Darwin as theory now parish policy

[joepole]

There is no technical and specific difference between a scientific law and a theory, but in general something described as "a scientific law" is subject to less scrutiny and proof than something described as "a scientific theory." A scientific law is an idea that we say "let's assume this is true because it seems simple and universal enough." A theory is an idea that we say "this is the explanation that the evidence supports."

Gravity is an excellent example. For the longest time Newton's explanation of gravity was accepted as scientific law. In the last 100 years, however, general relativity has provided a much better explanation, proving the "law" wrong.

[Snow Man]

I like that idea. Independent thinking by all. Joepole you sound like a PHD or something in higher learning and I liked what you wrote. Matty you too sound as if you are from higher education (Master or better) I just have a BA so bear with me but I find it hard to think I came from a monkey or any other animal as far as that goes. God is real and evolution dose not have a unbroken thread it just does not exist on the scale of which we speak. I do think genetics change generation to generation but I have not seen anybody in the last ten thousand years that looked like a monkey. Joe you have some very valid points as far as man knows at this time but always a but the answer to this is in the mind and heart too. Lucy does not exist. I do not mean to disrespect either of you I enjoyed you post.
Snow Man

[joepole]

>Lucy does not exist.

Then who is:



?

[rhertz]

Aw, I've seen the dude, man!
Yeah, man! I played with that cat last year!
That cat didn't know ANY tunes, man!

[Isaac-Saxxon]

That would make a great avatar for you joe. You know those ape bones do not fill in the gap. In order for evolution to be true it would have to be going on today and in years to come and granted there are some strange people running around here I still do not see some of them in trees and some of them walking on all four and yet some of them walking upright. Good try though. I see you have evolved to the point of using google Joe your a smart guy ? Could a human sperm and monkey egg ever make a baby ? Some people say they come from apes ( not me) do you think you did ?
Isaac

[joepole]

>You know those ape bones do not fill in the gap.

1. Those are not ape bones.

2. I didn't say anything about filling any gaps. You said there was no Lucy so I posted a photo of her remains.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

I stand corrected on #2. and I agree that that is a photo of what someone has called Lucy. So there joepole what is your take on the nonstop chain of evolution ? I know these are questions have been on the mind of man for the
longest time. I still will walk on the side of creation by God. I know analytical
minds have a hard time with walking on faith and I can respect that Joe.
Isaac

[MattyMattyChooChoo]

Originally Posted by joepole

There is no technical and specific difference between a scientific law and a theory, but in general something described as "a scientific law" is subject to less scrutiny and proof than something described as "a scientific theory." A scientific law is an idea that we say "let's assume this is true because it seems simple and universal enough." A theory is an idea that we say "this is the explanation that the evidence supports."

I found an article on google regarding laws, hypotheses, and theories. I'm not a scientist by any means, but I think there exists a flaw in using the phrase "theory of evolution", which encompasses A) Micro-evolution, something that has been observed and generally accepted B) Macro-evolution, something that is merely hypothesis and not at all proven.

Gravity (according to this article) is considered a law, or something generally accepted to be true and universal. If I am standing in my kitchen and I drop a coffee mug, it will fall to the floor.

I don't know about any new technologies or relativity etc., though I would like to learn more.

[Al Swearengen]

The two need not be mutually exclusive.

[joepole]

Newtonian gravity is, indeed, considered a law, but that doesn't mean it's true, just that it's accepted as correct for most purposes. It certainly doesn't hold up a quantum scales. If it did none of us would be here.

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by joepole

Newtonian gravity is, indeed, considered a law, but that doesn't mean it's true, just that it's accepted as correct for most purposes. It certainly doesn't hold up a quantum scales. If it did none of us would be here.

LOL, isn't that where "Dark Matter" comes into play ?

In astrophysics, dark matter is matter that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence may be inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter. Among the observed phenomena consistent with the existence of dark matter are the rotational speeds of galaxies and orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark matter also plays a central role in structure formation and Big Bang nucleosynthesis, and has measurable effects on the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than is directly observable, indicating that the remainder is dark.

[joepole]

No. General relativity and Newtonian physics are at odds with each other at nucleus-level scales..

[Bob]

You all should just love this

Dispelling The Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Recent surveys have revealed that only about half of Americans realize that humans have never lived side by side with dinosaurs, and about the same number reject the idea that humans developed from earlier species of animals.
This lack of knowledge, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, springs from a number of negative influences in contemporary society: poor secondary education in some regions of the country, misinformation in the mass media, and deliberate obfuscation by supporters of Creationism and Intelligent Design.

In The Top 10 Myths About Evolution, educators Cameron M. Smith and Charles Sullivan clearly dispel the ten most common myths about evolution that continue to mislead average Americans. Using a refreshing, jargon-free style, they set the record straight on claims that evolution is "just a theory," that Darwinian explanations of life undercut morality, that Intelligent Design is a legitimate alternative to conventional science, that humans come from chimpanzees, and six other popular but erroneous notions.

[rhertz]

[quote=Bob]You all should just love this [quote]

I found it funny....

Though the United States is the world leader in science and technology, many of its citizens display a shocking ignorance regarding basic scientific facts.

Their first sentence is a total contradiction in and of itself. They start off by establishing that the US is a world leader in science and technology. This is fact. Then they go on to express an opinion that contradicts that fact, and indeed insults "the leader" with no explanation of how their contradiction makes any sense.

This lack of knowledge, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, springs from a number of negative influences in contemporary society: poor secondary education in some regions of the country, misinformation in the mass media, and deliberate obfuscation by supporters of Creationism and Intelligent Design.

This statement is equally true:
This lack of knowledge in the face of overwhelming scientific, historical and biblical evidence, springs from a number of negative influences in contemporary society: Poor historical education in some regions of the country, misinformation in the mass media (especially Staff Writers), and deliberate obfuscation by supporters of Atheism and Macro Evolution.

This topic is all about opinion and rhetoric, or else someone can simply lay out the proof by creating life from scratch in a laboratory out of "chemical soup". Until such an experiment can be demonstrated, then the notion that man evolved from a "chemical soup" into a single cell creature then into a humanoid is simply the expression of an unproven opinion at best, or the expression of a political agenda at worst. In other words an unproven "theory".