Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (1 Viewer)

[SashatheMan]

YES IT WAS AN ACCIDENT, OR WAS IT?

yes, kinda like god created man from dust. He farted and accidently created the world

 

[davin]

i'd not call it fact, so much as very well supported theory. in the same sense that things like gravity are theory. techinically theory, but extremely reliable

 

[funnybunny]

no..i meant the nuclear fusion resulting in the production of heavier metals is fact...this fact is used as evidence for the big bang theory
hmmm..and i dont think i've heard of any facts supporting creation theory....just faith...

 

[Simpson Freak]

this is just a taste of what saruman...err....i mean why many scientists believe he was wrong

Listen to these words: 'despite the power of molecular genetics to reveal the hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects of evolution remain unexplained, including the origin of species. So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary differences appears to be without significant support." Are these the words of a 'fundamentalist Christian', 'ultraorthodox Jew', or an 'Islamic creationist'? No, they are the words of Dr. Brian Goodwin, professor of biology, one of a growing number of scientists who find that the powers of natural selection are woefully insufficient to perform the amazing feats promised in the title of Darwins great work of producing new species.

But that was the great promise of Darwin. Small variations among individuals are 'selected' by nature because they make the individual more 'fit' to survive. Those more 'fit' characteristics are passed on to the offspring. Add enough little changes up over time, and the species becomes gradually transformed. Given enough time, evolution will have produced an entirely new species.

So it was that Darwin assumed that little changes in character and appearance (microevolution) would eventually yield, through natural selection, enormous changes (macroevolution). From a single living cell, given millions upon millions upon millions of years, the entire diversity of all living things could be produced.

That was the grand promise of Darwins theory. And Darwin wasn't wrong about microevolution. But the case for macroevolution is far from closed. In fact, biologist Mae-Wan Ho and mathematician Peter Saunders contend that, "All the signs are that evolution theory is in crisis, and that a change is on the way." Darwins theory is in crisis, they argue, because it has failed to explain the one thing that made its promise so grand; how new species arise.

does this justify teaching darwinism as an undeniable fact?
NO!
is it scientific to teach darwinism as an undeniable fact?
NO!

and yet you allegedly open minded and enlightened aethiests are poking fun at my understanding of science just because i would rather call it a THEORY than FACT.

"Today it is science that is trying to assume the mantle of the sole arbiter of truth. On magazine covers such as this month's National Geographic and in legal battles across the country, the scientific community has become absolute in its belief that evolution will answer all of the questions regarding our beginnings. They have become so dogmatic that anyone who questions this belief is considered a heretic who should be ridiculed into silence."

Heck questioning the validity of theories is what science is supposed to do, so why did you people start posting the crap out of this thread just because i said that many theories have questions concerning them.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

well i just finished the hsc so i dont have any degrees, but a band 6 in all sciences would make people assume that i know just a teeny weeny bit about the theory of evolution and the big bang theory.

Oh of course, I'm sure you're a prominent expert on the topic.

are poking fun at my understanding of science just because i would rather call it a THEORY than FACT.

We're making fun at you because you seem to think this is somehow significant that it was a theory.

Heck questioning the validity of theories is what science is supposed to do, so why did you people start posting the crap out of this thread just because i said that many theories have questions concerning them.

Well I don't know about other people, I just started on you because you said 'well evolution is just a theory' as if that somehow means we should dismiss it. It's a theory backed up by very strong evidence, of course there are holes... there are always holes in our understanding, but at the moment evolution is the most-right answer we have... so it is provisionally true, it is provisionally fact as far as our understanding goes.

An (albeit simple, and due to that simplicity somewhat wrong) example of this is of the british in the 1600's. If you ask a british scientist in the year 1600, whether a black swan exists... they would say 'no' - and they would be provisionally correct. However, ultimately they were not correct (a black swan existed in australia ). This is much like me saying today "There is no such thing as a blue giraffe", however someone might one day find one... while I was ultimately wrong, I was provisionally correct.

This is the way science works and I would hope a person whom can achieve 'band 6's in all sciences in the hsc' would have learnt this.

 

[Simpson Freak]

um.....no. its nuclear fusion in stars. just how they work. gets us everything up to.... iron, i beleive, and evertyhing above that comes from supernovas

no dumbass, before it was believed the sun could not have lasted millions of years to be around while we were all evolving, so darwin was shot down, however with nuclear fusion, darwinism made more sense because the sun certainly had enough "fuel" to last not millions but billions of years, your ignorance is forcing you to claim that i am wrong.

 

[davin]

the problem is theory in science isn't the same usage as in day to day life. like i said, i'd not even call what happens in stars fact.....we can't actually witness it, but we're extremely sure that it works.
the issue with evolution, which, while is a theory, is very well proven for short term things, longer term is more problematic. however, part of it isn't that people say "hey, i think evolutional theory needs work", but that people say "well, it doesn't fit perfectly, therefore God did it"
if you've got a method to add to evolution that you can back up using scientific evidence and not scripture and faith, then by all means, offer it up

 

[Simpson Freak]

Oh of course, I'm sure you're a prominent expert on the topic.



