Shared publicly  - 
 
Every time I think I could not respect Neil deGrasse Tyson any more than I already do, he says something like this. His intense critique about the link below on FB: "Further evidence of a failing educational system. The America that led the 20th century is in rapid intellectual decline. And the depths of its economic consequences have yet to be fully plumbed."
8
2
Dave Garbutt's profile photoTamim Syed's profile photoMathaniel Lehmann's profile photoBrian White's profile photo
37 comments
 
His point is so valid. These are simply the same arguments which have been shown to be misguided yet pop up and since most don't know the evidence, these things sound reasonable to them. This is especially true for those holding a faith belief.
 
I feel dirtied for opening that page.... It's forever in my browsing history.
 
I know Evolution theory is Unscientific and modern science disproves it.But Science also did not accept Biblical (Genesis) creation account.FYI.

Bible says that the world world was created in 6 days of 24 hours each.But science says that it took millions of years for the creation of the whole world.

Your Genesis also says that Vegetation existed even before the Sun was created. How come the Vegetation exist even before the Source(the Sun) which is responsible for Vegetation. It Shows Bible is Unscientific just like Evolution theory.I apologize in advance if the above statement hurt somebody.
 
Nothing like taking a few truths and deriving completely wrong conclusions to make a good start to my morning.
 
+Tamim Syed
"I know Evolution theory is Unscientific and modern science disproves it.But Science also did not accept Biblical (Genesis) creation account.FYI. ".....

Are you kidding me?

That comment is profoundly stupid, and you are right in that it actually does hurt me to read it.
 
Thank you, I needed a pick me up this morning and that was certainly good comedy.
 
So +Joseph Armstrong what Scientific backing you have for supporting Genesis view of world creation? Why you think the comment was Stupid? Just because it does not goes down your throat.

I have given the scientific facts statement how your Genesis is having conflicting view of established Scientific facts.
 
+Tamim Syed
The problem with the quoted part is not the part about genesis, it is your statement that evolution is unscientific. I think you need to do some basic reading.
 
+Tamim Syed Why would you assume that I believe the stories of genesis?

This is what is stupid about your comment:

"Evolution theory is Unscientific and modern science disproves it."

"science says that it took millions of years for the creation of the whole world. "

"It Shows Bible is Unscientific just like Evolution theory."
 
+AJITH THOMAS It does not contradict the possibility of the existence of a deity.

It contradicts the stories that some religions preach about the origins of man.
 
You weren't specific about which religion you were referring to. So I couldn't be any more specific in response.

Any religious story that says god created man is contradicted by our understanding of how humans came to be. (i.e. through evolution).

If you want to argue that god set evolution off. Then I fail to see where that is written in any scripture, it should have said. "and then god created the first single celled organism"
 
+AJITH THOMAS There is no reason to believe that a soul even exists.

Especially if it is defined as something supernatural, then it is by definition impossible.
 
Well, because he didn't.

Is that a good enough answer?
 
Ok... a magical flying catfish created man.


How does evolution contradict that?
 
An argument from authority does not give it any extra weighting.

We know that humans came about by means of evolution. So if someone says "god made humans", then that statement is contradicted by our understanding of how humans came about?

is that clear enough for you?
 
+Joseph Armstrong Falsification tests means conditions to be met if somebody wants to disproves their theory.

Darwin proposed one of the falsification test "if someone can prove that the whole Universe had a beginning then it will nullify the Evolution theory".

Today,we know that the entire we live in is started from a Big Bang(Big Bang Theory[BBT]). BBT was a theory once but today after established scientific evidence we can say that the entire Universe had a beginning with certainty.
 
That is not what falsification means, and although I doubt Darwin said that.. it would mean nothing if he did.

The theory of evolution does not concern the origins of the universe!!!!

There is as much evidence for the theory of Evolution as there is for the Big Bang. They both have an abundance of evidence
 
+Tamim Syed, where the hell did you find this supposed "falsification test" from Darwin? And why the fact that the universe had a beginning would nullify the evolution theory? In my mind it is more an argument in favor of the evolution. (Care to think about your own arguments?)

But nevermind that, evolution have been observed so many times at so different levels (fossils of course, but also in living species) that the fact that species evolve is no more considered as a theory but as a fact.
 
+Nicolas Desmoulins I completely agree, apart from the last part. A scientific theory is an explanation that is based on tested fact. There are a bunch of requirements to have something considered to be a scientific theory. It must have predictive value, it must have never been refuted, it must be testable, repeatable, falsifiable etc


I know what you mean by it being fact. But to call it a scientific theory is good enough :-P

The reason we now call scientific facts/laws - theories, instead of laws [like we used to] (e.g. Newton's Laws of motion).. is because we accept that theories are open to change.
 
+Joseph Armstrong I slightly disagree here. When I release an object, it will go down. It is a fact. After this observation can be explained by a theory (Newton, Relativity or whatever) which will have to be confronted with observations and new experimentations. But whatever the theory, the fact remain: my object fall.

