Evolution: theory or fact - Page 2
DBAsupport.com Forums - Powered by vBulletin

View Poll Results: Is evolution a proven fact?

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
  • The concept of evolution has been proven enough.

    4 50.00%
  • While evolution is a likely scenario, it still needs to be proven.

    0 0%
  • Evolution is still only a theory.

    1 12.50%
  • Creationism is the only true answer.

    3 37.50%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Evolution: theory or fact

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    4,021
    Originally posted by Mr.Hanky
    At least I can spell STRONG developer boy!
    Is that your best retort poo boy?
    You should get some new material!
    this space intentionally left blank

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    5,253
    Originally posted by Mr.Hanky
    At least I can spell STRONG developer boy!
    Glass houses ... throw stones .. pot ... kettle .. black ... etc
    David Aldridge,
    "The Oracle Sponge"

    Senior Manager, Business Intelligence Development
    XM Satellite Radio
    Washington, DC

    Oracle ACE

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Geneva Switzerland
    Posts
    3,142
    Originally posted by slimdave
    Lesson One in these scientific text books ought to be on the nature of a scientific theory, . . .
    I would add the nature of the scientific process too.

    Taking the example of evolution: the scientific process tries to extend the established theory. Different scientists go off in different directions in their attempts to improve on current theory. They disagree. They "attack" each other. They try to disprove theories. (BTW, la Pepper, you CAN'T prove a theory!) This is all part of the normal cut & thrust of scientific life.

    Too often the creationists have leapt upon this apparent discord, saying "Look you can't even agree amongst yourselves. It must be wrong."

    Just for the record: I believe that there is a place for a creator God outside our 4-dimensional universe, the instigator of the big-bang. I don't claim to understand His purpose, but I don't consider Him too stupid to be unable to use the big-bang and evolution for His purpose. (or should I say Her?)
    Last edited by DaPi; 11-12-2004 at 03:42 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    4,021
    Originally posted by DaPi
    Just for the record: I believe that there is a place for a creator God outside our 4-dimensional universe..
    Four dimensions? Have you been reading about string theory? No Mr. Hanky I'm not talking about silly string! Or are you a fan of the Twilight Zone?

    Is it you can't prove a theory, or you can't prove things that don't lend themselves to the scientific method? Somewhere there must be things proven as fact that started out as theories.

    And yes I agree sometimes things taken as fact can change over time as we get more information. However, I find creationism is more along the lines of mythology rather than scientific principal or theory.
    this space intentionally left blank

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    323
    From the article:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    That plan was quickly dropped, but comic Jimmy Fallon still cracked wise on "Saturday Night Live": "As a compromise, dinosaurs are now called 'Jesus Horses'."

    Moreno recalled how, after graduating from Georgia public schools, he headed north to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, only to find that people were less than kind about his educational roots.

    "They felt Southerners were not only less well educated, but less intelligent," Moreno said.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Am gonna mail the above snippet to the DNC so that they strategize for '08 !!

    Some one here DaPi compared us to Somalia - can I take the liberty of comparing the red states to the Taliban ?

    If you go back in history - Galileo was imprisoned for stating that the sun revolved around the earth and astronomy went back by a 1000 years !!

    Maybe the red states need to EVOLVE a bit more !!



  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Geneva Switzerland
    Posts
    3,142
    Originally posted by gandolf989
    Four dimensions? Have you been reading about string theory?
    OK, 11 or 26 or how many do you want? I thought Minkowski space would do for this discussion
    Originally posted by gandolf989
    Is it you can't prove a theory, or you can't prove things that don't lend themselves to the scientific method? Somewhere there must be things proven as fact that started out as theories.

    And yes I agree sometimes things taken as fact can change over time as we get more information.
    I think if we really want to be "scientific" about this we need to abandon "facts" and talk of "measurements" instead. To take a simple example, my theory states that the area of a rectangle is length times breadth. Length, breadth and area are the measurements - the nearest thing to "facts" - but will be "false" since they will have have some measurement error associated with them. My theory is proved false when it is tested in a curved space. There is a fundamental difference between the formula (theory) and the measurements.
    Originally posted by gandolf989
    However, I find creationism is more along the lines of mythology rather than scientific principal or theory.
    I agree - as I said "something less than a theory". But even so myth may convey "truth" (note the quotes). The book of Genesis is a brilliant description of creation - remember it is at least 4'000 years old! Just don't expect it to be too hot on the details.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    4,021
    Originally posted by DaPi
    OK, 11 or 26 or how many do you want? I thought Minkowski space would do for this discussion
    I have to confess my girlfriend is the one who reads about string theory. I am just trying to get through the seventh book in the Dark Tower series, she is the one with the heavy science background.

    Originally posted by DaPi
    I think if we really want to be "scientific" about this we need to abandon "facts" and talk of "measurements" instead. To take a simple example, my theory states that the area of a rectangle is length times breadth. Length, breadth and area are the measurements - the nearest thing to "facts" - but will be "false" since they will have have some measurement error associated with them. My theory is proved false when it is tested in a curved space. There is a fundamental difference between the formula (theory) and the measurements. I agree - as I said "something less than a theory". But even so myth may convey "truth" (note the quotes). The book of Genesis is a brilliant description of creation - remember it is at least 4'000 years old! Just don't expect it to be too hot on the details.
    I like your explanation. So things aren't just black and white.
    this space intentionally left blank

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Geneva Switzerland
    Posts
    3,142
    Originally posted by cruser3
    If you go back in history - Galileo was imprisoned for stating that the sun revolved around the earth and astronomy went back by a 1000 years !!
    Well actually, that's an Urban VIII myth He never went to jail, in fact I'm not sure he was ever actually under house arrest - he diplomatically stayed where it was suggested he stayed: the Tuscan embassy for several months.

    Kepler's laws, from which Newton derived his laws of motion and gravitation (1687), were published in 1609. Gallileo was tried in 1633. So I don't think you can say "astronomy went back by a 1000 years". Of course any budding Newton in a catholic country would have been disuaded from following up on Kepler.

    BTW - the problem was that he, following Copernicus, said that the earth moved. The church wanted it to be stationary.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    323
    "Astronomy went back by a 1000 years" - What I meant was that scientific thought at the time Galileo was frowned upon by the church went back significantly !!

    Again the Bible belt will maybe make up about 4-6% of the 51% who voted for Bush so the red states are really not all that red so comparing them to the Taliban will be in the extreme - my sister used to live in Mississippi for 10 years before moving up to the midwest and now in Indiana and leans GOP !! But this block voted for Bush why I still cannot fathom !!



  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Geneva Switzerland
    Posts
    3,142


    Oh dear! KARL POPPER (not Pepper - I'm getting senile)
    http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width