Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Ben Carson Questions Evolution" video.

  1. Because a proper education promotes free thought and being open minded. 
    7
  2. "Religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt". Richard Feynman Science and religion are not related and can exist together.
    3
  3. Elkator955 Ok, now write a paper on it, it won't get you far. 
    2
  4. Angel Morales As a scientist myself, a physical chemist but a scientist none the less, I have no problem with what Dr. Carson said.  He isn't disregarding evolution, he is questioning it.  Science is driven on doubt, nothing is factual.  Evolution isn't factual, it is a theory that offers predictions.  His example of the eyeball is a good example.  The eyeball is rather inferior compared to what could be developed.  While taking a biology course the textbook I used mentioned about how a three chamber heart is better than a four chamber heart, so why don't all animals have 3 chambers?  There are a lot of questions surrounding evolution, and if one were to take an evolution course they will see them.  This is beyond common sense (which, if you are going to take the mcat I assume you are going on to a prestige career, I suggest you refrain from using the phrase "common sense").  There is a lot to what he said.  
    2
  5. What is wrong with what he said?  He started out by saying that in the bible it doesn't state a time frame for when the earth was created.  There is a great point to that.  Literal bible thinkers are very flawed in their thinking in that when the bible was written there was little concept of time.  What the bible says in time is off due to lack of experience, an exact definition of time and time being used more as a metaphor.  When it says the earth is 10,000 years old or whatever than what is being alluded to was that it was very old due to 10,000 being a big number then. No one really knows the age of the earth.  Carbon dating does give a nice theory and is used a lot but like anything in science is not proven or factual.  One really doesn't know the age of the earth.  They can have high certainty on it being 4.6 billion years old but to say exactly would be lying.  I like what he said about man trying to be god.  There is a lot to that.  Basically in that part he defined what science and the role in man's life is.  Science is not there to give answers, it is there to give predictions.  If there were an almighty god or gods what man does is irrelevant and can be change by god or the gods easily.  We use science to give predictions to advance us but there is never anything exact in science and we should always leave room for change. His point on evolution is studied in evolution courses.  If the strongest trait moved on then why does something as complex as the eyeball gets passed on? By itself it is worthless and is very complex.  Why hasn't the animal species developed something better?  There are several questions in evolution and I suggest anyone with an open mind to take it in college.  Mind you it is sometimes a graduate level course but it is interesting. As Richard Feynman said "Religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt".  This was shown here.  Dr. Carson has faith in a god, the science in him has doubt.  We can't make leap of faith in science or we are no different than a religion. I feel that Kyle totally misrepresented this video and needs to take his farting noise back to 3rd grade.
    1
  6. Xzamilloh I don't believe in the bible.  In science we have doubt and it is the doubt that has scientist doing research to progress us in life.  Me poking holes in evolution doesn't give more strength to creationism since they are separate issues.  Creationism is faith based, evolution has gone through the scientific method and thus is a theory.  Like all theories they are predictions, not answers.  And like all theories evolution is open to change when new data comes up.   
    1
  7. unun septium Well to begin with I am pursing my PhD in physical chemistry so I would say I have a strong foundation in science. 1. Carbon dating is used to predict the age of the earth.  But like everything in science it isn't an absolute.  We are not completely sure on anything.  We say the earth is 4.6 billion years old based on carbon dating and that method has gone through the scientific method.  The bible version of the earth is faith based and thus isn't science.  It doesn't make it right or wrong it just isn't science. 2. In science we have theories.  Laws were made when Newtonian Mechanics were thought to be exact.  When quantum and individuals like Planck and Schrodinger and Neil Bohr and so started doing their work people realized that there is more than what we think.  Laws are no longer created and everything are theories now because theories can be adjusted and changed as new evidence comes up.  3. There is no proof of god.  The man being god metaphor is saying man is trying to step out of bounds of it's limitations.  We will always have limitations as man which is great because it means we can always try to improve but there will never be a point where we are perfect or know everything. 4. In science we have predictions, not answers.  The prediction with the strongest supporting evidence is the theory we use.  Science isn't there to give answers but to predict what will happen.  We use the age of the earth to predict the age of other materials found during research.  5. The speed of light and mass of a proton are constants use in theories.  Like the gravitational constant, it works in giving accurate predictions.  Like the wave particle duality, it works.  It doesn't say if something is a particle or a wave exactly, it gives predictions and gives accurate results. 6. I would admit that I don't know much about evolution being a physical chemists.  I will take your word on that based on what other people have told me as well.  I am taking genetics in a couple of years though. 7. As Richard Feynman said "Religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt."  In science we will always have doubt.  The second we remove doubt we remove the ability to progress. There is no problem in not knowing and this is no problem in being open minded.  That is what science is. These great advancement in science came about because we have had individuals who were open minded and questioned things.  Failure to do so holds up back in life.  As I said I am pursuing my PhD in Physical Chemistry, my background in science is sound.  You can disagree with me but to say I have limited background in science would be false. 
    1
  8. Angel Morales That is great you took evolution.   As a guy who is pursuing his PhD in physical chemistry I will debate with any professor in biology in how evolution is simply a theory and not fact or proven because nothing in science is fact of proven.  Evolution has strong supporting evidence which makes it a strong theory but it isn't fact.  And if they want to bring in the creationism vs. evolution debate I will say creationism, like all religion, is based on faith.  It isn't science and thus can't be compared to evolution.  As Richard Feynman said, religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt.  It is that doubt that drives us scientists.  So it isn't "common sense" about the evolution vs creationism debate, there is more to it than that and you using "common sense" as an argument is showing your ignorance in the subject. In this I will say that I do have a grudge against biologist in that I feel they don't do real science.  Taking biology courses it is a lot more memorization vs actual problem solving skills which is a reason why biologist struggle in chemistry and physics courses but physicist can do well in chemistry and biology courses.  
    1
  9. Angel Morales The base of all science is physics.  That is why all biology majors have to take 2 classes of physics but physics majors have to take only one or none at all depending on the university.  I agree that biology is changing and a lot of the research I see that is gaining a lot of support deals with biological systems, but the research biology itself does is limited due to biologist lacking a lot of skills.  My research looks at proteins and RNA so one may think  I am a biologist, I am actually a physicist because I focus on vibrational states and folding of those structures through spectroscopy.  I am able to do that because I understand quantum mechanics and excitation states and vibrational relaxations and coupling and so on.  Things that no biologist I have ever met has studied.  I understand electromagnetic radiation due to me having to suffer through Jackson in graduate school.   As I said, is isn't me trying to put down biology, but to me they are not a big as problem solvers as you would see with a physicists and they are limited in what they can do.  
    1
  10. Angel Morales I will agree with you on that.  That is one of the reasons why I joined the research team I did, it had something that actually seemed useful in life.  I know several of my colleagues getting their masters in physics or PhD and can't get jobs because their research wasn't really practical or of high importance.  
    1