O'Donnell Questioned Evolution

[ShawnD1]

Anyone who uses the "evolution is just a 'theory'" argument doesn't understand 8th grade science, which is where we are generally taught what "theory" means in science (hint: it doesn't have the same meaning as it does in common parlance)

Actually it's pretty close to the same. In science, a theory is when you have a bunch of facts and you try to explain them. For example, I notice the fact that creatures evolve. Evolution is a fact. Now I try to explain this. I come up a theory about random mutations, I could also put out a theory about natural selection, and I can make up a theory about gene shift. The theories are explanations for facts. While the facts themselves are never wrong, theories can be wrong. An example of a wrong theory is the theory of flogistin. Flogistin was a theory that things burn because they are releasing flogistin, the fire element. Things burning was a fact and is still a fact, but the theory of why they burned turned out to be wrong.

In common not-science use, that's basically what a theory is. Take a bunch of facts then try to explain them. It's perfectly acceptable for a theory to be wrong, but the theory must be based on facts. Let's take a fact like JFK is shot in the head. Another fact is that US-Cuba relations were bad at the time. One could put out a theory that these two were related in some way, the fact of bad national relations caused the fact of someone being killed. This is a perfectly good theory until it can be proven wrong or until a better theory comes along with more evidence. The lone gunman theory has more supporting evidence, so it is currently the accepted theory.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is not a theory because it's not based on any facts. If there were some evidence that things abruptly appeared, then creationism could be a theory. It could even be a strong theory with a lot of support, but it's not. This dumb bitch is in fantasy land. She's so far off the mark that she isn't the type of person to wear a tin foil hat and say JFK was assassinated by Castro; she's the kind of nut who would ignore the facts we already have then conclude that JFK wasn't really shot and that it was actually a stunt double and that aliens shot the stunt double and there's no such person as Oswald. That's how far off she is.

 

[PJABBER]

This dumb bitch is in fantasy land. She's so far off the mark that she isn't the type of person to wear a tin foil hat and say JFK was assassinated by Castro; she's the kind of nut who would ignore the facts we already have then conclude that JFK wasn't really shot and that it was actually a stunt double and that aliens shot the stunt double and there's no such person as Oswald. That's how far off she is.

Does this mean you wouldn't vote for her? Or that you would?

 

[woolfe9999]

Actually it's pretty close to the same. In science, a theory is when you have a bunch of facts and you try to explain them. For example, I notice the fact that creatures evolve. Evolution is a fact. Now I try to explain this. I come up a theory about random mutations, I could also put out a theory about natural selection, and I can make up a theory about gene shift. The theories are explanations for facts. While the facts themselves are never wrong, theories can be wrong. An example of a wrong theory is the theory of flogistin. Flogistin was a theory that things burn because they are releasing flogistin, the fire element. Things burning was a fact and is still a fact, but the theory of why they burned turned out to be wrong.

In common not-science use, that's basically what a theory is. Take a bunch of facts then try to explain them. It's perfectly acceptable for a theory to be wrong, but the theory must be based on facts. Let's take a fact like JFK is shot in the head. Another fact is that US-Cuba relations were bad at the time. One could put out a theory that these two were related in some way, the fact of bad national relations caused the fact of someone being killed. This is a perfectly good theory until it can be proven wrong or until a better theory comes along with more evidence. The lone gunman theory has more supporting evidence, so it is currently the accepted theory.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is not a theory because it's not based on any facts. If there were some evidence that things abruptly appeared, then creationism could be a theory. It could even be a strong theory with a lot of support, but it's not. This dumb bitch is in fantasy land. She's so far off the mark that she isn't the type of person to wear a tin foil hat and say JFK was assassinated by Castro; she's the kind of nut who would ignore the facts we already have then conclude that JFK wasn't really shot and that it was actually a stunt double and that aliens shot the stunt double and there's no such person as Oswald. That's how far off she is.

I think your description of "theory" as an explanation of facts, while not precisely how it is defined in science, is fair enough. The trouble is that this isn't necessarily how the term is used in common parlance. Something that is "just a theory" has the connotation of being raw speculation, NOT based on fact. In science, you have observable facts and the theory will attempt to explain them. In common parlance, "just a theory" doesn't mean anything in terms of facts. Indeed, it is typically used to allege that someone has no facts at all.

