For DAVID: How do evolutionists explain the Big Bang....

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

First, and most importantly, let me say that this was not my post! I am not starting a debate! I only read the post, and I am only taking an interest in it because of the inappropriate (my opinion) way that ‘David’ (the SDSTAFF member; Straight Dope Science Advisory Board) responded to it.

Next, people (by the 1,000’s I am sure) write in with questions they want answered. I am fairly sure they do not want to be belittled, especially by the STAFF. I am certaion that without your proofreaders, etc., going over your lengthy response, you would have made some mistakes. I am also sure that as a professional, ‘David,’ you could have resisted the temptation! What if the poster was an 11 year old child? Now that you are cured of your ‘BHS’ or Bloaty Head Syndrome, we can move onto the last point of development.

Finally, your argument holds no more water than that of a creationist. Let me point out that I am not a creationist or an evolutionist, I believe some facets of both. I just enjoy curing ‘BHS.’ I would also like to give you the defintion of evolution (actually evolutionism):

ev·o·lu·tion·ism (v-lsh-nzm, v-)
n.

  1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
  2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.

Similar defintions will be found for creationism.

Hence the words ‘theory’ and ‘belief.’ I am sure that in your allegedly vast knowledge you know the definition of those 2 words! The theory of Creation, AND the theory of Evolution (heck, and the big bang theory for that matter), are all just what the say they are: Theories. Period. Your ‘theory,’ which you argued so fiercely, holds no more validity that the ‘theories’ of anyone else. Period.

Please be merciful when grading my response, for I am merely a human!

Again, I do not want to start a debate.

Tina D.

2

First of all, Tina33549, you need to include a link to the mailbag column you’re responding to. Normally one of us would do it for you, but since there have been numerous ones David B. has written about evolution, that would be very difficult.

Second, there have been scads of threads here at the Message Board discussing creationism and evolution, and every point you raise has been beaten to death time after time. Did you even bother to do a search of old threads before starting this one?

Third, just as an aside, because I really don’t think this thread should continue with so many others already extant, you say:

Your ‘theory,’ which you argued so fiercely, holds no more validity that the ‘theories’ of anyone else.

This is a ridiculous assertion on its face. I have a “theory” that we stay on the Earth because invisible angels are pushing down on everyone’s shoulders. Does my theory have just as much validity as that whole thing about Newton and gravity?

3

Howdy Tina33549. First off, can you tell us which to mailbag item you are referring? Just copy and paste the link. If you are unsure of how to do it, click the vB link near the bottom of the reply page.

To briefly reply to your concerns: the “theory of evolution” is a theory in the same sense as the “theory of gravity”. Perhaps it is not correct in every detail, perhaps intelligent people can disagree about exactly how it works, but evolution itself is as a much of a fact as gravity. The reason that people get a bit tetchy when these matters are raised is that they have been dealt with repeatedly over many years and some people who know the response of scientists to this and other questions persist in spreading misinformation.

What about the big bang and evolution? Well, for starters, evolution is about biology, not physics.

picmr

4

I guess I can include a link to help you out. Here it is:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbigbangmyth.html

This was not to start a debate, as I already mentioned. I believe both ‘theories’ (evolution and creation) hold some truth.

Basically, I am not sure what you mean about beating my point(s) to death?! I simply defined evolutionism to prove that it is only a theory, just as creationism. And, I guess I have to define theory:

the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)
n., pl. the·o·ries.

Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.
Such knowledge or such a system.
Abstract reasoning; speculation.
A belief that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: rose early, on the theory that morning efforts are best; the modern architectural theory that less is more.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

By the way, including your theory about the angels in this discussion is asinine. Your so-called theory of gravity, as you so blindly put it, is known as: The Law of Gravity!

Please be merciful when grading my response, for I am merely a human!

Tina D.

5

Thanks for the link. I’m not sure we can avoid debate, since the “reply to topic” button shines so brightly.

Your list of definitions of “theory” is useful. When evolutionists refer to the “theory of evolution” they are using the first and second definitions. When people refer to something being “just” a theory, they are referring to the three subsequenbt definitions.

“Stuff falls down” is the Law of Gravity. How and why stuff falls down is the theory.

picmr

6

I am fond of noting that there is a branch of mathematics devoted to “Number Theory.”

Also, Tina, you might want to read some of Cecil’s columns. We, his loyal and humble staff – er, well, OK, his loyal staff, and that includes DavidB, we follow the path set out by our Master. That includes snide comments, jokes, quips, insults, and a slight case of Attitude. We emulate.

Those who don’t like it, are welcome to go to different sites that also are dedicated to the fight against ignorance, but have less sense of humour.

7

Hi there, Tina, good to have you here.

Just to help flog that horse . . scientific terms are not always defined the same way as terms as used in common parlance. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been supported by a preponderance of evidence.

Heliocentrism (the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun) is a theory. Though you may choose to deny it, gravity is a theory. Natural selection is a theory, too.

