General Science Discussion Thread!

[Dr. Javelin]

So to avoid clogging up the "If you click here, you must post here" thread I've decided that we should have scientific debate in a separate thread.

So here we go! Right now we're talking about evolution vs creationism, because of the debate between Bill Nye (representing evolution) and Ken Ham (representing creationism).

and in the name of all that is good please no bashing of other people in this thread, that's how they get locked

EDIT: the story of sharks in this thread can be summed up as this:

So what sciency thing are we talking abou—

Oh, it's this conversation again.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Like when?

Scientists are again, open, but skeptical. This resistance is probably derived from healthy skepticism. Scientists do listen to plausible explanations, but they can and they will look for big flaws.

Because that's just the way humanity works. Galileo is just one example; across human history you can find many examples of people coming up with (correct) ideas about the universe but their theories weren't accepted until much, much later.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

I think evolution vs. creationism shouldn't even be a debate.

As I said, science relies on healthy skeptism. Evolution has tons of evidence to support it. Scientists don't choose evolution's theory just because they like it; they choose it simply because it explains best about our world's history.

If somebody brings up this "we need equal opportunity for creationism and evolution" argument, I will protest that Pastafarianism needs to be included in public curriculum.

Like when?

Scientists are again, open, but skeptical. This resistance is probably derived from healthy skepticism. Scientists do listen to plausible explanations, but they can and they will look for big flaws.

Because that's just the way humanity works. Galileo is just one example; across human history you can find many examples of people coming up with (correct) ideas about the universe but their theories weren't accepted until much, much later.

In Galileo's time, though, Galileo was about to be persecuted. There are instances where scientists don't take crazy new explanations seriously, but they reexamine it later, but it's more common that what is convincing to scientists will stay like that.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

I think evolution vs. creationism shouldn't even be a debate.

As I said, science relies on healthy skeptism. Evolution has tons of evidence to support it. Scientists don't choose evolution's theory just because they like it; they choose it simply because it explains best about our world's history.

If somebody brings up this "we need equal opportunity for creationism and evolution" argument, I will protest that Pastafarianism needs to be included in public curriculum.

there are still plenty of things that evolution doesn't explain, just as there are plenty of things that creationism doesn't explain. yet each has solid arguments in their favor. hence why there should be a debate

Like when?

Scientists are again, open, but skeptical. This resistance is probably derived from healthy skepticism. Scientists do listen to plausible explanations, but they can and they will look for big flaws.

Because that's just the way humanity works. Galileo is just one example; across human history you can find many examples of people coming up with (correct) ideas about the universe but their theories weren't accepted until much, much later.

In Galileo's time, though, Galileo was about to be persecuted. There are instances where scientists don't take crazy new explanations seriously, but they reexamine it later, but it's more common that what is convincing to scientists will stay like that.

galileo isn't the only one

http://www.cracked.com/article_18822_5-famous-scientists-dismissed-as-morons-in-their-time.html

 

[Shyghoul]

as far "creation vs. evolution" goes

i don't really believe either one

i know that sounds odd but i've seen no absolute proof of an animal changing into another animal or absolute proof that a god created everything

 

[Mario4Ever]

Evolution isn't about animals becoming other animals. It's about animals adapting to an ever-changing world, gaining new and varied characteristics over time (and losing ones that hinder survival). One of my problems with the "evolution vs. creation" debate is that the two aren't opposites. Creation is a theory about how we got here, but evolution, in and of itself, is not. Evolution is a theory about what happened to life after it got here. How it got here is a completely different issue.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

There is evidence of animals changing over years, though, from fossil records and carbon dating. Evolution isn't the perfect explanation, perhaps, but it's the most convincing, and it fits the best so far.

there are still plenty of things that evolution doesn't explain, just as there are plenty of things that creationism doesn't explain. yet each has solid arguments in their favor. hence why there should be a debate

Please give me examples.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

there are still plenty of things that evolution doesn't explain, just as there are plenty of things that creationism doesn't explain. yet each has solid arguments in their favor. hence why there should be a debate

Please give me examples.

take for example matter forming life. evolution still has no definite answer for how matter could produce life on its own

Evolution isn't about animals becoming other animals. It's about animals adapting to an ever-changing world, gaining new and varied characteristics over time (and losing ones that hinder survival). One of my problems with the "evolution vs. creation" debate is that the two aren't opposites. Creation is a theory about how we got here, but evolution, in and of itself, is not. Evolution is a theory about what happened to life after it got here. How it got here is a completely different issue.

