Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "THROWBACK: GOP Candidates Not Sold On Evolution" video.

Kyle just embraced his ignorance. Evolution is a theory. A theory is not a fact, it is a prediction. Saying it is a fact means there is no doubt. Science is a culture of doubt. It is because of that doubt that we continue to do research in science and progress. You remove that doubt then you remove research and thus remove progress. Evolution also doesn't explain the origin of life either. So you really can't compare creationism to evolution. One can believe in creationism and evolution. The question is broad and baits. I study science for a living and if you ask me if I believe in evolution I would say no. That is because as a scientists I can't commit myself to such faith as a belief in something that could possibly be wrong. Now I use evolution a lot and it is a theory that has a lot of supporting evidence (not proofs) so I use in in predictions. But I don't believe it. Very bad question aimed mainly to bait. This does show that many people don't understand science.
2
I bet you won't hear that from Kyle anytime soon.
1
eyeseethroughyou Creationism isn't science since is doesn't go through the scientific method. Creationism is faith. Evolution has gone through the scientific method and has mounds of evidence supporting it. With that said it is still just a theory and can be changed. It also doesn't explain the origins of life. http://www.livescience.com/32390-what-is-a-theory.html There is one quick article that explains what a theory is. Pretty much what I know a theory to be after studying science for over a decade and continuing to do so. I have never heard it called a "fact" or "proven" by any credible source. I find it insulting that people are willing to take such a leap of faith when it comes to science. If evolution was fact then why continue studying on it? Since science has that doubt we continue to study and progress. So this leads back to the question on hand. If I were asked if I believe in evolution I would say no. I can't belief in something that has doubt. I can't make that leap of faith. At the same time I strongly support evidence and I am aware of the evidence supporting it.
1
Ylze Tyr http://www.livescience.com/32390-what-is-a-theory.html There is one definition. I studied science for over a decade and continue to do so. There are no facts or proofs tied to theories. Science is about doubt. It is that doubt that leads others to do research and progress. If evolution is fact then why continue to do research in it? Creationism is faith. As Richard Feynman said, "Religion is a culture of faith. Science is a culture of doubt". One can believe that a higher being created life and still use evolution as a way to make predictions. This goes back to that I don't believe in evolution because I can't put my faith in something that might change. With that said I realize that the theory of evolution has a lot of supporting evidence so I use it to make predictions. Until another theory comes along with more evidence supporting it I will continue to use it.
1
Isen gard I agree. Creationism isn't science, it is faith. We can go beyond this. One can believe, or have faith in an after life and still be very scientific. Science doesn't explain the after life nor does it try to. We can't measure the after life.
1
Beelzeboogie I don't believe in evolution or electromagnetism knowing it could change. I always leave doubt to leave room for any change or new discovery. I don't reject evolution or EM because they do have a lot of supporting evidence for them, but I don't believe it. Before quantum mechanics everything was Newtonian based. It was set that everything was Newtonian. That caused problems in that really we can go to the extreme and measure every single particle and determine the outcome of them thus determining the future according to Newtonian mechanics. After studying the atom that is when quantum mechanics came creating the idea of probabilities. Certain things were not following Newtonian mechanics. So quantum theory was developed. It didn't disprove Newtonian mechanics, we still use it to make predictions in the macro world. Newtonian mechanics couldn't make accurate predictions at the nano level. My point in that story is that theories can change and new theories can come. I can't say I believe in evolution because that means I have faith it is 100% true. I have to leave doubt if a new theory replaces it.
1
***** No I mean I actually study science for a living. I am studying this summer for my comprehensive exam for my masters in physics. The current book I am reading, "Theoretical Mechanics of Particles and Continua" by Fetter and Walecka. Basically classical mechanics. I am eventually going to pursue a PhD in Chemical Physics.
1
***** You are making an assumption there at the end. I don't support Intelligent Design as science because it doesn't go through the scientific method. ID is faith. I don't believe in ID. I can see why others would and I don't berate them for it, but they have to understand that it isn't science. At the same time science isn't going to prove or disprove, or even support or squash ID because there isn't any measurable evidence for or against it. In the end ID isn't science. This really bothers me that when someone questions evolution just a little, even though I use it multiple times, I get accused of following ID. It is like you are in one group or another. A theory is a prediction or explanation. It isn't a fact. Saying it is a fact means it is proven which means without a doubt. There will always be doubt in science which is why we continue to do research. That research progresses us. In science we have theories which are supported by evidence. That evidence we obtain through observations. For example, gravity. There is a problem in my book where you have a couple pendulum, two pendulums connected by a spring. I do some calculations and find that the angular frequency is proportional to gravity. I can set up the pendulums and measure it and observe that. That is one piece of evidence that supports gravity. It doesn't prove gravity or make it a fact, it just supports it. I always go back and ask, what is gravity? Where does it come from? Two spherical objects attract each other? Sounds kind of silly but there is supporting evidence for it. There have been times that theories have been replaced. Look at aether. After the Michelson-Morely experiment aether didn't get disproved, it just made the theory weak and thus not used. Quantum theory was develop because Newtonian Mechanics didn't predict what would happen. We leave doubt in science to bring in progress. The theory of evolution goes beyond a species evolving. Just like the theory of gravity goes beyond my example. There is a lot to it and a lot of supporting evidence. That is why evolution is strongly supported. But it still doesn't make it fact. We have to allow room for change and new theories. If we cease to do that and say it is fact and we must believe than science is no better than a religion where everything is faith based putting us on the same level as ID.
