David Attenborough joins campaign

[questionmark]

Religion came before science. Science asks the question: "Why are things the way they are?"

When early man was discovering what was edible and what was not I doubt they looked at it from a scientific perspective. They didn't say: "Oh, the berries from this plant are more poisonous than the berries from that plant over there because these berries contain aconitine and, as we all know, scientific studies show that aconitine disables nerves, lowers blood pressure, and can stop the heart."

No. They didn't do that. They would have eaten a berry and got poisoned. Then the others members of the tribe knew not to eat that berry. They didn't know WHY that berry was poisonous. They just knew it was poisonous because they saw someone get poisoned by it and therefore knew not to eat it. It was hardly scientific.

It was only later, when science came along, that we found out WHY some berries are poisonous and some aren't.

That process involves nearly every step of the scientific method, from observation through hypothesis.

Which clearly demonstrates that proponents of creationism may have an opinion about science but hardly the basic knowledge to back that opinion up with.

[Blackwhite]

That process involves nearly every step of the scientific method, from observation through hypothesis.

Hardly. Someone ate a berry, it killed them, then the other members of the tribe saw that it killed them and then refused to eat the berries. That was it. Hardly the most scientific of things.

They didn't know WHY it killed them. The chances are they saw it as punishment from one of their gods.

It was only millennia later, when actual, proper science came around, that we found out WHY the berries are poisonous.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Blackwhite

[Chimpanzee]

Sir David Attenborough has weighed into a campaign calling for creationism to be banned from the school science curriculum and for evolution to be taught more widely in schools.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8769353/David-Attenborough-joins-campaign-against-creationism-in-schools.html

Both views should be taught in school.

I agree creationism shouldnt be taught in science classes it should be in religious classes but its vital the kids get to know every viewpoint that exists and encouraged to seek what is truth for them.

I think the Government needs to censor individuals trying to get the otherside banned. Its an attack on our freedoms.

[Blackwhite]

Which clearly demonstrates that proponents of creationism may have an opinion about science but hardly the basic knowledge to back that opinion up with.

The proponents of Creationism believe that the evidence of the Creation is all around us: they can see the evidence of Creation in the fact that the Universe exists, the Earth exists, animals and plants on Earth exist, we exist. That's all the evidence they need.

[questionmark]

The proponents of Creationism believe that the evidence of the Creation is all around us: they can see the evidence of Creation in the fact that the Universe exists, the Earth exists, animals and plants on Earth exist, we exist. That's all the evidence they need.

What part of demonstrate do you not get?

[Blackwhite]

What part of demonstrate do you not get?

Why do the proponents of Creationism need to "demonstrate" that they are right? Are they not entitled to their beliefs without someone sticking their nose in and saying: "Proof it!"

Muslims belief that Mohammed ascended to heaven in the city of Jerusalem but we never ask them to prove it, do we? No, we just accept that that is their belief.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Blackwhite

[questionmark]

Why do the proponents of Creationism need to "demonstrate" that they are right? Are they not entitled to their beliefs without someone sticking their nose in and saying: "Proof it!"

Muslims belief that Mohammed ascended to heaven in the city of Jerusalem but we never ask them to prove it, do we?

Yes they do, at least if they want it taught in science. Else we can have a group teaching Sitchin's Nibbler theory too. They would have the same right.

[S2F]

Hardly. Someone ate a berry, it killed them, then the other members of the tribe saw that it killed them and then refused to eat the berries. That was it. Hardly the most scientific of things.

They didn't know WHY it killed them. The chances are they saw it as punishment from one of their gods.

It was only millennia later, when actual, proper science came around, that we found out WHY the berries are poisonous.

The 'why' was only a tangential question to the most important one. That being 'will I die if I eat this?'. Through observation and processing of the data gathered from the observation the resultant hypothesis was a resounding yes. The 'why' would require a different observation and hypothesis as it is a fundamentally different question, one that you are correct about that the knowledge needed to answer (correctly) wouldn't come about for some time. Science didn't start with all the bells and whistles attached, it was a much more humble beginning.

