of intellegent influence upon the subject matter is doomed to error.
These so called transitional fossils are only transitional when interpreted through evolution. Otherwise they are simply fossils of various related species and subspecies of species.
Originally posted by Damned
Originally posted by Johannmon
Evolution suggests only that it take a number of generations not years.
Since when? Where do you find that? That's news to me. Show me the christian site you found that on.
Sure, the earth could have been seeded by aliens, or they may be doing genetic experiments. That's a far cry from "god," which is what I was referring to.
How else can you interpret them? How should they be interpreted, in your opinion? You're implying that the interpretation is the reason they think the fossils show evolution, when actually the fossils are the reason for the evolution interpretation. Species relation is what evolution is about, in many ways. I take it you don't believe in evolution?
The good thing about science is it's always ready to be disproven, and will readily accept, and even be replaced with, new discoveries. By nature, science is constantly looking for eliminations and/or new discoveries to replace the old. Religion, however, is not at all open to changes or updates.
If I have to choose between the two, I choose evolution.
Religion is the end of the road. Congratulations! You have figured it all out! There is absolutely no need to look further! Mystery solved!!! You can stop thinking now, forever!!!
Originally posted by Johannmon
No christian site just simply carrying the logic to its end. Let me spell it out for you. Evolution requires rare random mutation plus the environmental influences upon that generation. Since we can produce mutations at will in any generation of a species we can speed the evolutionary clock by increasing the mutation rate many times over, even creating multiple mutations within a single generation. It is then only a matter of how many generations is required for a random mutation to make a cross species change. The time factor is to allow for random mutations that are beneficial to the species. When you can speed the mutation factor many times its natural rate, which is quite low, you in effect can make the limiting factor only one of generations not of time, since the time factor was only needed in order to produce suffient mutations for the generations to process.
Your admission that aliens could do it is no different than an admission that a supreme being from another plane of existance could do it. Both are unknowns, and both represent a leap of imagination to accept as possibilites. Yet your hostility toward the one assumption tells much of your religious position and philosophical bent.
Evolution, in my opinion, is an unproved hypothesis since a practical mechanism by which it can be achieved has yet to be discovered. My own opinions lean toward there being an engineer and designer behind the complexity of this universe we live in and the things that live in it. By the way how do the fossils suggest that random mutation and natural selection have anything to do with the similarity between species and the observation that complexity often increases relative to time?
Ah if only this were true.
Why do you think there is such resistance to the scientific study of catastrophism or intelligent design or even scientific creationism.
Hence even scientific experimentation and interpretation is subject to the philosphy of the experimenter.
So if you choose that as your philosophy that is well and good but don't poo poo others if they do not choose to put faith in your belief system.
Religion is not the end of reason, it is the beginning just as your philosophy is not the end of your reason but its foundation and beginning. I would be careful what you say and how you say it for your angst toward an alternative philosophy almost labels you the fanatic.