I apologise for allowing mutual misunderstanding to go this far.Yopaz said:Meh, ignore the entire comment. Waste of space, waste of time.
I apologise for allowing mutual misunderstanding to go this far.Yopaz said:Meh, ignore the entire comment. Waste of space, waste of time.
Now do you really have to be a "Rhodes scholar" to know the Earth goes around the sun? That's picture book knowledge.Hawk eye1466 said:My first thought was to say, sure why not I'd believe we're that stupid but then I remembered, America is a really big country and not everyone is a Rhodes scholar so my question is where did they take this survey?
No but I've always wanted to use that phrase and this was the best opportunity I'd seenJohnny Novgorod said:Now do you really have to be a "Rhodes scholar" to know the Earth goes around the sun? That's picture book knowledge.Hawk eye1466 said:My first thought was to say, sure why not I'd believe we're that stupid but then I remembered, America is a really big country and not everyone is a Rhodes scholar so my question is where did they take this survey?
The Galileo affair is not the simple science vs religion affair it is portrayed either.RyQ_TMC said:That "Sun revolving around the Earth" is the only one I can't offer any defense for. Although I would like to point out that Copernicus also gets the Darwin treatment, i.e. the common narrative presenting him as Completely Correct and his opponents as ignorant religious zealots, while in fact the Copernican model wasn't much simpler than Ptolemaean (and it was mostly contested on scientific grounds, not religious) and it took Kepler and Galileo to develop it into the heliocentric model we ascribe to Copernicus.
I would go even further, and say that in most cases reasons for censorship or banning of scientific material (which were actually very rare) were personal or political rather than religious. The only strictly "medieval Church vs science" religiously-motivated case I can think of off the top of my head would be that of Nicholas of Autrecourt, who proposed atomism and was ordered to burn his books and recant, since atomism was against the Church doctrine of transsubstantiation.Petromir said:The relationship of the Christian church and Science has been fraught, but its not as purely confrontational as portrayed. Much scientific research was done by members of the church, often with the idea of the more you understand of God's creation the more you learn of him. Mendel, often viewed as the founder of modern genetics was a Friar.
Medical science before Pasteur had continuously suffered from the physicians' aversion to any new ideas. Scientists like to be in their comfort zone as much as anyone else. I've already pointed out in my previous comment that the Copernican model and Darwin's theory of evolution were contested by fellow scientists (or natural philosophers in Copernicus's case) much more than by religious people. Conflict hypothesis needs to die, as it does more bad than good.Sciences relationship with itself is hardly blemish free, with new ideas (that later become the mainstream theory) sometimes struggling as they can seem ridiculous.
To further clarify, because it seems there is still a misunderstanding of the message i was trying to convey: 'Evolution' was NEVER EVER EVER EVER a theory. NEVER. Never has been, never will be. It most certainly is not 'both a fact and a theory' either. To assert that as you are now is to contribute to the whole misconception, giving 'anti-evolution' debaters a strawman which they've been running with for years, because 'we' have been falsely validating them. :XFlatfrog said:Weeeelll, let's be perfectly accurate about this. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, in the sense that *nothing* in science can be 100% proved to be true but nevertheless evolution is such an obvious fact to anyone who is not both dogma bound and an idiot that we might as well call it true.
Evolution is still a theory because we can't actually observe it happen - we can observe mutation and changes in allele frequencies, but we can't observe speciation because it takes too long. Creationism is still *theoretically possible* - it's just overwhelmingly unlikely based on the evidence, and is inconsistent with the concept of a just and loving God.
Oh - and just to be clear, Natural Selection is *less* 'just a theory' than evolution because we *can* observe it happening!
The only genuine question is whether the evolution of life on this planet was *principally or entirely* due to natural selection, or whether other processes had a part to play as well. (Eg self-organising principles, the intervention of aliens, quantum evolution etc) So far there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that anything other than natural selection (including sexual selection and, of course, artificial selection by humans in recent history) was necessary for the evolution of life, but it's not as certain as the facts of evolution and of natural selection themselves.
Yopaz said:NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE.
Theories are used to explain phenomena. Boom! Theories are the most rigorous, reliable and comprehensive forms of knowledge in science. Boom!Wikipedia said:lolwikisnip
If you go to the article there's also a bit about the misconception of theories getting "upgraded" as the evidence builds up. It's a myth. A theory is basically the best thing you can get. Even a hypothesis needs a lot of ground to stand on before it will be presented as a scientific hypothesis rather than just an experimental hypothesis. Evolution is pretty much undeniable, but that's what a theory means in the world of science.
I didn't say evolution hasn't been observed, I said speciation hasn't been observed. That is to say - we can easily observe instances of changes in allele frequency (especially under human intervention), but as far as I know we've never yet managed to create two individuals that are actually from different species and can't interbreed (perhaps the nearest we've got to it is dogs of such vastly different sizes that they would be physically incapable of breeding despite their genetic compatibility). That isn't to say speciation can't occur, naturally it can, but it happens on too long a timescale to be practically observed.Some_weirdGuy said:To address another point there, 'Evolution' has been actively observed, in many instances. (One particular instances was the peppered moth, it's the one most people tend to bring up.)