[Blackwhite]

The 'why' was only a tangential question to the most important one. That being 'will I die if I eat this?'. Through observation and processing of the data gathered from the observation the resultant hypothesis was a resounding yes. The 'why' would require a different observation and hypothesis as it is a fundamentally different question, one that you are correct about that the knowledge needed to answer (correctly) wouldn't come about for some time. Science didn't start with all the bells and whistles attached, it was a much more humble beginning.

You are being pedantic. There was nothing scientific performed by cavemen. At least, not what I would consider proper science. They ate a berry and died. Someone saw it and knew not to eat the berry. There was no great thinking or scientific study involved. And they would have seen the death as caused by a god, not a poisonous chemical.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Blackwhite

[questionmark]

You are being pedantic. There was nothing scientific performed by cavemen. At least, not what I would consider proper science. They ate a berry and died. Someone saw it and knew not to eat the berry. There was no great thinking or scientific study involved. And they would have seen the death as caused by a god, not a poisonous chemical.

Wow, you really know your stuff, don't you?

Science, as a discipline existed for almost 4000 years before the definition of the Scientific Method.

And, while I agree that for somethings there is no great thinking involved it still is science.

But maybe we all would be happier going your route: No thinking involved.

[Blackwhite]

Yes they do, at least if they want it taught in science. Else we can have a group teaching Sitchin's Nibbler theory too. They would have the same right.

Evolution and the Big Bang theory are taught in science but there is no proof that either of those two theories are right. They are only theories. Schoolchildren get taught that nothing can travel faster than light but now it seems we have been wrong about that all along.

In my view there's as much proof for the existence of evolution and the Big Bang than there is for the Creation. In fact, the evidence that Creation happened could be said to be all around us so you could say there is MORE evidence for the creation than there is for evolution.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Blackwhite

[Chimpanzee]

Why do the proponents of Creationism need to "demonstrate" that they are right? Are they not entitled to their beliefs without someone sticking their nose in and saying: "Proof it!"

Muslims belief that Mohammed ascended to heaven in the city of Jerusalem but we never ask them to prove it, do we? No, we just accept that that is their belief.

Exactly

Democracy is about allowing people to have their own opinions. One opinion does not overule another and people arent required to validate them either. The State should intervene if one group tries to break the Democractic rights of another group.

David Attenborough should be sent on Democracy classes to make him understand this. If he doesnt learn perhaps he should go live in North Korea.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Chimpanzee

[questionmark]

Evolution and the Big Bang theory are taught in science but there is no proof that either of those two theories are right.

In my view there's as much proof for the existence of evolution and the Big Bang than there is for the Creation. In fact, the evidence for the Creation is all around us.

Oh, could you please point out where they are wrong?

And don't bother with the classic: {1+1=2 is right 2+1=3 is right 3+1=5 is wrong therefore 1+1 = 2 must also be wrong} theorems. We had those ad nauseam on other forums here.

[Blackwhite]

Oh, could you please point out where they are wrong?

And don't bother with the classic: {1+1=2 is right 2+1=3 is right 3+1=5 is wrong therefore 1+1 = 2 must also be wrong} theorems. We had those ad nauseam on other forums here.

Can you please point out where the Creationists are wrong? If you think about it, the Creationists can be justified into thinking that there is more evidence for the Creation than there is for evolution. People have known all along that the world and the universe have been created but nobody came up with the idea of evolution until the 19th century. That's because there is less evidence for evolution. There is more evidence for Creationism than there is for evolution (the evidence is all around you in the fact that things exist), although I'm not saying that either of them are right.

Not long ago people argued vehemently that NOTHING can travel faster than light. It was an absolutely sacred belief and anyone saying that they believe otherwise was considered loony and denying the "overwhelming" evidence.

Now we have news that scientists at CERN have, 15,000 times, sent particles travelling faster than light. So what most scientists thought was CERTAINLY true - that nothing can travel faster than light - looks to have turned out to have been wrong all along.