- wolf

 

[BoberFett]

Saw a brief clip about this woman, she truly is a right wing fundie loony. And people like her are the reason the Tea Party is useless. They're again focusing on the completely wrong things. Shrink government and don't inject your religious stupidity into everything you do. The Tea Party is just new branding on the same old Republican bullshit.

 

[jacc1234]

Actually it's pretty close to the same. In science, a theory is when you have a bunch of facts and you try to explain them. For example, I notice the fact that creatures evolve. Evolution is a fact. Now I try to explain this. I come up a theory about random mutations, I could also put out a theory about natural selection, and I can make up a theory about gene shift. The theories are explanations for facts. While the facts themselves are never wrong, theories can be wrong. An example of a wrong theory is the theory of flogistin. Flogistin was a theory that things burn because they are releasing flogistin, the fire element. Things burning was a fact and is still a fact, but the theory of why they burned turned out to be wrong.

That sounds closer to the definition of a Hypothesis.

hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

 

[ShawnD1]

That sounds closer to the definition of a Hypothesis.

Hypothesis includes things that may or may not be facts. For example, my hypothesis is that my girlfriend will spill more shit in my car. It's not a fact because it hasn't happened (yet). It's an educated guess, and I can explain why I think this should happen. When it does happen, it becomes the fact of her ruining my car seats. Then I can make an educated guess for why this fact is a fact, and that's the theory part. Theory - she's just really bad at this and it's not intentional. I can then support my theory with other facts that might be loosely related, such as her falling down a lot or breaking her own things due to clumsiness.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Description_and_prediction

Example: Special Theory of Relativity

As an example of the use of assumptions to formulate a theory, consider how Albert Einstein put forth his Special Theory of Relativity. He took two phenomena that had been observed — that the "addition of velocities" is valid (Galilean transformation), and that light did not appear to have an "addition of velocities" (Michelson-Morley experiment). He assumed both observations to be correct, and formulated his theory, based on these assumptions, by simply altering the Galilean transformation to accommodate the lack of addition of velocities with regard to the speed of light. The model created in his theory is, therefore, based on the assumption that light maintains a constant velocity (or more commonly: the speed of light is a constant).

 

[Pens1566]

I can't see how this would shock anyone that knows anything about her. She's a dumber (if possible) less hot Palin.

 

[Moonbeam]

Saw a brief clip about this woman, she truly is a right wing fundie loony. And people like her are the reason the Tea Party is useless. They're again focusing on the completely wrong things. Shrink government and don't inject your religious stupidity into everything you do. The Tea Party is just new branding on the same old Republican bullshit.

I dread seeing what sort of farce the left will morph into is progressives form their own party. Hard to keep hope alive. They have this bad habit of thinking folk will profit from what they get for free.

 

[soundforbjt]

Saw a brief clip about this woman, she truly is a right wing fundie loony. And people like her are the reason the Tea Party is useless. They're again focusing on the completely wrong things. Shrink government and don't inject your religious stupidity into everything you do. The Tea Party is just new branding on the same old Republican bullshit.

What do you expect? The tea-baggers are just the old neo-cons in sheeple's clothing. They talk the same games and will probably produce the same results if elected. How people can't see this coming is amazing.

 

[JSt0rm]

the problem with her in stating something like this is that her base is ALREADY worked up and ready to vote. By showing ignorance on this level more then 1 person will make sure to go vote against her.

 

[Throckmorton]

So say the sycophants, but there appears to be a difference of opinion.

Isn't that why you wingnuts hate Obama, because he's too smart, what with his highfalutin long sentences and them big words?

 

[mizzou]

It's not just creationism vs evolution. Accepting creationism means she completely rejects all science. All radiometric dating is thrown out. Millions of fossils thrown out. Using Doppler shift to estimate the age of the universe is all thrown out.