1
necroryda I have never heard of that. I can't comment to much on it because I don't know much about it. With that said I am pursuing a PhD in Chemical Physics. Abiogenesis is more biology and not my exact field of expertise just like an individual with a PhD in chemistry doesn't know how much about quantum theory, a different field of science. Also, it is hard to imagine how it would explain why animals feel the way they do. That is a topic in evolution that is debated a lot. Why do animals act against their best interest at times. Why do we care for each other? Just glancing over Abiogenesis it seems very broad like evolution and thus highly debatable with many holes that may never be explained with high certainty just like how physics can't really say why the 4 fundamental forces even exist. And, like evolution, abiogenesis is a theory and not fact.
1
Natilie Roof A scientific theory is an explanation of observation, no facts.
1
Ylze Tyr Theories are predictions or explanations based on observations. They are not "true" and are not "facts". Aether was a theory that explain light and predicted it's behavior. After the Michelson-Morley experiment the theory became weak and was replaced with another theory that is used because it gives better predictions and explanations. Quantum theory was developed because Newtonian Mechanics was unable to give accurate predictions or explain observations. Saying something is "true" or "factual" means without a doubt that is the way it is. In science we have doubt to make room for change much like with the Aether theory and the development of quantum theory. We also have doubt so we can continue to do research and progress. Some theories are strongly supported and have a high degree of certainty but they are never "true". I know it is a hard concept for others wrap their heads around but there can be a time a theory might be inefficient. Evolution is a theory that gives predictions for future happenings and give explanations for past happenings, but it isn't fact.
1
Ylze Tyr All of it. Certain parts have a higher degree of certainty than others but like all theories there is always doubt. In evolution there are questions of nature vs. nurture. There are questions of free will. There are questions in why do species go against their own benefit to care for their young. Evolution is a semester course offered at most universities. You should take it sometime, you will learn a lot. I will leave you with a quote by my favorite physicists, Richard Feynman. "I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can't figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."
1
Ylze Tyr Evolution might become a weak theory in the future much like the Aether theory was weak or how Quantum Theory was developed because Newtonian Mechanics couldn't explain what was happening with the atom. The examples I gave have to deal a lot with evolution. Take a course in evolution. It is a senior level course in college and is challenging but you learn a lot.
1
Natilie Roof Who knows? We never know when that major discovery would come. In physics it was studying of the atom that developed quantum mechanics because Newtonian mechanics, which was pretty much set in stone at the time, failed to make predictions. That is why we always have doubt in science. It pushes us to do more research and be open to new things just incase that bunny rabbit does pop up.
1
Ylze Tyr I never said "disproven" at all. You can't prove anything in science. To prove something means without a doubt. We always have doubt in science and it is that doubt that allows us to continue to do research and progress in science. I have told you the theories in evolution that are questionable. It doesn't surprise me that you ignore them because you studied evolution privately as opposed to at the university level. And you go on to say evolution is a fact and true which neither is the case which shows your ignorance in science. To repeat some of the theories are about how why humans push for monogamist relationships when it is against our nature, especially for men, not too. The nature vs. nurture argument. How some areas in the world are diverse and others are not. There are questions. Evolution, like all theories, give predictions and explanations. It doesn't "prove" anything and it isn't factual. Before the Michelson-Morley experiment the Aether theory was used to explain the properties of light. After that experiment the Aether theory became weak and was replaced with relativity and quantum. Quantum theory was also developed because Newtonian mechanics didn't give accurate predictions or explanations at the nano level. We allow change in science which allows for progress. Now that doesn't mean we don't change theories without great resistance but we do allow for change if enough evidence supports a certain theory. Evolution is a theory with a long of supporting evidence and thus is used. I use it a lot. But like all theories I leave room for doubt like other scientists should as well (for the record I study science for a living and I am working on my PhD). Evolution is completely different from creationism. Creationism gives the origin of life. Now there is an area in science involved in studying that but it still doesn't completely explain morality, potential for an afterlife, feelings. There are some things that go against evolution. Why do us as a society continue to care for our old or bury them instead of recycling them resources and progress us as a species? What advantage do we gain in caring for the weak as much as we do? Creationism and evolution can co-exist because they are separate issues. As I said, you need to study evolution, and science all together at the university level and not just privately. You are so set on believing evolution that you made it a religion which it isn't. In the end of all of this it goes back to if I were asked on the surface if I believe in evolution I would say no. It isn't ignorance but instead my vast knowledge of the subject and my years of studying science all together prevents me from indulging in faith when it comes to science. I can't believe in something when there is doubt involved. Science isn't faith, it isn't a religion. It is about change and progress. Scientists are more open minded and if you really supported science you wouldn't be so myopic.