For the evolution it is the same thing. It is a fact because it had been observed many times.

But it is also a theory because the actual process of evolution is not completely understood yet. And I imagine than several theories confront each other to explain some specific details.

There your definition of a theory apply: each theory "must be testable, repeatable, falsifiable".
I disagree with the "it must have never been refuted". If it is the case, that is some (validated) results contradict the theory, it just mean that the theory is false, and you have to find a new one.

So I should have said that evolution is a "fact and a theory".
 
I know I first took issue when I heard that from someone too. It is a bit touchy, but it pretty much means that it mustn't be contradicted by another theory....

Know what I mean? Refuted means proven false, so if someone proved the theory of evolution to be false (through publications of peer reviewed journals), then it would mean that the theory has been refuted.

I guess it is an obvious requirement, but it is still required!
 
Yes, so can you name me one thing that religion explains better than science?
 
+Joseph Armstrong you are asking in such way as if you were accept that religion which that religion provides better explanation than Science.
 
you have religious scriptures today available why don't you put those scriptures to scientific test and you will come to know which is the Truth if you are not biased.
 
Of course +Joseph Armstrong. But I think that the problem with the expression "evolution theory", is that we don't make the distinction between observations and theory.

Many relatively recent and independents results clearly show that there is an adaptation to a changing environment through evolution. That is the observations/experiments.
I don't think that part (as a whole) can be refuted, unless some bias in the observations. But this results come from so different areas (genetic, palaeontology, ...) and so numerous that is seems doubtful.

And then come the theory, which say that it is probably this evolution which explain the diversity of species on earth. And which try to understand how species actually evolved and how the process of evolution actually works.
The different theories that emerge may of course be refuted by new results published in per reviewed journals.
It's the normal process in science.
 
+Tamim Syed and +AJITH THOMAS, evolution theory is about facts. Whatever is said in the bible or Coran (or whatever 'holly' source) has no interest in THIS context.

Evolution is not about the existence or not of God(s). You may accept the validity of the evolution of species, and still believe in God (or Gods depending on your religion).
You just have to accept that your God didn't create life in 7 days, or whatever (sometimes nice) myth.
We now know that the process took billion of years (for a God, it should not be a problem, no?).
 
Evolution theory is just a theory my dear friend. Not an established scientific fact.FYI.

Your statement "We now know that the process took billion of years (for a God, it should not be a problem, no?)."

Holy Quran mentioned this scientific fact before 1400 years ago which mankind came to know just few decades ago.

Believe in established facts not on assumptions or just mere theories.
 
+AJITH THOMAS You say that "[a] theory should be the truthful description of a thing". Well, not quite. A scientific theory is an explanation of observable phenomena. It is only "truthful" in the sense that it explains what it intends to explain, and makes predictions that can be verified. In this sense, a theory is not a description - the observation is the description - but rather an explanation.

Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact - an observed fact. Species change over time according to their environment. The theory of the evolution of the species by the means of natural selection is our explanation as to how that fact happens. You can argue that this theory is incorrect, incomplete, falsified etc. - but then your alternative theory has to be as good as the existing one (in explaining all known phenomena) and go further than it by explaining something that the previous one "got wrong".
 
+Tamim Syed See above. Evolution is a well-observed fact. Furthermore, there's no such a thing as "just a theory" - a theory is an explanation that is well established, explains what is known about the issue at hand and makes predictions that can be verified. A theory is not a "guess" - a scientific theory is the best explanation we can get.
 
you mean +Wilson Afonso if evolution theory is correct i.e we all humans came from monkeys then why monkeys are still there on the earth.It also means that human being will transform into eagle or eagle turn into human vice-versa in the near future? Human, monkeys and all the creatures have a average life span of just 60 - 80 years.to the best 100 years maximum. Before transformation take place which evolution theory says it takes millions of years for transformation then how come such will occur logically? it is really illogical theory.Making a fool of itself.
 
+Tamim Syed I really suggest you read a bit about how evolution works, because this line of argument is not helping your cause. You're showing a serious lack of understanding. The life span of animals has nothing to do with this.
 
As I said before (FYI!), evolution is a fact in the sense that it has been observed, and sometimes experimented, that an organism can evolve to adapt to a changing environment. So we know for sure that species can change and are not something immutable.
The theory part is about to explain how it actually work and how species actually evolved.

We know that it took billion years because, for example, we have several means to date the earth and all the methods only differ by a small margin. By the way the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and the universe can only be older than that.

And please don't mention the Coran or the Bible about scientific facts. Both books were written by human with no clues about their environment. Theses books may be "holly" in the spiritual sense, but whenever they spoke about actual scientific facts, most of the time it is proven wrong.

And if by chance they guess something right, it is by no mean a proof.

So just keep religion out of the debate.
 
That species do not change; that god created all living things - as they are today.... ; that man is special and elected to take charge. 
Add a comment...