I was directed to a video the other day that shows Kirk Cameron talking about how he and his business partner have written a new 50 page introduction to Charles Darwin's scientific book, "On the Origin of Species". They have printed out thousands of these now tampered books and are going to pass them out free to college campuses nation wide in November. The problem I have with the introduction is that it introduces creationism. Even if I believed creationism to be true, which I don't, it seems pointless to pick a book about the evolution of man and other species to counteract the origin of the universe. If anyone has ever read this book, you would know that it doesn't delve into the creation of the universe one iota. So, my question is this, do you think it's OK to alter a book that has been a foundation for evolutionary biology for the past 150 years. If you think it's a good idea, let us know why you think they picked a book that has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. Have they not read the book? Or is it merely because the book is now public domain and it was the only well known science journal that they could use? Personally, if I wanted to debate creationism in the format they are using, I would have picked a well known book about cosmology. Here is the link to the video, if you haven't seen it yet. Any debate about this video is welcome.
actually, it IS a law. it's been proven loads and loads and millions and millions of times, and there is ZERO evidence against it. which, makes it a law.
also, a college-level text book entirely on evolution, which was publicized last year, is a hell of a lot more accurate than what they're teaching you in a public school in Ohio.
I already said it, on about two or three different topics, i spent a 46-minute class period being told that Evolution is officially a Scientific Law.
It isn't a law, neither is gravity
so in school, you learn about the Theory of Gravity? this makes you sound reliable......
a pretty alright theory but not a law.
even when Evolution was just a Theory, it was a goddamned rock-solid theory, and the only thing holding it back was religion. now, scientists have put religion aside, and named it a Scientific Law.
like I said before, it's no longer something you can believe in, it's a fact, and if anyone denounces it they're denouncing the entire world's credible and demi-credible scientists.
also, a college-level text book entirely on evolution, which was publicized last year, is a hell of a lot more accurate than what they're teaching you in a public school in Ohio.
I use college textbooks, honestly I don't care what it say's the evidence for it isn't that huge. For about the millionth time on this site, it's all based on pre-conceived notions.
so in school, you learn about the Theory of Gravity? this makes you sound reliable......
Give me a legitimate definition of gravity and tell me why exactly it works. I agree it's true, but it's still not law.
even when Evolution was just a Theory, it was a god****ed rock-solid theory, and the only thing holding it back was religion. now, scientists have put religion aside, and named it a Scientific Law.
It isn't a law, some scientists are vying for it to become one, but must don't want it to. While it's accepted by nearly all scientists most recognize that it's not a LAW. Where did I learn this, that college text book you mentioned earlier.
I use college textbooks, honestly I don't care what it say's the evidence for it isn't that huge. For about the millionth time on this site, it's all based on pre-conceived notions.
wow, IGNORANT much? there's tons and tons of evidence supporting it. find me ONE bit of evidence against it, and it won't be a Law.
Give me a legitimate definition of gravity and tell me why exactly it works. I agree it's true, but it's still not law.
the force of attraction between all masses in the universe; especially the attraction of the earth's mass for items near its surface. it works because one object has a mass much larger than another object, and it causes a "hysical attraction". if you say that Gravity is not a Law that automatically disqualifies you as a borderline-intelligent individual. everyone who goes to school is taught Gravity is a Law.
Where did I learn this, that college text book you mentioned earlier.
find me the publication date, ASAP, and then we'll see which is more accurate, eh?
The general pattern of correspondence between fossil and living forms from the same locale came to be known as the law of succession. The law is supported by analyses from a side variety of locations and taxonomic groups. Darwin's theory of evolution gives the law a straightforward explanation. Today's species are descended with modification from ancestors that lived in the same region; they would bear a strong resemblance to their recent ancestors than to their more distantly related kin in other parts of the world.
taken straight from the book. so sorry, it's not the Law of Evolution, it's the Law of Succession, which is directly explained by the theory of evolution. so, basically, it's the same thing, with a different name.
wow, IGNORANT much? there's tons and tons of evidence supporting it. find me ONE bit of evidence against it, and it won't be a Law.
I can't never said I could, then again show me evidence against creationism.
the force of attraction between all masses in the universe; especially the attraction of the earth's mass for items near its surface. it works because one object has a mass much larger than another object, and it causes a "hysical attraction".
But WHY? Also the theory of Relativity is used in modern science to explain gravity. You can't base a law off a theory. Again I'm not saying it's wrong I'm simply saying it isn't a law.
taken straight from the book. so sorry, it's not the Law of Evolution, it's the Law of Succession, which is directly explained by the theory of evolution. so, basically, it's the same thing, with a different name.
Not really, it say's nothing about on common ancestor, I agree with that law by the way.
I can't never said I could, then again show me evidence against creationism.
In order for a scientist to show evidence against creationism, he/she must be shown evidence for creationism. so start talkin.
But WHY? Also the theory of Relativity is used in modern science to explain gravity. You can't base a law off a theory. Again I'm not saying it's wrong I'm simply saying it isn't a law.
I JUST TOLD YOU WHY. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, THEN IT'S BEYOND YOUR MIND. also, provide evidence. give me ONE credible document stating that Gravity is not a Law. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about it.
Not really, it say's nothing about on common ancestor, I agree with that law by the way.
IT TALKED ABOUT A COMMON ANCESTOR. READ IT AGAIN FUCKER. also, that law is directly described by evolution. so you just said you believe in evolution.
In order for a scientist to show evidence against creationism, he/she must be shown evidence for creationism.Â
that would debacle his/her own argument. it's nice to know both sides, but it isn't required.
Evolution isn't something you can choose to believe in.
quite the contrary. you can choose to believe in anything, doesn't mean it's universally true though.
Give me a legitimate definition of gravity and tell me why exactly it works.
Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
it has evidence. i could look through it and provide enough evidence to prove all this, but i don't have the energy to do if for someone that doesn't believe Gravity is a Law.
Darwin's evidence in the Origin of Species and the fact that he didn't brush evolution off as "god's will", fueled lots of gathering of evidence, and fueled us to find the common ancestor.
There in lays the problem. The 50 page intro being added is done by someone who is brushing off evolution and saying "god did it".
Sooner or later, this is going to turn into a law, and this is just hurting this process. Whether this is or is not Cameron's intention, no one knows, but keep your hands off antique documents.
Considering this addition is going hand in hand with the intro of another book refuting The Origin of Species and evolution as a whole my guess is that hurting said process is the point.
also, Evolution is a Law now. According to my Evol Biology class, at least. because there's no evidence against it and (literally) tons of evidence for it.
Considering there seems to be an argument over what is law and what is theory let's look at the definitions of the two.
scientific theory: To scientists, a theory provides a coherent explanation that holds true for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world. It has to be internally consistent, based upon evidence, tested against a wide range of phenomena and demonstrate problem solving.
scientific law: a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law
give me a video of you lightly tossing a rock and it breaking the atmosphere, and then gravity won't be a law.
show me 20 videos, in which you DROP different objects, and they stand suspended in air, and walk underneath and around said objects.
quantum mechanics - ^is possible.
Law of Succesion occurs because EVOLUTION occurs.
law of faunal succession, it simply states that fossils will be the same in the same time period. it is actually termed "Principle of Faunal Succession". seeing how it is based soley on observations, i don't think it would be considered a law
