Does "evolution" really make sense?

[The Eye]

Yeah, it kinda comes down to semantics. Something's out there and it needs to be explained. We explain it as gravity. It's not a bad thing to say 'gravity exists' because we can see the effect of it and we have labelled that effect 'gravity'.

Let the boffins work the rest out...

 

[corvus_corax]

Yeah, it kinda comes down to semantics. Something's out there and it needs to be explained. We explain it as gravity. It's not a bad thing to say 'gravity exists' because we can see the effect of it and we have labelled that effect 'gravity'.
Let the boffins work the rest out...

Actually, it's not semantics
Far too many people out there have too many problems between fact, scientific law and scientific theory.
And they either dont know the difference, or abuse the terms to the point that they become meaningless.
Fact is fact,
Scientific law is scientific law (which, as far as Ive seen, aligns with observable fact),
and
Scientific theory is scientific theory.

We DO need to differentiate.
We DO need to understand what we're talking about in these discussions.

If we dont, we get into those painful discussions where someone spouts off "It's just a theory".

And then we have to hit the reset button and start defining things all over again.


It's not just semantics.

 

[The Eye]

So how would you teach this? We have to stop somewhere and make some assumptions, if only to reduce the amount of noise.

We can, with some authority, say that "gravity causes us to have an atmosphere and the moon to not". Although I agree the theory of gravity is a troblesome one and there is no real easy way to explain it, I think it's OK in this instance to state what we do know about it.

This doesn't mean we are confusing fact, theory or scientific law.

This is only my view on it by the way. I fully understand that to some, the wholesale way that science is (mis)explained can cause problems, but we have to start somewhere.

Certainly in the UK, the teaching of science is now so diluted that kids are leaving school with absolutely no idea. However, if we want to turn this round, I think we need to start at the basics.

Just an idea, and probably the subject of another thread...

 

[corvus_corax]

So how would you teach this? We have to stop somewhere and make some assumptions, if only to reduce the amount of noise.

How would I teach it?
Wow, that's a whole LJ ongoing thought process right there
But my differentiation above would be a good start.
I'd like to teach the difference between law and theory.

We can, with some authority, say that "gravity causes us to have an atmosphere and the moon to not".[/quotre]
To expound on how I would teach, I think I might say-
"The theory of gravity shows us how masses attract"
And really, that is a rather large difference.

Although I agree the theory of gravity is a troblesome one and there is no real easy way to explain it, I think it's OK in this instance to state what we do know about it.

Continuing with my divisions above, it should be taught how the three main theories act, interact and contradict.
I believe (or rather, I hope) that is what is being taught in schools.

This doesn't mean we are confusing fact, theory or scientific law.

But it will be unless they are properly compartmentalized.

This is only my view on it by the way.

Likewise

I fully understand that to some, the wholesale way that science is (mis)explained can cause problems, but we have to start somewhere.

Correct. And I think we should start with definitions (in this case, definitions of fact, law and theory).

Certainly in the UK, the teaching of science is now so diluted that kids are leaving school with absolutely no idea.

But can they read and read a globe?
If so, then you guys are a step ahead.

However, if we want to turn this round, I think we need to start at the basics.

Exactly.
Which is why, on the forums I belong to, when someone begins mangling the defintions between fact, law and scientific theory, I jump in head first and attempt to clear the air.

 

[Blackmarch]

well, scientists have found scientific---how should I say this--- "proof." But..............unfortuanately for evolutionist................some scientists mix up different fossils to make a creature that supposedly "links" two different species of animal This is why I usually don't trust articles that state "New Proof Towards Connecton of Birds and Dinosaurs," or something similar to that.

Also, the "Big Bang" does not really make any sense at all. I mean, I wouldn't believe OUR universe used to be a huge floating mass of whatever, and then just suddenly it blew up and etc., etc. Something else that hasn't really been shown to the public is....................is a fossil of a dinosaur and human print side by side. This corrupts a couple important parts of evolutionists' theory. First--- It proves wrong the statement that humans where never arouind during the dinosaurs' time. Second-- It also proves "evolution" wrong. The fossil shows a human foot, but the theory says that only our "ancestors" (monkeys, gorillas, whatever) where there during the dinosaurs' time. This clearly shows that we were NOT evolved from monkeys, etc. Third-- It shows that the evolutionists' theory of how the dinosaurs disappeared is wrong. How could humans survive a meteor strong enough to wipe out the population of dinosaurs? Fourth-- It also shows that the flood probably wiped the dinosaurs out, because a set of humans where spared and they multiplied later (had kids, kids had kids, kids' kids had kids, etc.).

This post, of course, shows that Creation was done, and that it is not just a fictional belief.

The theory of evolution makes a lot of sense. However it's not by itself or alone as the sole acting force on the varience and changing of species over time.

 

[Edx]

evolution is a fact and you are unscientific if you don't believe it!"

No, we would be unscientific if we DID "believe" it.

In other words, it doesn't even qualify as real science.

Then tell me by what conspiracy are you proposing it managed to become a scientific theory?

You'll never get me to believe a monkey is my uncle,

Technically a monkey is your evolutionary cousin.

--
You dont understand anything about this topic.

Ed

 

[Praxiteles]

I wouldn't claim that all creationists are liars and charlatans just because Hovind is.

Of course not. There's no need to. There are plenty of other reasons to do so.

 

[Somnus]

Of course evolution makes sense. Some people just do not want it to, so it doesn't.

 

[Martin the Jadi]

Hey, I forgot about this thread. LOL Sorry, I gave my cousin my pass and well........ya.....