Meh, let's just drop this. Evolution is a thing, let's not waste time on the semantics. We agree on the important parts.Some_weirdGuy said:Snip
Oh yes, what are PLANET orbits around (which provides us with light and energy and without it no vegetation or water would be possible) is a small thing. Surely money is better than knowing the fact that IT CAN EXPLODE INTO A SUPERNOVA AND DESTROY THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN GALAXY, WHICH IS WHAT FORMED THE SOLAR SYSTEM ABOUT 5-10 BILLION YEARS AGO. If the sun EXPLODES, money and food would be the least of your worries, I can guarantee that!shrekfan246 said:Yeah, but who cares about all of that when you can make another "lolMurrica" joke, right?tippy2k2 said:We don't use the vast majority of these "Fun Facts" and so you're brain kicks them out for more important things in life like money management, the proper way to cook chicken so you don't all die, and how to juggle chainsaws.
Besides, the Big Bang? "Explosion"? Talk about simplification. While I don't doubt they caught people who simply believe God did it, it's equally plausible there were just skeptics or people who do keep up with modern science.
This poll is far from perfect but is also far from bogus. I also can understand him hating the party G.W. belonged to.Nieroshai said:Classy. Letting your distaste for a party (and not the one running the country during one of our biggest economic crises) bias you to believe a bogus poll, and one that in fact still has the US beating out Europe as a whole on correct answers. Please do think before you hate, it is always a shame to see it crop up.gamerguy20097 said:We Americans also vote republican too. Yet another reason to be ashamed of my country.
A theory is the best available description of reality as we can perceive and test it. It should be considered fact, unless one can point out a significant flaw in it and come with an equal or superior alternative to it. Also we've observed evolution far beyond any reasonable doubt. This makes evolution (though not necessarily evolution theory) a fact. Also and I can't stress this enough. DO NOT BELIEVE IN SCIENCE ! To believe something is to take something on faith. You're not supposed to do that in science. You make assumptions, yes, but those assumptions should always be based on observations and reason. Never on faith.black_knight1337 said:No it's not. 2>1 is a fact. Evolution is a theory which means there is still at least some doubt in it be factually correct. It doesn't matter whether that doubt is 20%, 1% or even 0.0000000001%. It's still there. And while it's still there there is always a chance that a new and better theory could come up and replace it.BigTuk said:Uhm arguing against evolution is like arguing against 2>1. The evidence is so overwhelming and it comes from so many different areas its almost embarrassing, between the fossil records, the DNA records and heck the very physiology of the human body not to mention the fact we see proof of it in every other living thing around us every day.
It's only considered a theory because the results of it can't be properly predicted. I.e Laws are a case of where X then Y. All evolution says is that given time.. change will occur, that's pretty much a law of the universe so it doesn't really count. but beyond stating that change will occur... you can't predict what that change will be or when it will happen.
Evolution isn't speculation...it's fact.
That's not to say I don't believe in it because I do. It's just that it gets on my nerves when people still go around treating theories as facts. They've been proven wrong in the past, there's nothing stopping that happening again, hence why they are called theories rather than facts.
OT: Some of those questions are pretty stupid. Namely the ones on evolution and the big bang. They're reported on as though they are both facts but they are instead still theories. And with the big bang one especially, the "correct" answer according to them is the wrong answer. If it had of said "the universe as we know it" then it'd sit next the evolution one. But it didn't, it just said "the universe". And the thing is, something had to of been before the big bang for it to even happen. Don't get me wrong though, they're solid theories and I believe in both of them they just aren't facts. Not yet at least.
DNA is two strands of RNA. It makes the double helix. Neither of those are alive. A protein is a nutrient. It is not living. That's like saying a rock is living because it contains iron and iron is made up of molecules. Also, a virus does not have inner organelles like a single-cellars organism like bacteria or multi-celled organisms like an animal or plants. Viruses are not made of cells, which is the smallest, most basic unit of life. So, technically they are nonliving. Also, saying something is organic does not mean it is living. Silicon is organic but it is not alive, like any element on the P.T.o.E.Yopaz said:Not correct. A virus is actually several organic molecules. DNA (or RNA) and several protein subunits which are assembled to create a protective capsid and docking equipment to associate with the cell membrane of its target cells.Hawkeye21 said:Also, how does one "kill viruses" anyway? Virus is a single organic molecule, it's not even an organism of any description. It isn't even alive.
I long for the day when people stop confusing random mutation with evolution. It's an extremely minor part of evolution in the big picture. EXTREMELY minor. It's one of the mechanisms that give rise to variation. I can understand that people don't believe in evolution because people who are certain that they understand it but don't explain it wrong and make it sound illogical. I have studied evolutionary biology at a university level. That was when it dawned upon me that I never have understood evolution and I probably never will because it's infinitely more complicated than I imagined.iseko said:2) some biological mechanisms are to hard to explain with evolution (as far as I know flagella fall under this categorie. Random mutation is a bit hard to believe to explain this one for the moment). This indicates intelligent design.