What makes you certain that a similar occurrence won't happen with evolution and that at some point we will discover that we have been wrong about evolution all along? Telling children that evolution definitely happened may turn out to be a big mistake.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Blackwhite

[S2F]

You are being pedantic. There was nothing scientific performed by cavemen. At least, not what I would consider proper science. They ate a berry and died. Someone saw it and knew not to eat the berry. There was no great thinking or scientific study involved. And they would have seen the death as caused by a god, not a poisonous chemical.

Admittedly the science involved would be rudimentary at best and completely without cognizant realization that they were applying scientific principals. It is no small coincidence though that the scientific method mimics our own natural method of gathering information. It is merely a refined process that accounts for human fallibility in order to obtain truer answers.

As for the death caused by a god, that was still a hypothesis. One that was abandoned at some point in light of new data. Hypotheses are updated or abandoned all the time in science.

I digress however, as it seems we are moving a bit off topic.

[questionmark]

Can you please point out where the Creationists are wrong? If you think about it, the Creationists can be justified into thinking that there is more evidence for the Creation than there is for evolution. People have known all along that the world and the universe has been created but nobody came up with the idea of evolution until the 19th century. There is more evidence for Creationism than there is for evolution, although I'm not saying that either of them are right.

Not long ago people argued vehemently that NOTHING can travel faster than light. It was an absolutely sacred believe and anyone saying that they believe otherwise was considered loony and denying the "overwhelming" evidence.

Now we have news that scientists at CERN have, 15,000 times, sent particles travelling faster than light. So what most scientists thought was CERTAINLY true - that nothing can travel faster than light - looks to have turned out to have been wrong all along.

What makes you certain that a similar occurrence won't happen with evolution and that at some point we will discover that we have been wrong about evolution all along?

Yes, in the fact that we can demonstrate evolution to this day. Take for example microbes and Penicillin. Most have acquired a resistance to it. Acquiring that resistance is by definition evolution.

Take the Darwin Finches on the Galapagos, each adapted to a specific environment and while being the same bird they each have morphological characteristics that makes them optimally exploit the resources at their hand, that is called evolution.

And the CERN thing again falls under an opinion about everything and knowledge about nothing. The speed of light cannot be reached (according to our science) by mass because there would not be enough energy to attain it (e=mc²).But a neutrino has no mass (as far as we know), therefore it can well attain any conceivable speed.

And besides that, this does not change any fundamentals. 1+1 is still two despite 3+1 is not five.

[Blackwhite]

Yes, in the fact that we can demonstrate evolution to this day. Take for example microbes and Penicillin. Most have acquired a resistance to it. Acquiring that resistance is by definition evolution.

Take the Darwin Finches on the Galapagos, each adapted to a specific environment and while being the same bird they each have morphological characteristics that makes them optimally exploit the resources at their hand, that is called evolution.

And the CERN thing again falls under an opinion about everything and knowledge about nothing. The speed of light cannot be reached (according to our science) by mass because there would not be enough energy to attain it (e=mc²).But a neutrino has no mass (as far as we know), therefore it can well attain any conceivable speed.

And besides that, this does not change any fundamentals. 1+1 is still two despite 3+1 is not five.

We once thought that we can demonstrate that nothing can travel faster than light and thought we could demonstrate it. How wrong we were.

Evolution could one day be proven wrong just as a part of Einstein's Theory of Relative has been proven wrong. They are not known as THEORIES for nothing.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Blackwhite

[smurf0852]

We once thought that we can demonstrate that nothing can travel faster than light and thought we could demonstrate it. How wrong we were.

Evolution could one day be proven wrong just as a part of Einstein's Theory of Relative has been proven wrong. They are not known as THEORIES for nothing.

there have always been theorys about subatomic particals that could travel faster than light .we just have never found them before.

as for teaching creationism in schools why not go the whole hog and teach kids about fairys,elves and every other fairy tale as if it is fact.

religion has no place in schools if people want to learn about religion they should go to there nearest house of worship and do it there.

[questionmark]

there have always been theorys about subatomic particals that could travel faster than light .we just have never found them before.

as for teaching creationism in schools why not go the whole hog and teach kids about fairys,elves and every other fairy tale as if it is fact.

religion has no place in schools if people want to learn about religion they should go to there nearest house of worship and do it there.