1
DarkSoulsSauron I never said a theory was a shot in a dark and I never alluded to that. A theory has supporting evidence. The theory with the strongest supported evidence is accepted by science and squashes, or overpowers any other theories. It doesn't mean it is a fact. Saying it is a fact means that is the way it is and nothing else. As we have seen in the past new discoveries have created new theories, replaced some and changed some. All a theory does is give predictions and explanations and the more supporting evidence it has the stronger it is. But it isn't fact. It isn't proven. Science has the ability to change and progress because we keep that option. That is what makes science so great, it allows for progress. If evidence comes up to contradict evolution what will happen is either a new theory will be created as in quantum mechanics, or evolution will be inefficient as in the Aether theory, or supporters of evolution will have to come up with more evidence to overpower any opposing theories, or it will be embedded with evolution somehow. It can change though. Saying evolution is a fact is saying it is this way and it can't change. That is very anti-progress and anti-science.
1
Ylze Tyr And I will argue with that scientist if he was still alive. I do not go to a Christian college. Evolution is a thoery which means that it can be changed and adjusted after new discoveries. Evolution, like the theory of gravity or cell theory or the plate tectonic theory is so strongly supported that it is not questions. That still doesn't make it a fact. Now observation you see while studying evolution you can call facts. For example, seeing how a species evolved over time one can call a fact. I resist against saying that because others might confuse it to proof but instead say supporting evidence. But evolution itself is not a fact. All evolution does is give an explanation and a prediction. There are no other theories that are challenging it and it is so strongly supported that to the average person it may seem like a fact and proven but one must remember we are dealing with science here. We are not dealing with a dogmatic belief but instead science. Science has the ability to change and progress when new discoveries come along. Remember, everyone was set on Newtonian Mechanics and how that was it was suppose to be. When technology came to study the atom things didn't make sense so quantum theory was developed to give predictions and explanations. I am not here trying to debunk evolution. I support evolution and use it a lot. I respect the amount of evidence that supports it and know that there isn't another theory out there that is challenging it and probably never will. This goes back to the root of the situation. If I were on that panel and asked if I believe in evolution I would say no. People will rip me apart and call me stupid but in reality the opposite is true. My years of studying science has pushed me to not be so faithful like one would in a religion and be open to change and progress. Having a belief hinders change and progress. Me saying I don't believe in evolution just simply means I am open to change. I don't get sucked into something that easily. We are dealing with science here, not a religion. And I will criticize anyone who goes as far as to call any theory in science a fact like Mr. Campbell did. This also goes into a bigger issue in politics. On these debates you have around a minute to 90 seconds to respond. That isn't enough to me. Here is a great example. You have a yes or no question and the voting population is so ignorant that your answer will hurt you either way. If you don't believe in evolution than you have ignorant people (you including, sorry) that don't understand science and will rip on you. If you say you do than there are people is disregard evolution simply because they don't understand it that will rip on you. It is a no win situation and one should be given a chance to explain myself. I would have said no and then explained why. After my explanation I would have won that debate.
1
Ylze Tyr What is gravity? Where does that force come from? Where do the 4 fundamental forces of physics come from? That is a question that science can't answer.
1
necroryda It is more biochemistry which isn't my area of expertise. I am more focused on inorganic and physical chemistry. I am pursuing my PhD in Chemical Physics. It isn't uncommon for individuals with PhDs to pigeonhole their knowledge to just their subject. While talking to some PhD candidates in physics they didn't know what an oxidation state was which is very basic chemistry. Just like my inorganic chemistry professor struggled in doing the expectation value during class where a physicists or even a physical chemists would excel in.
1
Ylze Tyr I don't believe gravity. I strongly support it as a theory but I don't believe in it. Now explain to me what gravity is.
1
Ylze Tyr The question I asked was rather vague. I should have asked where does gravity come from? What about the other 3 fundamental forces in nature? Where do they come from? Why do masses have this force? Does mass even exist because we see that mass is also energy. A particle and an anti-particle collide and a photon is released which is energy. So, where does gravity arise from? Explain that.
1
Ylze Tyr "I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can't figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." A quote from my favorite physicist, Richard Feynman. I have different levels of certainity. With gravity I am really certain about it but I don't completely know it, so what? That is what makes the universe great. Knowing everything would be boring. What would be the point of living? Where will the progress comes from. I am not trying to debunk gravity like I am not trying to debunk evolution. I am saying that we will never be completely certain about any theory and always leave room for doubt. You can call me an idiot all you want but I am going to call you myopic. You are so myopic that you refuse to even consider that something you hold onto so closely could be wrong. You are no different than a religious fanatic who refuses to think that the world is older than they think. Science is not a religion, stop treating it like one. I will leave you with another Feynman quote. "We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty. People are terrified–how can you live and not know? It is not odd at all. You can think you know, as a matter of fact. And most of your actions are based on incomplete knowledge and you really don't know what it is all about, or what the purpose of the world is, or know a great deal of other things. It is possible to live and not know."
1
Religion is a culture of faith. Science is a culture of doubt. Richard Feynman
1