We're making fun at you because you seem to think this is somehow significant that it was a theory.

i meant what i said jerk, dont blow it out of proportion, i said i know a teeny weeny bit about it, and i do, its a teeny weeny bit more than you will ever know.

well by theory i mean it is not set in stone, and even the LAW of Motion was slightly changed.

 

[funnybunny]

of course darwinian theory isnt undeniable fact...in the end it's only a theory
also, i thought stars lasted millions of years...not billions... dunno about the sun though ..i dont think the sun has much relevance to darwin's theory...
it was believed the sun/star didn't have enough fuel to last millions of years becasue they didn't have any evidence (and of course due to christians believing that the universe was a few thousands of years old..) ...now they do have the evidence to prove it.

 

[Simpson Freak]

i'd not call it fact, so much as very well supported theory. in the same sense that things like gravity are theory. techinically theory, but extremely reliable

yes reliable when flying planes, not when analysing quarks, leptons and hadrons, and not when paradoxically travelling at the speed of light or more.

you know what i mean, i never tried to make it seem like i can jump off any bridge i want.

 

[funnybunny]

not-that-bright, of course it's significant it's a theory not a fact...that means it can be disproved in the future...mayb in the future they'll prove sum religion to be completely correct ...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

well by theory i mean it is not set in stone, and even the LAW of Motion was slightly changed.

But what are you trying to prove by saying it's just a theory? It's a strong theory. That's like me saying 'Well I would guess that if you jumped off a 12 story building you would probably fall to your death... however that is only if the theory of gravity is correct - and it's just a theory LOL' - it's stupid, it doesn't show knowledge of what a scientific theory is...

As for them not being set in stone, that is true... but this means nothing untill you come up with your better theory, or crushing evidence. In science we work with 'provisional truths' that is, what is true at the time given what we know... I gave an example of this in my former post http://community.boredofstudies.org/2210068-post958.html please read it.

not-that-bright, of course it's significant it's a theory not a fact...that means it can be disproved in the future...mayb in the future they'll prove sum religion to be completely correct ...

No it's not significant at all... because there's nothing that is a 'fact' and even if [evolution] is in the future disproven and something else becomes provisionally true, that thing is also not a 'fact'.

 

[davin]

funnybunny, keep in mind earth is over 4 billion years old (about 4.5) and we sort of have a sun still.
our sun will last about 10 billion years, total.
depending on the star, it can last anywhere from millions of years for the largest and hottest stars, to many billions more than the sun will last in smaller, cooler stars.

with special relativity, we're ok with gravity at high speeds....faster than speed of light, thats different.

and my point was that people misrepresent what a scientific theory is vs a theory in general. its more than just "i got this idea about how something works"

 

[funnybunny]

yea simpson freak is right..science is very fickle....i mean, u cant excatly use the law of graviation/motion in a black hole, can u?

 

[SashatheMan]

i love this description of how science and religion differs

science is the disciple of investigation and constructive doubt, questing the logic , evidence and reason to draw conclusions. Faith by star contrast demands a positive suspension of critical faculties.

science proceeds by setting up hypothesis, ideas or models and then attempts to disprove them. So a scientist is always asking questions, being skeptical.

Religion is about turning untested beleif into unshakable truth, through the power of institutions and the passage of time

^^^^^

 

[funnybunny]

our sun will last about 10 billion years, total.
depending on the star, it can last anywhere from millions of years for the largest and hottest stars, to many billions more than the sun will last in smaller, cooler stars.

oops...should brush up on my yr 10 science ..

 

[funnybunny]

No it's not significant at all... because there's nothing that is a 'fact' and even if [evolution] is in the future disproven and something else becomes provisionally true, that thing is also not a 'fact'.

yes, i guess ur rite...all facts, in the end, do rely on sum theory..
i think the point simpson freak is tryin to make is that just cause evolution has evidence, it does not mean we should throw out religion.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

yea simpson freak is right..science is very fickle....i mean, u cant excatly use the law of graviation/motion in a black hole, can u?

Well ok... so science is fickle and theories have had to be expanded on in the past, different theories have been crushed. I don't see how this means we should not accept the current best science as provisionally true.

is that just cause evolution has evidence, it does not mean we should throw out religion.

Yea, I don't think you should throw out your religion because of evolution, but at the same time do not consider evolution to be false. Evolution is at least provisionally true - I don't know whether in the future it will be disproven or whether it's ultimately true, that's impossible for me to know - All I know is that it is provisionally true, and provisional truths are what we work with in science because in science we know we can't get anything down to a fact.

 

[davin]

i think i need to brush up on my physics to tackle the black hole thing...i know special relativity based on high speeds just fine, but i don't recall how to deal with gravity on it. i believe special relativity covers it, buts its been a while since i worked with it

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Soon someone will come in and attempt to convince us they understand quantum mechanics.