i hope the vast majority of people are not abusive, but, whatever the number, a lot are.Ã‚Â Republican / democrat, you name it.
Ive been subjected to a fair bit myself.. but... big city gal here... I know ya gotta be tough!
I dont think this applies to me...a theory that is close to your beliefs, proving that theory wrong will in turn prove you wrong also.. Nobody likes being wrong
I dont really conflate theory with "belief" or "faith", we have separate words for these things to keep their different meanings separate.
Since science works in large part thru falsification of theory, anyone who can properly be called a scientist should be, is, always open to and looking for ways to falsify whatever ideas he is working with.Ã‚Â We all to some of it in our daily lives.Ã‚Â Will this work, will this work, why didnt this work.Ã‚Â i dont like being wrong on a test, but im open to being wrong in my ideas! I hope my brain never "fossilizes" in that regard! i just need to be shown.
I think we are probably in agreement in principle if not all details, about how science is not well taught.Ã‚Â i know of an excellent author, (and nobel physicist) who has some really interesting insights on this.Ã‚Â I can recommend if you like.
Very highly recommended by me.
I am sorry you feel that evolution is being crammed down your throat.
I attended a church sponsored school myself, for a time, and got quite a dose of Christianity.Ã‚Â I didnt appreciate it at the time, tho now i see that I learned quite a bit, and some of the concepts have certainly affected my approach to and understanding of life.
In the "teach both sides" dept, i think that any idea for which there is valid data should be welcome in a science class.Ã‚Â i hope you will listen attentively to what is presented on whatever 'side' with the properly reasonable (and scientific) attitude of not putting the conclusion ahead of the evidence.
Regarding your OP..I don't really see why they persist in calling it a theory, since it can be dis-proven via many conventional modern scientific ways...
I have a couple of thoughts.
First, "they" in this case would consist of essentially the entire scientific community of the world.Ã‚Â Those exceptions that I am aware of take their stance for religious reasons.
I think you are simply mistaken that the theory can be falsified in any of the ways you noted.
Think about it this way:Ã‚Â If someone knew how the ToE could be thus falsified, someone somewhere would be more than willing to get his name noted as the one who sank it.Ã‚Â Id guess he'd get a Nobel prize for it; but at the very least, he'd be cited as one who had made a great contribution to science.
You might when you have a chance, ask one of the physicists at the U there, if there is anything about thermodynamics that dis proves evolution.Ã‚Â Likewise, in the chemistry dept.Ã‚Â Etc.Ã‚Â See what they say, and why.Ã‚Â
I think the answer to your OP question would be basically this:
The world scientific community accepts ToE as a good valid theory because the known data supports it and no contrary data is known to exist,.
You don't need to apologise for other peoples actions. But I do apreciate the sentiment
I used to believe in evolution myself, however now knowing the faults in the logic I do not beleive in it anymore.
Yes Science is defined by observations and testable results... However this does not apply to evolution. Seriously, (I know you won't believe me), but this is what happens. Logic gets thrown out of the door, why else would such a theory be given 150yrs to attempt to prove itself? I am sure most, if not all theories are not given such leniency.
I do disagree with your final sentence, and I would ask that you read the entirety of this thread before repling to this thanks."The world scientific community accepts ToE as a good valid theory because the known data supports it and no contrary data is known to exist,."
As we know, it takes only one thing to disprove a theory... However I have given my own example of an evolutionary flaw, and offer you a gamut of faults of evolution for us to discuss. Choose at your own pleasure
Biology: Mutation, Natural Selection and the process of NEW genetic information
Physics: Cosmic Evolution / Designer of Worlds / Order or Chaos?
Mathematics: Probability of proteins forming naturally
Palentology: Intermediate fossils, (or lack thereof)
Symbiotic Relationships: This comes from the information I have been taught in 1st year Physiology, (logic added
A while ago I asked a question about a symbiotic relationship in human organs. The stomach digests foodstuff with acid and digestion enzymes. The intestines contain small villi structures that increase the surface area for absorbtion of nutrients. Now when the stomach passes the digested foodstuff to the intestine, it signals the pancreas to flood the access point, (duodenum), with Sodium Hydroxide to cancel the Hydrochloric acid of the stomach... Why? Because the intestines are not designed to cope with a low Ph like the stomach. So how did this symbiotic relationship of digestion come about? Or more simply, which of these organs "evolved" first? (Now this is based on the premise of evolution that it takes millions of years and small changes to produce complex living systems)
1. Stomach: The organism can digest food, but is unable to absorb nutrients due to the mucus barrier of the stomach lining preventing a passover.
2. Intestines: The organism is able to absorb nutrients, however functionality is low due to the food stuff not being digested / broken down at a molecular level.
3. Stomach + Intestines: The organism can digest food and absorb nutrients effectively however, this is short lived, (like the organisms lifespan), as without a pancreas to produce NaOH the intestines burn out from gastric acid and death ensures
3. Pancreas: Organism can effectively neutralise the acid from the stomach.. (if it had one
).. But is unable to digest food or absord the nutrients from said undigested food.
Now not only do these three organs need to work together
for us to be able to digest and take up nutrients effectively. But also there needs to be a transportation system and a distribution system too.
Distribution: The liver distributes the primary nutrient, glucose into the blood stream returning to the heart. Where it passes it to the rest of the body. The liver is VERY important in maintaing homeostatis, as it lets the glucose into the blood gradually according to the needs of the body, the rest is stored as glycogen. Without the liver our brain will trip out and won't know what is happening, not to mention that we would have varying degrees of glucose in out bloodstream.
Transport: The veins of the intestine transport the nutrients to the liver. Thus impling that there needs to be a functioning heart and blood vessels to be able to distribute the nutrients around. Without a transport system, the rest of the organs are useless.
So what have we learned here? For a functional digestive system we need
1: a stomach
2: a pancreas
3: some intestines
4: a liver
5: a heart
6: blood vessels to all these organs, (at least), and the other parts of the body
7: a brain to facilitate these processes, (this goes without saying lol)
So I fail to see how these organs could have developed over millions of years, when they all work together and a loss of one of these organs will result in death of the organism. Thus it could be said that the human digestive system is irreducibly complex.
If you feel I am wrong, please prove me so with observed scientific evidence, as I have proved my point with scientific evidence, (bar going to the lengths of removing a persons stomach or liver or intestines etc