haha. I still think its an odd greeting. We have the same type of thing in the South, and parts of Texas.

I think the survey shows we all have our fair share of people who will deny what is proven, just because.

__________________

Well, its the traditional phrase for formal greeting. It doesn't say anything bad, and everything else does not really matter.

But I like Habe d'Ehre better anyway. Moreover don't forget that Grias Ihna (=Grüß Sie) is also used quite much and is also formal.

One observes facts but has to explain them with theories. "Just" a theory can only say someone who has no idea about what theories are.

Science, Evolution, and Creationism


Scientific laws try to describe things that happen, scientific theories try to explain them. What you demand is that the huge part of science that tries to explain something is banned from school?

I am sure the theory of relativity should not be taught either, after all its just a theory, right?

Well being a scientific theory is already pretty much and hard earned. Being one of the most important and one of the most often confirmed theories makes it standing out among other scientific theories.

Gravity the way we comprehend it is also just a theory and yet we teach it in schools. There is not a single scientific "law" that is beyond the stage of "theory". @TheHat: do you suggest we scrap all biology, physics and chemistry classes as well?

Atleast evolution has substantial evidence to back it up. What does creationism have? The old testament? A little tingle you feel when you look up to the sky? Seriously, teaching creationism would be illogical, so it is rightfully banned from public schools.

Teaching evolution is just spreading the knowledge humanity has managed to gather so far. And that's exactly what schools are supposed to do, because if you know the status quo you can build from there. If in some distant future it turns out that Darwins theory of evolution is indeed wrong, well good thing we thought our students about the theory, because otherwise they wouldn't even be able to proove it wrong.

Creationists suggest that we already know the answers to everything, which is with 100% certainty just wrong. It hinders the progress of humanity.

__________________

You do realize this is just a more confusing way to say "hunch" right?

I mean, in every day life, I can gather information about my wife, and objectively study her actions. I can formulate reasons for her absence and over time predict her following course of actions. I can through all this study and observation of facts, explain how my wife is having an affair. Do I know this to be true? Not by proof, but merely by the overwhelming abundance of evidence. I can then formulate the Theory Of My Wife Cheating On Me.

OR, I can NOT be confusing, and just say "I think my wife is cheating on me", just like scientists could say "I think evolution is true".

What this boils down to, is scientists don't want to be caught in their own religious beliefs. I'm sure in Galileo's time you guys would all be arguing that the world was flat too.

__________________
"Just 1 presidency Per Household PLZ!"

"Hold on ma'am, the abortion is almost complete. I just have to count and make sure I got all the finger's and toes out of there."

RAPE is not a good reason to MURDER an innocent being.

Which is an absolute baseless argument. The church was arguing the world was flat eventhough it was actually, according to many historians, pretty much an accepted fact even back in ancient greece times that it was not. Phytagoras, followed by Parmenides, first stated that the earth must be a sphere. That was 500 BC.

In any case that's just a little excursion into history and phisycs, your argument has it completely backwards. The church claimed the earth was flat without providing evidence for it other than...well, it didn't even say that the earth was flat in any of their books so they really had nothing. Galileo (again) stated the earth was spherical due to several observations he made, so obviously Galileo was by far the more credible source.

Same is here. There is a solid base of evidence that points towards evolution being true, yet creationists don't really have much to back their own theory up. So clearly in this case as well, the theory of evolution can, eventhough critically, certainly be called more credible than the theory of creationism.

When you come up with something that has such a solid base of evidence as the theory of evolution, let's talk about that. Creationism sure does not.

__________________

.....What...?

Seriously. Look up the definition of "science". Science requires research. You jumping to a conclusion without doing any study at all is NOTHING like scientists reaching a theory after spending time, effort, resources, and more to formulate that theory. The majority of theories that scientists and other thinkers have come up with couldn't even be thought of without first doing research (and sometimes a LOT of it). That is such a ridiculous thing to say! Science = hunches.

We learned all about the scientific method in elementary school, right?

__________________

Well, if you really believe that, you for sure can easily publish a peer reviewed scientific "hunch".

You must not forget one thing, unlike in politics, in science those big words mean something. They mean work, they mean having supporting scientific facts.

Groundbreaking hunches during a too long party will have a hard time getting anywhere near to being published in a peer reviewed magazine, unless there is really something behind and serious hard scientific work is added to back it up.

Thats if its something at all, considering that you apply good scientific practice, a question of sociology I guess. In this field one works heavily with probabilities and statistics (even more than in other fields). If you limit your scope to a single person I dare to predict without knowing the details of the study that you won't work according to the basic scientific rules.
I also fail to see what this has to do with evolutionary questions.

As pointed out already above, you have not conducted a scientific theory by looking at anecdotal stories. So I would say, "I think my wife is cheating on me" can be under circumstances a justified assumption, but not the product of your "scientific" work, as there has been none.

Its funny that you come up with that. So you do agree with us that the earth is a globe?

If you do read up on the basic rules of scientific work you know that its not about what he or her believes. Its about scientific studies and their outcomes. The theory of evolution has been the subject of an extremely large number of studies for already a long time. It has been confirmed in more studies than many other scientific theories that are far less controversial in religious circles. Even the more after the unforeseeable development of molecular biology and the new means of genetics studies that the inventors of the theory of evolution never could foresee were conducted and once again came to supportive results.

But of course, if extremely high certainties are not enough for you and you need unfailing "truths" instead, science is not the right thing for you. Religion is competent for unfailing "truths".

I agree with you, I just want to add one point. There does not exist anything like a scientific theory of creationism (or ID or however you call it). That has been even confirmed by a court in Kansas if I do remember correctly. Creationism (or ID etc) are no scientific theories and therefore shall not be taught in science classes.

aaa

__________________
"Just 1 presidency Per Household PLZ!"

"Hold on ma'am, the abortion is almost complete. I just have to count and make sure I got all the finger's and toes out of there."

RAPE is not a good reason to MURDER an innocent being.