Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Evolution as a theory can be dismissed from a scientific point of view. For starters, there is not enough geological time for man to evolve from apes when considering the time taken for subtle beak changes on birds in the Gallapagos Islands. It is merely a hypothesis at best.

Most well known scientists (Newton, Bragg, others) believed in God and creation. What harm is there in educating children in this possibility? None, in my book.




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
For starters, there is not enough geological time for man to evolve from apes when considering the time taken for subtle beak changes on birds in the Gallapagos Islands.

Do enlighten us more, and please remember to back up all your claims with credible sources.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 




In science, a law means that something is observed but we don't know how it works, whereas a theory is a much stronger concept, i.e. something is observed and we know how it works (we have a theory). We can test our explanation and make predictions. For example, there could have been "law of change" stating the observation that species are not static but change over time. Then later this law would have been incorporated into the "theory of evolution", which explains why the whole thing happens. So, theories don't become laws. I have no idea where you heard such a silly thing. Theories are far more than laws..

What? Man, it's the contrary. A law in science is something proven without a doubt, like the law of gravity. A theory is something we are not sure about, like the dark matter theory or the multiverse..
edit on 27-8-2012 by gosseyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Do enlighten us more, and please remember to back up all your claims with credible sources.

Credible sources in the field of Science have just as much credibility as government "intelligence" does.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Darwin's Origin of a Species and www.mathematicsofevolution.com...

Darwin didn't promulgate the notion of evolution, others did.

I have studied science all of my life. After being an atheist believing in evolution, my further studies and understanding have left me believing that some type of creation originally took place.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 


Gravity is not a law and is just a theory. Many arguments can be made that it's the result of force and not attraction.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by gosseyn
reply to post by rhinoceros
 




In science, a law means that something is observed but we don't know how it works, whereas a theory is a much stronger concept, i.e. something is observed and we know how it works (we have a theory). We can test our explanation and make predictions. For example, there could have been "law of change" stating the observation that species are not static but change over time. Then later this law would have been incorporated into the "theory of evolution", which explains why the whole thing happens. So, theories don't become laws. I have no idea where you heard such a silly thing. Theories are far more than laws..

What? Man, it's the contrary. A law in science is something proven without a doubt, like the law of gravity. A theory is something we are not sure about, like the dark matter theory or the multiverse..
edit on 27-8-2012 by gosseyn because: (no reason given)

Nope.

Newton's Law of universal Gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity contradicts this law. So far, all experiments conducted, have agreed with Einstein's theory, i.e. Newtons law is wrong. It wasn't called Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, because he could not explain why it happened. Einstein on the other hand explained gravity as geometry of spacetime, thus his explanation was a theory instead of a mere law.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Do enlighten us more, and please remember to back up all your claims with credible sources.

Credible sources in the field of Science have just as much credibility as government "intelligence" does.

Where is the lack of credibility in spelling out your materials and methods so that other people can try to reproduce your experiment's results to see if you were lying or not?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 

Facts are objective and verifiable observations which are independent of the observer. Scientific laws are concise verbal or mathematical statements of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science which is always true under specific circumstances. Hypotheses are testable, potentially falsifiable explanations of facts and/or laws. Scientific theories are unifying frameworks that seek to explaining facts, laws, and hypotheses.

The theory of gravity carries the weight that it does because it is testable and verifiable. All of the evidence currently available supports it. If new evidence is found, the theory will be modified to form a more complete framework for understanding gravity. The same holds true for all scientific theories, including evolution and germ theory and atomic theory and so forth and so on.

Or we can look at how scientific organizations define what a scientific theory is...

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.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Darwin's Origin of a Species and www.mathematicsofevolution.com...

Darwin didn't promulgate the notion of evolution, others did.

I have studied science all of my life. After being an atheist believing in evolution, my further studies and understanding have left me believing that some type of creation originally took place.

I started checking your source and immediately ran into this:



The Probability of the "First Living Cell"

Every gene of the "first living cell" had to form totally by random mutations of amino acids or nucleotides. There were no prior living cells (by definition) from which to serve as a pattern for the ordering of its amino acids or nucleotides.

It's wrong information. I'm sure you know why, considering you have studied science your all life. Also, people shouldn't believe in evolution. It's not a matter of belief, but understanding facts.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


You need more than sources. You need comprehension. A law is proven, theory is not.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
There is a law of gravity which lets us calculate how an apple would be attracted by the planet, and there is a theory which is trying to explain why the planet attracts the apple. Better ?

Anyway, that's not even important. A theory is valid until it is disproved and doesn't need to prove anything (but it would be better for that theory). A law is a law and it is something that has been proved and hasn't been disproved. So, a law is "stronger".



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


So you didn't read it. Try the conclusion.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
When I was in school, I think we were taught that it went hypothesis, theory, and then proof.
Laws were not mentioned as a concept as far as I can remember.

Science is not a lie.
Science is not God.
Science is a process.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


You need more than sources. You need comprehension. A law is proven, theory is not.

Please read what I have written. I have already spelled out that Newton's law of universal gravitation has been proven wrong. In science, laws are less than theories.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


So you didn't read it. Try the conclusion.

The numbers they come up with are based on false assumptions and are thus meaningless. Take for example this claim:



Thus, for all practical purposes, we need to build 30,000 gene complexes from scratch, even if we start with the first complex animal.

It's just total bull#. What about all the past gene and entire genome duplication events? Why are they omitting the fact that this is the main mechanism that eventually leads to novel genes? Surely they'll redo their calculations after somebody tells them about this fact, right?
edit on 27-8-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
Science is not a lie.
Science is not God.
Science is a process.


The "process" of Science has been completely hijacked by LIARS (aka NWO) with a big gun.

Science HAS been subverted by a group with a massive satanic agenda whether you choose to believe it or NOT...



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MastaShake
teaching children creationism is pretty much like brainwashing them.


Funny thing is, how can creationism be taught? I imagine a teacher saying, "For this course we will come to understand that we have the earth, moon, sun, galaxies, the universe, and somewhere beyond our knowledge a god created it all. End of course. You all get 'A's."

What else can be said of creationism?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


So the references are wrong, and you believe that a theory is more proven than a law?????

You need more comprehension to have discourse on any scientific topic. Best of luck to you.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MastaShake
teaching children creationism is pretty much like brainwashing them.

After all the mind control we have been subjected to throughout life, I think most of us could use a good "brain washing".





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join