The voters have decided that B3CKVH is right!
Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Related Posts
Also about fact and big bang
-72The big bang theory makes no sense, it should not be taught as fact in schools, amirite?
Also about big bang
+165You always have to yell "BANG!" at the end of 'The Big Bang Theory' theme song, amirite?
Isn't gravity a law?
The concept of gravity itself is a theory, the laws/rules of gravity are laws.
Still, by definition of science, theory do not = facts.
A scientific theory does NOT equal the lay definition of theory.
A theory never becomes a law.A scientific theory is an explanation for a phenomenon that has been supported by MANY experiments. There is NO hierarchy of scientific labels. A theory stays a theory no matter what, because the theory is the IDEA. People start establishing laws when the idea becomes more clear, but the theory still remains. A theory is not worse than a law, nor is a law more advanced than a theory. "It's just a theory" doesn't make sense.
But anyway, I agree with teaching the concept as facts, because it is essentially the accepted truth in the science community. I suppose it can be taught that it might not be true, but they'll have to say it's the general accepted truth, and that there's a reason for it being the general accepted truth.
Yes, but at the same time, not all kids grow up to be scientists. I think if they want to teach scientific theory as fact they have to do so with all or none- and why not simply state that "The theory of Evolution is a widely accepted concept by many, if not most scientists," otherwise, they need to redefine hypothesis, theory, law and fact- all very scientific terms with no gray area.
You could totally say "The theory of Evolution is a widely accepted concept by many, if not most scientists." No matter what it is, somewhere out there, there'll be a scientist who disagrees.
I don't understand what you're trying to say with gray area. There are many theories out there that are on different levels of credibility. Until we find evidence evolution is false, it should be taught as effectively true, but also that there's always the possibility, however slim, of it being disproven.
I agree with that completely! Especially the last part. A lot of people accept scientific theory as irrefutable gospel and ignore that theories are not proven scientific facts.
Ie: if Evolution had been scientific fact, it would also have laws, like Gravity does, correct?
I googled it, the first result said Darwin had 5 laws of evolution. I don't know how valid that is, though. Wikipedia said there were only "universal generalizations"
http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/evolution.html
Evolution is actually a more solid theory than gravity. Evolution is more backed up and understood, while we know hardly anything about gravity, and Mercury doesn't follow it's orbit the way one of the laws of gravity says it should. There is no hierarchy of scientific labels.
The only thing that can refute theory are facts, and unfortunately IDT hasn't got any either... Unless you consider the probability of Phi being a counsidence- but what's even more mind blowing and hardly ever considered is that all 3 could be correct.
ie:
Big Bang: when God said "Let There Be" and "It was," it was probably not a quiet event. Slapping a planet together and merging all of those atoms had to be pretty loud.
Evolution: 1 day for man = 1,000 for God, and Mankind has obviously evolved- as evident in the multiple evolutions a person has in a single lifetime.
Intelligent Design: mathematics are associated with intelligence- and every particle making up this planet is accountable to Phi, and/or rule of 1/3
Interesting to consider, at least;) I'm surprised by how many people assume that Christians can't think scientifically, and how many Christians think just because it's scientific, it's wrong.
"Multiple evolutions a person has in a single lifetime."
What.
I was referring to evolution of the human psyche.. All in fun. Try not to be so serious ;)
I was just confused, no need for winking.
I'm a winker.. And a smiley kind of person. ;D
Wait wouldn't it be the other way around? 1000 days for man =1 day for God?
... Is that not the same?
1,000 d/m = 1 d/G
=
1d/G = 1,000 d/m
It's like 3+6 and 6+3
1 day for man =1000 for God
1 day for God =1000 for man
It's not the same if only half each side was reversed. it's more like 1/1000 and 1000/1 rather than 1+1000 and 1000+1.
I love you
:) I love you back.
It's also important to know the real definition of theory: a hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested or researched and explains natural phenomena. Not just an idea.
but darwin....
Am I wrong in assuming that the Big Bang is somewhat more 'theoretical' than the theory of evolution?
Generally, from what I have seen they tie the two together with statements like, "The earth's geological evolution began with a Big Bang" briefly touch on that concept, and then delve into the evolutionary "history" of our planet. According to the source, this may or may not include that we "came from monkeys" or climbed out of the "primordial" soup. Both are equally theoretical both by scientific and standard definition.
Evolutionary theory does not, in anywhere, say we came from monkeys. For someone arguing evolution you should probably know what it is.
The Big Bang: basically the universe was once extremely hot and dense and expanded. After it cooled, things like protons and electrons and neutrons came about. Eventually, they formed hydrogen. It is a widely accepted theory in the science community.
I got all that from Wikipedia in 5 minutes. I did not read a single thing about things climbing out of primordial soup.
RIGHT!! But that is not always how it is taught. I am not defining science or evolution here, y'all- I am commenting on how it has been taught wrong to some students.
Isn't the theory of the evolution of man that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor and not that one evolved from the other?
Yes.
Honestly, I don't know...
Trust me, we can tell.
Well, we think it's funny that you think highly enough of your own opinion to speak for other people.
I agree, teaching them as scientific fact is not correct, however that is exactly why all schools teach it as Darwin's THEORY of evolution.
So not really sure where you're trying to go with this.
Then, in all fairness, they shouldn't teach anything that happened before the invention of the camera as fact because you can't verify that shit wasn't just made up.
I don't know, all of my teachers still refer to them as theories.
Because not ALL schools teach it that way.
The Big Bang is theoretical, I agree with that part.
Evolution, however, has enough evidence backing it to be considered pretty much factual.
Also defined as an accepted hypothesis.
What? It is.
Except for it isn't.
It starts out as a hypothesis, but it isn't just accepted. A theory is a hypothesis supported by countless experiments giving the same results time and time again.
Ok- look it up. Google (or bing or whatever) these exact words: Theory "also defined as an accepted Hypothesis"
Or how's about I look in my biology book for the real, scientific definition?
That is the real scientific definition, but whatever.
An actual PHD writes:
Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.
Reference: http://chemistry.about.com/od/c.../lawtheory.htm
We are talking about scientific theories. There is nothing scientific about saying an explosion was caused by aliens. Yes, that is a theory, but it is not a scientific theory. It is a theory much in the same way that I assume my dog is responsible when I come home and my pillows are all over the floor; I can't test it, but it makes sense so I will call it a theory. But it's not the same kind of theory as the theories of evolution, or gravity or the big bang.
We did not make this post, I did. And I'm sorry your textbook did not have a full concise definition. This post isn't even about scientific theory, and it's definition, but thanks for the input.
We, as in you and me in this conversation right now, are talking about the scientific definition of a theory. Or at least I thought we were when you used the word scientific in your post.
I don't see how your definition of theory is full, but it is definitely concise. It says the bare minimum about what a theory is. My textbook, however, has the full, not so concise definition of a theory and it is much more than just a supported hypothesis.
Wasn't full.. Was an additive.
The statement is correct be it scientific or Webster definition.
The statement is correct so long as it isn't a scientific theory. But for it to be considered scientific theory you have to include the "additive."
And personally, I would rather believe the chemist who agrees with the majority of other scientists out there than finding ONE chemists whose definition of a theory accurately reflects my own personal definition.
Whatev
My dad has a PhD. That doesn't make him right about everything.
Nobody said that. But I am going to take the word of a chemist with a Phd over a student.