Small victory for science in GA

Post by **tnf** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:23 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286937/

"ATLANTA - A suburban school board that put stickers in high-school science books saying evolution is “a theory, not a fact” abandoned its legal battle to keep them Tuesday after four years."

small progress, but at least its in the forward direction.

Post by **Fender** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:33 pm

Then you get shit like thi:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7013405/

Post by **Nightshade** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:03 pm

Speaking of fucking retards...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16298599/

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:05 pm

tnf wrote: small progress, but at least its in the forward direction.

Drowning nutters in their own vomit...that's progress in a forward direction, too.

Post by **seremtan** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:12 pm

tnf wrote:evolution is “a theory, not a fact”

hm, creationist types spout stuff like this with an implied "A-ha! Got ya!", yet without understanding what it means, or how we distinguish between competing theories

Post by **tnf** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:15 pm

most people don't realize what 'theory' actually means in the realm of science. gravity is a theory and the standard model of it has more problems than evolutionary theory due to the irreconcilable nature of quantum and relativity, yet you don't see creationists asking for stickers on physics textbooks to uphold the sanctity of the science. Funny that.

Post by **axbaby** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:46 pm

and in engrish that means?

all i know is gravity is a weak force .. one notch lower then a fart

Post by **bitWISE** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:21 pm

axbaby wrote:and in engrish that means?

all i know is gravity is a weak force .. one notch lower then a fart

Einstein's theory of gravity works on grand scales (everyday life) but when applied to the quantum world (stuff so small you can't even see it with a standard microscope) it doesn't hold up at all. In the quantum world another theory has to take shape and, big surprise, that theory does not work on our everyday scale.

String theory joins the two realms of science but has yet to gain status as the grand unifying theory.

Post by **seremtan** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:29 pm

doesn't string theory posit that there are zillions of parallel universes, and gravity is distributed between them, hence it's such a weak force?

Post by **seremtan** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:31 pm

tnf wrote:most people don't realize what 'theory' actually means in the realm of science. gravity is a theory and the standard model of it has more problems than evolutionary theory due to the irreconcilable nature of quantum and relativity, yet you don't see creationists asking for stickers on physics textbooks to uphold the sanctity of the science. Funny that.

they also don't understand how we decide between competing theories, because if they did they'd realise that it's pointless trying to promote creationism by pointing out gaps in the theory of evolution when the creationist ID theory has already been falsified in its entirety

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:32 pm

seremtan wrote:doesn't string theory posit that there are zillions of parallel universes, and gravity is distributed between them, hence it's such a weak force?

It does indeed.

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:34 pm

seremtan wrote: they also don't understand how we decide between competing theories, because if they did they'd realise that it's pointless trying to promote creationism by pointing out gaps in the theory of evolution when the creationist ID theory has already been falsified in its entirety

Quite frankly...they don't want to understand.

Post by **Tsakali_** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:43 pm

seremtan wrote:
the creationist ID theory has already been falsified in its entirety

it has? gotta link about this?

Post by **werldhed** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:55 pm

I think he refers to the Biblical view of creationism, which has been debunked by anthropological, archaeological, biological, genetic, and geographical evidence.

General creationism (i.e. Intelligent Design) has been falsified as a scientific theory. It hasn't been proven/disproven, but it has been shown to lack scientific credibility.

Post by **tnf** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:56 pm

Tsakali_ wrote:
seremtan wrote:
the creationist ID theory has already been falsified in its entirety
it has? gotta link about this?

You don't understand what he's getting at here.

Post by **tnf** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:58 pm

seremtan wrote:doesn't string theory posit that there are zillions of parallel universes, and gravity is distributed between them, hence it's such a weak force?

That's sort of one idea, yea.

String theory has come under a lot more scrutiny as of late, but whether it is right or wrong, the bottom line is you can't have quantum and general relativity, there MUST be something that can describe the subatomic world and the macroscopic world.

Post by **Tsakali_** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:13 pm

tnf wrote:
Tsakali_ wrote:
seremtan wrote:
the creationist ID theory has already been falsified in its entirety
it has? gotta link about this?
You don't understand what he's getting at here.

oops I see what just happened they basically shot their own foot.

Post by **Hannibal** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:39 pm

werldhed wrote:I think he refers to the Biblical view of creationism, which has been debunked by anthropological, archaeological, biological, genetic, and geographical evidence.

General creationism (i.e. Intelligent Design) has been falsified as a scientific theory.

Best not to use 'falsification' talk regarding IE. Just say "it is not a scientific theory" and leave it at that.

Post by **werldhed** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:42 pm

That's what I was getting at. The theory itself hasn't been falsified (and can't be).
However, the debate of whether it's a valid scientific argument has been closed.

Post by **Hannibal** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:51 pm

Right.

Post by **tnf** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:07 pm

Hannibal wrote:
werldhed wrote:I think he refers to the Biblical view of creationism, which has been debunked by anthropological, archaeological, biological, genetic, and geographical evidence.

General creationism (i.e. Intelligent Design) has been falsified as a scientific theory.
Best not to use 'falsification' talk regarding IE. Just say "it is not a scientific theory" and leave it at that.

Can you imagine the challenge I have in trying to communicate these subtleties to sophomores in high school?

I'm always correcting them mid-sentence with stuff like "well...best not to use the term 'proof' there' or 'we can't really say 'false' but we can say...'
I don't think it really makes much of a difference in their understandings - but if I can get them to stop writing the phrase "THIS EXPERIMENT PROVED MY HYPOTHESIS TO BE FACT" and go to 'the data collected in this experiment support my initial hypothesis' I'm happy.

Post by **R00k** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:07 pm

Fender wrote:Then you get shit like thi:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7013405/

Fucking hell. Another approach? As if it carries a bit more water than the "irreducibly complex" argument or the "archangels' destructive force" argument.

Obsessive nutjobs all of them.

Post by **plained** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:09 pm

they prolly get paid real well

so they try hard ey

Post by **zeeko** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:12 pm

don't worry guys, we live in post-modern society nothing is really truth, this includes any creationist claims.

Post by **tnf** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:12 pm

plained wrote:they prolly get paid real well

so they try hard ey

don't derail this one please.

Small victory for science in GA

Small victory for science in GA

Re: Small victory for scienec in GA

Re: Small victory for science in GA