Topic: Unhappy Random thoughts...

[t12161991]

There is nothing AFAIK.

[Cannonofdoom]

what is the next designation after "theory", then?

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Scientific law. Like gravity. And the law of motion.

Einstein's theory of special relativity, and one of the basic tenets (that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light) have been thought true for a long time, but researchers at CERN have recently recorded neutrinos traveling faster than light.

I'm not saying creationism should or should not be taught in school. I simply don't think you should present an unproven idea as absolute truth until it's been absolutely proven. 

[Not-not-kenny]

researchers at CERN have recently recorded neutrinos traveling faster than light.

Couldn't it be like Kevin Spacey says in K-Pax, nothing can accelerate to the speed of light, but that doesn't say anything about things already moving at c (although that could very well be wrong, he did also say there were ten planets in the Solar System).

[Obi]

what is the next designation after "theory", then?

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Scientific law. Like gravity. And the law of motion.

Einstein's theory of special relativity, and one of the basic tenets (that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light) have been thought true for a long time, but researchers at CERN have recently recorded neutrinos traveling faster than light.

I'm not saying creationism should or should not be taught in school. I simply don't think you should present an unproven idea as absolute truth until it's been absolutely proven. 

Irony:

the fact that the faster than light travel of the neutrinos has not yet been proven.

[Feanor Fire Heart]

Scientific law. Like gravity. And the law of motion.

Einstein's theory of special relativity, and one of the basic tenets (that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light) have been thought true for a long time, but researchers at CERN have recently recorded neutrinos traveling faster than light.

I'm not saying creationism should or should not be taught in school. I simply don't think you should present an unproven idea as absolute truth until it's been absolutely proven. 

link?

[Finlay]

what is the next designation after "theory", then?

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Scientific law. Like gravity. And the law of motion.

Einstein's theory of special relativity, and one of the basic tenets (that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light) have been thought true for a long time, but researchers at CERN have recently recorded neutrinos traveling faster than light.

I'm not saying creationism should or should not be taught in school. I simply don't think you should present an unproven idea as absolute truth until it's been absolutely proven. 

mate, you're talking out your arse.

Law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated

Laws can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new data, as with Bode's law or the biogenetic law.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

The theory of evolution isn’t a hypothesis.

I simply don't think you should present an unproven idea as absolute truth until it's been absolutely proven. 

Nothing in science can be absolutely proven though, so a pretty weak argument for not teaching evolution: we may as well not teach any science seeing as none of it is proven absolutely?!

[Finlay]

Scientific law. Like gravity. And the law of motion.

Einstein's theory of special relativity, and one of the basic tenets (that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light) have been thought true for a long time, but researchers at CERN have recently recorded neutrinos traveling faster than light.

I'm not saying creationism should or should not be taught in school. I simply don't think you should present an unproven idea as absolute truth until it's been absolutely proven. 

link?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

[t12161991]

Also, I repeat: You cannot prove anything in science, only disprove.

The Theory of Evolution is the current gold standard not because it has been proven entirely, but because we have not managed to disprove it (though it has been revised from Darwin's original thesis several times to account for errors).

[MrDWhitey]

I knew Darwin personally, absolute slag.

[GamesPoet]

All this negativity, don't know if I can handle it. 

[Athiuen]

Creationism yesterday, Evolution today, what will they teach tomorrow?

[Cannonofdoom]

what is the next designation after "theory", then?

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Scientific law. Like gravity. And the law of motion.

Einstein's theory of special relativity, and one of the basic tenets (that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light) have been thought true for a long time, but researchers at CERN have recently recorded neutrinos traveling faster than light.

I'm not saying creationism should or should not be taught in school. I simply don't think you should present an unproven idea as absolute truth until it's been absolutely proven. 

Irony:

the fact that the faster than light travel of the neutrinos has not yet been proven.

You missed what I was saying. 

