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.

 

[Xiahou Dun]

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.

 

[Xiahou Dun]

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.

 

[Xiahou Dun]

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.