You are the hero of this thread, sir. I salute you.GabeZhul said:That's... not what the question was. You are confusing it with another survey mentioned in the thread. This one didn't ask about time.Texas Joker 52 said:You know, this both baffles, and infuriates me.
What baffles me is the amount of people who didn't realize when they were asked this survey that the Earth revolves around our sun in, roughly, one years time. Not exactly a year of course, otherwise we wouldn't have Leap Years. Now, due to the way the Earth itself rotates, forming the 24 hour day cycle, it may APPEAR that the sun revolves around the Earth in a day, but that's looking at it from the wrong perspective.
Because they are? Well, okay, the Big Bang theory is not so much, as it is a bit hard to create factually unquestionable models for an early universe where there was no time, therefore no cause and effect and therefore mostly unmodelable. But evolution?What infuriates me is that they are treating evolution and the big bang as ironclad fact, instead of what they are, theories that, while they may have quite a bit of substantial evidence behind them, have been far from proven without a shadow of a doubt. The fact is, there's a lot about the universe we don't know, such as its creation, or where humanity came from. And religious beliefs that explain those origins are hardly incorrect or ignorant in and of themselves. They're simply different beliefs.
Hell, evolution is the single most well-understood and proven scientific theory because it has been prodded over and over by religious zealots over 150 years for holes, and there aren't any. It is also repeatedly proven right by genetics, medicine, paleontology, archeology and many other disciplines. Saying that "it's just a theory" is just ignorant.
Let me put it this way: "evolution" is a fact. The "theory of evolution" is what describes said fact, just like how "gravity" is a fact and the theories relating to it (be it Newtonian or relativistic) are only its descriptions. Yes, I know this evolution/gravity comparison is like beating a dead horse, but if you happen to be bothered by it, then why the hell did you bring up the whole "theory" bullshit on the first place?
Two things here: Right, religious belief doesn't automatically mean ignorance. The religious have a higher chance of being ignorant thanks to upbringing, religious education and whatnot, but it is not an ironclad rule. One can be religious and intelligent just as one can be an atheist or agnostic and be stupid as a rock (I'm looking at you, new-age hippies.)The fact that, even reading the first page of responses, so many people seem to equate religious beliefs to be the same as ignorance and stupidity, amazes me, particularly since it's wrong. It's thinking that that's ignorant, not to mention intolerant. The U.S. was founded on freedom of beliefs, people.
However, there is a good reason why scientific-minded people dislike the religious, and that is because the most ignorant ones have a record of trying to force their ignorance on others. I presume you have heard of the Intelligent Design debacle? When creationists tried to weasel their religious dogma into the school curriculum?
Scientist (and skeptics or other rational people) don't dislike the religious because of what they choose to believe in. We dislike them because they are trying to force their beliefs onto science, where it doesn't belong. I mean, I presume you would be outraged if people tried to force the clergy to teach the controversy in the church and preach about the big bang and evolution, right?
...
Well, that is not a good comparison, now that I think about it. I mean, that way you would at least get well-rounded and scientifically sound arguments. What the religious apologists have to offer most of the time are nothing more than fallacies and faulty logic.
So, in short: One can believe whatever they want and it is not an indication of their intelligence or ignorance. The problems begin when said beliefs are used to reject proven, working scientific facts on no ground or when belief tries to override science with unscientific dogma, which does lead to ignorance.
destroy the galaxyBrownie80 said:Oh yes, what are PLANET orbits around (which provides us with light and energy and without it no vegetation or water would be possible) is a small thing. Surely money is better than knowing the fact that IT CAN EXPLODE INTO A SUPERNOVA AND DESTROY THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN GALAXY, WHICH IS WHAT FORMED THE SOLAR SYSTEM ABOUT 5-10 BILLION YEARS AGO. If the sun EXPLODES, money and food would be the least of your worries, I can guarantee that!
It is destiny. Sometimes destiny sucks. And the sun is big. That's obvious. And I know the sun won't explode soon...or will it? BUM BUM BUUUUUMlacktheknack said:destroy the galaxyBrownie80 said:Oh yes, what are PLANET orbits around (which provides us with light and energy and without it no vegetation or water would be possible) is a small thing. Surely money is better than knowing the fact that IT CAN EXPLODE INTO A SUPERNOVA AND DESTROY THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN GALAXY, WHICH IS WHAT FORMED THE SOLAR SYSTEM ABOUT 5-10 BILLION YEARS AGO. If the sun EXPLODES, money and food would be the least of your worries, I can guarantee that!
>implying the sun is large enough to even be noticed galactically if it explodes
>acting as if it's going to explode in less that three billion years from now
>as if the sun won't expand and destroy the planet anyhow well before it blows
>implying money and food is less important than the knowledge of something that will never happen in the human race's existence
Why are you doing this to me? ;______;