Yes, but what evolution vs creation is all about is really more of how humans arrived at where we are today. Which they completely disagree on.

...just for reference, I don't really see how divine creation of human beings has to disagree with evolution. There's a passage somewhere in the bible about how a thousand years to us is like a day to God, and a day to us is like a thousand years to God. In other words, time is relative, and what is described as a "day" in Genesis might actually be a much longer period of time.

Another point where I disagree with Ken Ham (from the debate I've mentioned previously) is the idea that God created the earth in the creation story. If you read Genesis 1...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Clearly, the earth existed prior to the first day of creation. Which means that even if the six days of creation were 24 hour days that we humans know of, the Earth doesn't have to be 6,000 years old as Ken Ham proclaims. It could easily be older.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Evolution doesn't explain how complex molecules formed to be life, but how single-celled organisms diversified and evolved to become what we are today. So far, there is no consensus how life formed from molecules, but there are several models. Fossil records indicate, however, that life first started as simple, single-celled organisms.

Flaws or gaps in evolutionary theory doesn't necessarily support and promote the creationist theory, however.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

The origin of life is something that is explained in creation theory, so while evolution's lack of explanation may not actively support creationism, it's still a point in creation's favor.

The same goes for anything evolution can't explain that creation can, or that creation can't explain that evolution can. That's why they are both theories that have many supporters.

 

[GalacticPetey]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what are creationists thoughts on Dinosaurs? Do they simply deny their existence?

 

[Mario4Ever]

Ham, for instance, is of the belief that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

The origin of life is something that is explained in creation theory, so while evolution's lack of explanation may not actively support creationism, it's still a point in creation's favor.

I've just said that gaps in the evolution theory does NOT reinforce creationism's validity. Creationism needs verified proof, but it doesn't. Creationists arguing against evolution have also a tendency to cherry-pick; they overlook all the evidence supporting evolution while focusing on the small problems it has.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what are creationists thoughts on Dinosaurs? Do they simply deny their existence?

it depends.

new earth creationists such as ham believe what M4E just said above

old earth creationists (a theory i fund much more credible) would say that the dinosaurs existed on a previous earth

i'd also like to take a moment to thank wikipedia for classifying the kind of creation theory that i believe to be plausible, because i've been struggling to define it for years

The origin of life is something that is explained in creation theory, so while evolution's lack of explanation may not actively support creationism, it's still a point in creation's favor.

I've just said that gaps in the evolution theory does NOT reinforce creationism's validity. Creationism needs verified proof, but it doesn't. Creationists arguing against evolution have also a tendency to cherry-pick; they overlook all the evidence supporting evolution while focusing on the small problems it has.

Uh, creationism is all about belief in a higher power. Of course it doesn't have verified proof, because how can one prove the existence of a divine being which can't be observed by any scientific means?

...for that matter, how can one disprove the existence of a divine being which can't be observed by any scientific means?

 

[2257]

you should really distinguish between creationism and intelligent design. creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence, and its proponents believe in it based on religious faith. intelligent design is a pseudoscientific theory that attempts to justify a certain kind of christian creationism based on contrived evidence and faulty logic

if you want to argue in favor of creationism, thats fine. i don't care. believe what you want

if you're trying to pretend that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory though, no. that's ridiculous

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Uh, creationism is all about belief in a higher power. Of course it doesn't have verified proof, because how can one prove the existence of a divine being which can't be observed by any scientific means?

...for that matter, how can one disprove the existence of a divine being which can't be observed by any scientific means?