And again, I'm not saying evolution is right or wrong. And you're correct to say that nothing in science can be absolutely proven, because science is always about questioning everything all of the time. My problem is when you begin teaching anything as an absolute truth when there are very few things that are indisputable. I'm not trying to argue for or against evolution or creationism. I'm arguing that you have to teach science, which should include teaching children to constantly question and examine their beliefs in how the universe works, but all too often, whether taught by fundamentalist religious groups, or by know it all science professors, they are instead taught that everyone else is wrong, and only the single point of view could possibly be correct. That's not mind opening, that's mind closing. I don't care if you are doing it in the name of your God, or doing it in the name of science, it's still wrong.

[Fandir Nightshade]

Cannon has a point and it is about the only thing that really bugs me in religion. If people live their religion in a personal way just saying, THIS is how I think it is and want to live it, there is nothing wrong about it.

Only if you go on to say THIS is the one and only truth and everyone who disagrees has to be killed is the bad stuff.

[Auberoun]

+1  I agree completely.  I beleive what I want, and am not one to judge others for their beliefs, if someone asks, I will talk to them about it, but I will not go out of my way to hammer it over someone's head.  Life is too short as it is to argue about religion or science, or anything else for that matter.  I argue enough with my wife as it is, and am too tired to argue with anyone else about anything.  I'll save my disputes for the Warhammer field!

Sad news, we have a dog who is constantly having seizures, and she is on medicine.  Her brain isn't quite right, and she won't listen to commands anymore. (Like coming when she is called) We have talked about getting rid of her, since we have to keep her in a pen outside, or a cage inside, and such.  But, the problem is our 5 year old son would be devastated.  We have been trying to build him up for the eventuality that she won't be with us, but it is going to break his little heart.  He already says, "I miss Bala" and she is still with us.  I know we can't protect him from heartbreak forever, but how should we get rid of the dog?  Do it while he is at school, and say she ran away?  Or be honest like we have been, and say she is sick and she needs to go "play with other doggies"?  I fear the day that talk is coming, and my wife and I are trying to put it off.  The dog is only 3 years old by the way.

[Finlay]

Cannon, I agree with you in principle, but there is no way that creationsim should make its way into the science classroom.

If you want to teach kids about other scientific theories concerning life, than by all means go ahead.
And by all means do creationism in an RE class.


But teaching creationism in a science class is a ridiculous epic fail, and makes America look pretty stupid.

[wissenlander]

Is Creationism taught in science class rooms?  Barring a few exceptions I'm not aware of it being common place.  If it is taught it's probably at a Christian school. 

[t12161991]

It is. Various places throughout the deep south do it almost as a matter of course.

http://www.popsci.com/future-human/article/2008-05/one-eight-us-biology-teachers-teaches-creationism

[wissenlander]

I see.  I've not experienced that at all so this is actually news to me that it's that common. 

Edit:  Though the sample size and ramdomness factors always make me wonder if that's an actual true representation of what's going on.

[MrDWhitey]

Personally I think every single Physics class ever should be taught by Brian Cox.

[t12161991]

That's actually a fairly standard method of sampling and analysis for a political science survey. Still, as you say, small sample size and all. I'll poke around some more later and see if I can't find something bigger and more recent.

[wissenlander]

Yeah, I know it's a standard method, but I'm always wary of them when I see the small sample size.

[Finlay]

Personally I think every single Physics class ever should be taught by Brian Cox.

and they start the class with a renditon of "things can only get better"

Brian cox is my hero #2.

Wiss: if it isn't taught in schools that is good. That's all I've been talking about all along.

[wissenlander]

Right. I can understand that, actually.  I don't think it should be taught in that setting either and I'm one of them dreaded Christians.  There's a time and a place and a setting. 

[Auberoun]

Right. I can understand that, actually.  I don't think it should be taught in that setting either and I'm one of them dreaded Christians.  There's a time and a place and a setting.

+1 I am a Christian as well, and I completely agree, there is a time and a place, and science class is not necessarily one of them.  I feel that the begining of the universe is something that should not even be discussed in science class (or history) since either way it happened before accurately written records.  SO therefore no definitive proof exsists supporting either Creationisim or Evolution.  There are some occurences of evidence for both sides, however when it comes down to it, nobody knows for sure, since nobody today was there then.

[Aldaris]

The occurences of evidence for Creationism being? Just curious.