Creationism

[Mitch Rapp]

A theory is not something that is unalterable. If new evidence is discovered that invalidates part of a theory then it will be modified...or scraped altogether for one that more closely aligns with the evidence. A good example of this is continental drift vs. plate tectonics. This is a strength of science

 

Scientists can agree on things that are still hypotheses. Can you fill me in on the evidence used to support the existence of the gravitron? My quick search only yielded it as hypothetical.

 

I do not wish to discuss climate change in this thread. If you want to bring it up in CI, I might join in, but I make no promises. This topic tends to permeate a discussion and since this thread is already somewhat derailed, I don't want to send in the smallpox laden blankets.

I don't believe that the distinction between a hypothesis and a theory is as sharp as you describe. As hypothesis are tested with different approaches, individual scientists may accept or reject the same evidence as supporting the hypothesis. Many times, hypotheses become generally accepted theories over time and one cannot point to a single instant where the original hypothesis was adequately supported by experimental or observational evidence to become a widely accepted theory.

 

As for gravitons, their existence is implied by a recently announced observation of gravitational waves. I think that the point is, many widely accepted scientific theories cannot be directly supported through observation but through elimination of alternate explanations for a phenomenon. We know that gravity exists but scientists will never be able to observe particles as small as photons, so accepting many theories such as the existence of gravitons requires considerable faith in the men who espouse such theories.

 

My reason for mentioning the anthropogenic climate change theory is that the notion of "consensus" is often thrown out by both scientists and the media as a reason that skeptics of the theory should be silent or even muzzled. Many widely held scientific beliefs have been proven absolutely wrong throughout history. Scientists who try to shutdown debate should never be trusted.

 

[True blue (and gold)]

I don't believe that the distinction between a hypothesis and a theory is as sharp as you describe. As hypothesis are tested with different approaches, individual scientists may accept or reject the same evidence as supporting the hypothesis. Many times, hypotheses become generally accepted theories over time and one cannot point to a single instant where the original hypothesis was adequately supported by experimental or observational evidence to become a widely accepted theory.

 

As for gravitons, their existence is implied by a recently announced observation of gravitational waves. I think that the point is, many widely accepted scientific theories cannot be directly supported through observation but through elimination of alternate explanations for a phenomenon. We know that gravity exists but scientists will never be able to observe particles as small as photons, so accepting many theories such as the existence of gravitons requires considerable faith in the men who espouse such theories.

 

My reason for mentioning the anthropogenic climate change theory is that the notion of "consensus" is often thrown out by both scientists and the media as a reason that skeptics of the theory should be silent or even muzzled. Many widely held scientific beliefs have been proven absolutely wrong throughout history. Scientists who try to shutdown debate should never be trusted.

 

 

I think that we are at the end of our conversation, as I do see a clear distinction between hypothesis and theory.

[Mitch Rapp]

I think that we are at the end of our conversation, as I do see a clear distinction between hypothesis and theory.

Then we will agree to disagree. There is a process where evidence supporting a hypothesis becomes an accepted theory. The leap from one to another is not necessarily a quantum one.

 

Most people, including me are not equipped to evaluate the data independently that theoretical physicists rely on to formulate their theories, so accepting those theories as well founded does require some faith.

[Plato]

Care to give an example?

 

In this thread, I would assert that there is measurable scientific proof to show that the world and the creatures in it have evolved. The Theory of Evolution, therefore, I find fairly easy to believe... Not that things evolved from one cell, but that things have evolved and adapted to their environments and will continue to do so.

 

The Big Bang theory seems to be a much further reach when it comes to real evidence. IMO it can never be proven or disproven so for the scientific community to assume that it is correct takes just as much faith as creationism in my humble opinion.

[True blue (and gold)]

In this thread, I would assert that there is measurable scientific proof to show that the world and the creatures in it have evolved. The Theory of Evolution, therefore, I find fairly easy to believe... Not that things evolved from one cell, but that things have evolved and adapted to their environments and will continue to do so.

 

The Big Bang theory seems to be a much further reach when it comes to real evidence. IMO it can never be proven or disproven so for the scientific community to assume that it is correct takes just as much faith as creationism in my humble opinion.

 

I'm glad you mention the BBT is an example. As a high school science teacher, I've recently had an experience with teaching this.

 

In unit 9 of one of my physics classes, I teach the BBT. They learn what it is and the evidence that supports it. They test over it...but do they believe it? They don't argue about it and I'm sure that some do believe and some don't.

 

In unit 11, we discuss the physics of waves. They really get to see how the Doppler Effect works, how waves change as an object moves. This is where they get it. They understand how the red shift of light from most galaxies shows that those galaxies are moving away from each other, indicating that they were closer together a minute ago, a day ago, a year ago, a century ago, a millenia ago, etc. This is where I see the "ahhhha!" moments when it comes to the BBT. Do they measure the red shift of the light themselves? No, I don't have the equipment for that yet, but they get that part of the evidence.

 

I do emphasize that the evidence explains HOW the Big Bang occurred, not WHY. For me, that is where my religious faith comes in and there is no battle between religion and science in my head. The two support each other.