Except scientific theories need to be fundamentally disproveable. Evolution, again, has evidence ranging from molecular evidence to radioactive dating to

For a theory to be scientific, it must adhere to the following (taken from the Pseudoscience article in Wikipedia):

Consistent
Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)
Empirically testable and falsifiable (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)
Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)
Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
Progressive (refines previous theories)
Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

Intelligent design (which I think is just a screen for creationism) does not adhere to most of these attributes. I don't mind if anyone believes in creationism; Creationism is not a science, however, and it should not be taught as science in classrooms.

 

[SpinyMaster347]

hey guys...i don't mean to disrupt but can anyone explain how sound and hertz work? like what makes something low pitched and what makes something high pitched?

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Low-pitched noises have longer wavelengths and lower frequency, measured in hertz, than high-pitched noises.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

hey guys...i don't mean to disrupt but can anyone explain how sound and hertz work? like what makes something low pitched and what makes something high pitched?

they vibrate your eardrums at different rates, which causes a different sensory input which your brain sorts into "high-pitched" and "low-pitched"

you should really distinguish between creationism and intelligent design. creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence, and its proponents believe in it based on religious faith. intelligent design is a pseudoscientific theory that attempts to justify a certain kind of christian creationism based on contrived evidence and faulty logic

if you want to argue in favor of creationism, thats fine. i don't care. believe what you want

if you're trying to pretend that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory though, no. that's ridiculous

Considering Christianity believes in an omnipotent God, you can justify any of their theories by just saying "God made it that way".

So...

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Considering Christianity believes in an omnipotent God, you can justify any of their theories by just saying "God made it that way".

So...

Except this claim carries no weight in other settings.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

yeah

i don't really think that God would make it possible to prove his existence through science, because if you could mathematically and logically prove his existence then that would do away with the entire point of faith

...but we're getting off-topic! the existence of the divine isn't a scientific topic, it's more of a philosophical one

 

[2257]

Considering Christianity believes in an omnipotent God, you can justify any of their theories by just saying "God made it that way".

So...

if you're asking me why intelligent design needs to exist when christians already believe in christian creationism, the purpose is to sell christian creationism to non-christians in the guise of science

 

[Dr. Javelin]

well, that's one way of putting it

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

yeah

i don't really think that God would make it possible to prove his existence through science, because if you could mathematically and logically prove his existence then that would do away with the entire point of faith

...but we're getting off-topic! the existence of the divine isn't a scientific topic, it's more of a philosophical one

I think the existence of the divine is ultimately the product of human imagination. Human brains are wired to notice patterns, and since humans are also curious creatures, they ask a lot of questions about these patterns. Then, they devise explanations for the phenomena they experience. This is why religion plays such a vital role in human history. Faith can also play a role as moral standard for society, which then evolves into government.

I can say modern science has also derived from human curiosity and openness, and many figures of the scientific revolution were religious, but in the same time, were amazed to discover new workings of the world they live in.

i don't really think that God would make it possible to prove his existence through science, because if you could mathematically and logically prove his existence then that would do away with the entire point of faith

That doesn't logically connect, though. Faith's existence, again, is to explain local phenoma and to set standards for society. People didn't know much back then, hence why they think the Sun orbited Earth or Earth is flat (until Greek's explained how Earth is round).

There also a number of religions that do not focus on deities, so even if God is disproven, it wouldn't do away with faith entirely.

But anyway, this is a science discussion thread, and since you're putting creationism as the same aspect as science, I will quickly refute your views.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

That doesn't logically connect, though. Faith's existence, again, is to explain local phenoma and to set standards for society.

i don't think you understand what faith is. faith in a higher power doesn't have anything to do with explaining local phenomena. it has everything to do with a spiritual connection to a greater being who can lead you in life on earth. or at least that's (basically) how christianity works

Christianity didn't set out to set standards for society or to explain phenomena. It was about telling people how to connect with God in a way they had never thought possible.

But anyway, this is a science discussion thread, and since you're putting creationism as the same aspect as science, I will quickly refute your views.

I'm saying that they can both explain how the world came into being. Because you obviously don't believe in God, of course creationism makes no sense to you. But an all-powerful divine being that could basically do whatever they wanted could easily make the universe however they chose. Does that not make sense to you?

Keep in mind that they're all-powerful.