Using her own logic:
-DNA tests cannot be used in court because DNA does not prove lineage (DNA lineage is the strongest evidence supporting evolution)
-Speeding tickets issued using RADAR are not valid because Doppler shift to calculate a vehicle's speed is all bullshit (Doppler shift is how we know how big the universe is and how fast it's moving)

There's nothing wrong with her being retarded. Lots of people are born retarded or have a serious head injury that causes mental retardation, and there's nothing we can do to fix that. That doesn't mean we should let retards run the government. You wouldn't let a retard drive a car would you? Then why would you let one run the government?

LOL.:awe:

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Isn't that why you wingnuts hate Obama, because he's too smart, what with his highfalutin long sentences and them big words?

They call that "elitism."

 

[soundforbjt]

^^^ You betcha'!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Isn't that why you wingnuts hate Obama, because he's too smart, what with his highfalutin long sentences and them big words?

Obama is a bloody rocket scientist, because anyone can make a mistake but it takes a real genius to screw up big time.

 

[Infohawk]

Is this the person Spidey and Perknose betted on?

 

[feralkid]

Is this the person Spidey and Perknose betted on?

Betted?

 

[JSt0rm]

Is this the person Spidey and Perknose betted on?

yup.

 

[zinfamous]

Saw a brief clip about this woman, she truly is a right wing fundie loony. And people like her are the reason the Tea Party is useless. They're again focusing on the completely wrong things. Shrink government and don't inject your religious stupidity into everything you do. The Tea Party is just new branding on the same old Republican bullshit.

If the real conservatives are smart, they'll just let the tea party suck out all of the ultra fundies that had hijacked the party over the previous 15 years or so. They're rhetoric is getting closer and closer to absolute lunacy, if not anarchy, and their existence does a nice service to the few remaining republicans.

Who knows, perhaps the wisest of conservatives will consolidate their power within a cleansing Republican party and restore something of its legitimate and serviceable political views.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What was the bet?

 

[woolfe9999]

What was the bet?

$500. Spidey betting O'Donnell will win in Delaware.

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

yup.

Perknose must be feeling more confident.

 

[Martin]

What was the bet?

$500 to Spidey if she wins the senate seat, $500 to perknose otherwise.

 

[PJABBER]

Isn't that why you wingnuts hate Obama, because he's too smart, what with his highfalutin long sentences and them big words?

What big words? I use bigger words than he does regularly.

The man can't utter a complete sentence without his teleprompter without stumbling.

As to intelligence, that is really the question. Can he really be this dumb, is he smart as a whip but completely blinded by ideology or is he a plant by the Russians aiming to destroy the country from within?

Maybe all three?

If it is the third option, why the hell did the Russians not find someone like Anna Chapman, who at least seems to know something about capitalism???

 

[HumblePie]

Hypothesis includes things that may or may not be facts. For example, my hypothesis is that my girlfriend will spill more shit in my car. It's not a fact because it hasn't happened (yet). It's an educated guess, and I can explain why I think this should happen. When it does happen, it becomes the fact of her ruining my car seats. Then I can make an educated guess for why this fact is a fact, and that's the theory part. Theory - she's just really bad at this and it's not intentional. I can then support my theory with other facts that might be loosely related, such as her falling down a lot or breaking her own things due to clumsiness.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Description_and_prediction

Incorrect.

You come up with a WAG first. Which is technically a scientific proposition. You stating that your girlfriend will spill more shit in your car is NOT a hypothesis. That's a proposition. You stating after the fact that she spilled shit in your car because she is either a) clumsy b) stupid c) mentally retarded d) has a physical impairment or whatever else based on an observable fact is a hypothesis. When you TEST for the hypothesis, that is when you are trying to find if it is a theory. If a hypothesis passes all testing attempts by many people, then it becomes a theory.


Another thing that people confuse is that many think a scientific theory can some how graduate into becoming a law or something. This is incorrect. No scientific theory can ever be more than a theory. Period. Laws are empirical facts. Laws state something happens while theory attempt to explain why they happen. The law of gravity for example is that there IS gravity. It's a force. It exists and can be demonstrated. The Theory of Gravity attempts to explain WHY there is gravity, why it exists, and why it works. The why are how we derive scientific formulas and predictions.


Damn, why do I need to explain middle school science on a tech forums?