[Plato]

^ I wish I'd had you for science.

 

I guess my lay person response would be to embrace that there is movement (even separation movement) in galaxies. But for the BBT to be taught as the a scientific theory primarily because galaxies are moving away from each other is a big big leap of faith.

 

This is very similar to the way I embrace evolution of species but I'm not on board that we evolved from a single cell. There would have to be a whole lot more evidence for me to consider that option.

 

To use some of the above posts... Again, in my opinion:

Theory would be that galaxies are moving further and further apart. Hypothesis would be that this is caused by a Big Bang at the beginning of time

[True blue (and gold)]

^ I wish I'd had you for science.

 

I guess my lay person response would be to embrace that there is movement (even separation movement) in galaxies. But for the BBT to be taught as the a scientific theory primarily because galaxies are moving away from each other is a big big leap of faith.

 

This is very similar to the way I embrace evolution of species but I'm not on board that we evolved from a single cell. There would have to be a whole lot more evidence for me to consider that option.

 

To use some of the above posts... Again, in my opinion:

Theory would be that galaxies are moving further and further apart. Hypothesis would be that this is caused by a Big Bang at the beginning of time

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

We do have a problem with incomplete science being taught and, as a result, the general public feels as though "faith" is needed to accept scientific theories. That is why it's difficult for me to have discussions on controversial science topics with many people.

 

As for the BBT, the red-shift of the spectra of light is one piece of evidence. The others do require a higher level of science to understand, but the red-shift is a starting point.

[Mitch Rapp]

Thanks for the compliment.

 

We do have a problem with incomplete science being taught and, as a result, the general public feels as though "faith" is needed to accept scientific theories. That is why it's difficult for me to have discussions on controversial science topics with many people.

 

As for the BBT, the red-shift of the spectra of light is one piece of evidence. The others do require a higher level of science to understand, but the red-shift is a starting point.

---- Edited May 27, 2014 by Mitch Rapp
duplicate post

[Mitch Rapp]

Thanks for the compliment.

 

We do have a problem with incomplete science being taught and, as a result, the general public feels as though "faith" is needed to accept scientific theories. That is why it's difficult for me to have discussions on controversial science topics with many people.

 

As for the BBT, the red-shift of the spectra of light is one piece of evidence. The others do require a higher level of science to understand, but the red-shift is a starting point.

High school physics teachers are not part of the general public? What level of education is required to make it less difficult for you to discuss controversial science topics?

[Habib]

High school physics teachers are not part of the general public? What level of education is required to make it less difficult for you to discuss controversial science topics?

 

Good grief. If my eyes rolled any more they'd fall out.

[Mitch Rapp]

Good grief. If my eyes rolled any more they'd fall out.

I am not a scientist, but I think your eyes are safe - but I consider myself a member of the general public. You might want to get a second opinion.

[Mitch Rapp]

Good grief. If my eyes rolled any more they'd fall out.

I am not a scientist, but I think your eyes are securely socketed - but I consider myself a member of the general public. You might want to get a second opinion.

[True blue (and gold)]

High school physics teachers are not part of the general public? What level of education is required to make it less difficult for you to discuss controversial science topics?

 

Most people do not have a firm grasp of high school physics.

 

I'm sorry that you took my post offensively.

[doomer]

But what you feel is "actually true" is what works for you. Another person of a different belief would say what is actually true for you is not actually true for them. They already know the truth, and it works perfectly fine for them, and is also proven.

 

I still go back to something I mentioned in an earlier post: Religions are faith based but are for the most part determined by geography and culture. Its all about indoctrination more than revelation or anything else. And who is any better at this than one's immeadiate family, their friends, and the community where they live. That's why children in Pakistan more than likely grow up as Muslims, children in Calcutta grow up as Hindu, and most American children grow up as Christians. It's what they're all taught from birth. And what they are taught is the "actual truth"...... at least in their part of the world.

 

Christianity, which originated in the Middle East in the 1st century AD, was one of the major religions of the region until the Arab Muslim conquests of the mid-to-late 7th century AD. Christianity in the middle east is characterized with its diverse beliefs and traditions compared to other parts of the old world. Christians now make up 5% of the population, down from 20% in the early 20th century.[14]

 

The number of Middle Eastern Christians is dropping due to such factors as low birth rates compared with Muslims, extensive emigration and ethnic and religious persecution. In addition, political turmoil has been and continues to be a major contributor pressing indigenous Near Eastern Christians of various ethnicities towards seeking security and stability outside their homelands. Christian Palestinians face the same oppression as their Muslim compatriots.[15] Recent spread of Jihadist and Salafist ideology, foreign to the tolerant values of the local communities in Greater Syria and Egypt has also played a role in unsettling Christians' decades-long peaceful existence.[16] It is estimated that at the present rate, the Middle East's 12 million Christians will likely drop to 6 million by the year 2020.[17]

 

Just some interesting trend information from Wikipedia - Christianity in the Middle East

 

There are some religious zealots who's mission is to impose their will and their beliefs on the world. If they succeed, the formula will be easy.