And I want the Grimm brothers fairy tales to be taught as a fact!

[Tiggs]

If Intelligent Design is taught in Biology classes, then I demand that Intelligent Falling should be taught in Physics classes.

Intelligent Falling is the theory that there is no such thing as Gravity, it's just angels pushing.

The Newtonionist's conspirators that dominate Science today won't even let us publish our papers on Intelligent Falling within their peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Our children have a right to know both sides of the argument.

Teach the Controversy!!!

[questionmark]

We once thought that we can demonstrate that nothing can travel faster than light and thought we could demonstrate it. How wrong we were.

Evolution could one day be proven wrong just as a part of Einstein's Theory of Relative has been proven wrong. They are not known as THEORIES for nothing.

Evolution cannot be proven wrong because we see it happening in front of our noses every day. Even if some things did not happen as Darwin thought they did it does not mean that evolution does not happen.

[The Silver Thong]

We once thought that we can demonstrate that nothing can travel faster than light and thought we could demonstrate it. How wrong we were.

Evolution could one day be proven wrong just as a part of Einstein's Theory of Relative has been proven wrong. They are not known as THEORIES for nothing.

Science is not about being right. Science is about advancing what we know as practical theory and gathering evidience to justifie such a theory. Do you have any science that justifies creation because that would be something pretty special as of today we have zero evedience of creation.

So a nutrino beat a photon in a race by 60 billionths of a second and you want to call Einstein a fraud. No, that`s not how it works. Science is not an absalute as you seem to think it is. Your stuck in the mind set that of creationism because to you that is an absalute. You don`t know how science works but you seem to know how god works. Now that`s a leap of assumption I can`t even come close to touching.

According to you after the Wright brothers acheived heaveir than air flight man should have just been happy with that and never progressed past that accomplishment.

Oh and your understanding of a theory seems to be lacking as well. You might want to look up what a theory actually is.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

We once thought that we can demonstrate that nothing can travel faster than light and thought we could demonstrate it. How wrong we were.

Well, there's a fairly good chance that either that result is caused by faulty recording devices or quantum slippage (that is the neutrinos aren't the ones being fired off by CERN but a totally different bunch of neutrinos that happened to turn up for cake and tea). It's not a scientifically accepted theoretical premise until it's repeatable. Until they tell me they've done it a dozen times and gotten a dozen neutrinos turn up before they start the experiment then I'll give you this.

Also, I must say this is a classical "because scientists were wrong about the existence of the mountain gorilla then they're also wrong about the existence of the Yeti" argument.

[Chimpanzee]

Well, there's a fairly good chance that either that result is caused by faulty recording devices or quantum slippage (that is the neutrinos aren't the ones being fired off by CERN but a totally different bunch of neutrinos that happened to turn up for cake and tea). It's not a scientifically accepted theoretical premise until it's repeatable. Until they tell me they've done it a dozen times and gotten a dozen neutrinos turn up before they start the experiment then I'll give you this.

Also, I must say this is a classical "because scientists were wrong about the existence of the mountain gorilla then they're also wrong about the existence of the Yeti" argument.

They have done it 15,000 times and has had 100's of top nuclear physicists look at it.

The reason why CERN has opened it up to the public in the way they have is because its controversial. They already know they are right.

Quantum particles dont slip they tunnel and nuclear physicists know all about that so put some faith in them.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Chimpanzee

[Blackwhite]

smurf0852, on 24 September 2011 - 05:57 PM, said:

there have always been theorys about subatomic particals that could travel faster than light .we just have never found them before.

It was neutrinos that CERN managed to send faster than light and they have been known about since 1930.

I'm also loving the way that some people on here are squirming because a theory that people thought was definitely true and which they thought will never been proven wrong HAS now been proven wrong.

Maybe they are worried that the theory of evolution may go the same way as the theory that nothing can travel faster than light.

They are, after all, only theories and not definites.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Blackwhite