So is evolution.

And that means that the vast majority of the evidence supports it, and none of the evidence contradicts it.

That’s the way science works–you find evidence, come up with a hypothesis (or more than one) to explain the evidence, then seek out more evidence. As more evidence is accumulated, the hypotheis is altered, refined, or replaced completely until a hypotheis is achieved that fits all the available evidence and is not contradicted by any–and becomes a scientific theory.

The process is methodical, sure, and does not deal in absolutes. That is, nothing is ever “proven” in science–things can always change with new evidence. As an example, physicists thought they had a good handle on particle physics until they started finding odd cases they couldn’t explain with their existing theories. The quantum theory was put forth as explaining those odd cases without contradicting any of the previous evidence. Thus was theory changed in the face of new evidence.

Evolution is not Truth. Science does not deal in Truth.
Evolution does not contradict God. Science does not deal with God.

Evolution is a scientific theory. In order for evolution to be proven false, new evidence would have to be discovered that not only did not fit the existing theory, but also somehow invalidated the entire theory. That will not happen–there is simply far too much evidence supporting evolution to discard it completely.

Hope that helped a little.

8

Thanks for the post andros.

As I mentioned before, I did not want to start a debate with my original post. I do not refute the theory of Evolution OR the theory of Creation. In fact, I accept both of them. I simply did not like the response that ‘David’ gave.

Tina D.

BTW, CKDextHavn, it’s only funny when Cecil does it. Sorry.

9

Tina, you’re being very rude. It’s not nice to post inflammatory things, then claim “I don’t want a debate!”

Suppose I came to your home and said, “You know what Tina, you’re a racist. And don’t argue with me, I didn’t come here for a debate, I just wanted to complain about how racist you are. Now I have to go tell everyone in your neighborhood that you’re qa racist, so I’ll see you later.”

That would be very rude, because I’m not giving you a chance to defend yourself. That’s the same thing you are doing here.

Now, let me explain a few things:

-Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang; one is biology and the other is Physics. Similarly, you cannot say that a Baptist’s religion is flawed because it doesn’t account for the Pope’s authority; these issues come from seperate, but related arenas.

-When scientists say theory, they mean ‘a hypothesis with lots of evidence for it and none against it.’ What you call a theory, scientists call a hypothesis. When discussing science, you can’t say ‘one theory is as good as another’; theories are compared by how well evidence supports them.

-If you don’t like the way Mailbag Articles are conducted, you are free to read other sources. No one is forcing you to read them. That way, you won’t get offended, and we won’t have to repeat ourselves because:

-This has all been discussed literally hundreds of times before here.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

–John

10

(That’s one who has a love for beating dead horses)

Tina, your posts demonstrate that you do not understand the word “theory” as used in a scientific sense. Yes, I saw your definition. The “it’s just a theory” attack is one of the oldest, lamest, and most-oft-discredited attacks on evolution. Anyone who insists on using it has either never done a lick of research on the subject, or is being deliberately close-minded. Either way, you’re not going to get far here.

I’d attempt to put this in a more friendly tone, but I also agree that your posts have been unreasonably rude. And I don’t want to hear any complaints about it - I’m not here to debate. :rolleyes:

11

Not so. A quick search using the terms evolution and creationism yields only 160 different threads. Hardly hundreds, especially after you eliminate unrelated threads that happen to mention those terms. Sheesh.

:smiley:

12

Most of Tina’s statements have already gotten responses, but since it was directed at me, I’ll chime in as well:

Tina said:

Oh, but you are. You can’t come in here and say, “You’re wrong!” without expecting others to respond “No he’s/I’m not!” That’s a debate.

I’m sure they don’t, but then they shouldn’t write in things like this person wrote in. This was not a question seeking an answer, as most people write in; this was a person seeking to prove Cecil wrong with stock creationist baloney. He got what he deserved. Heck, I think I was a little too nice to him, if anything.

Apparently you don’t know me.

I thought you didn’t want to start a debate? Either you do or you don’t. If you’re going to make ridiculous statements like this one, then you’re starting a debate. You let me know what you really want, and then I’ll reply further. But if you are going to claim that my arguments “hold no more water than that of a creationist,” you’d better be prepared to back that up – or else the Teeming Millions will eat you alive. And I’ll be handing out plates and silverware.

Doctor, heal thyself.

Talk about BHS (not to mention BS)! Who do you think you are to tell somebody else what evolution is?

Yes, I do. You don’t, as others have already explained.

You are wrong. Period. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Period. Scientific theories have scientific evidence to back them up. That’s what makes them theories and not hypotheses or ideas or beliefs. Get thee to a science book!

Again, you’re wrong. Period.

More importantly: You’re a human who doesn’t know what she is talking about.

Too late.

13

waterj2 said:

Ahhh, but you’re forgetting that a large number of threads were lost in the switch from UBB to VB. We had put many threads into the “archive” so they could be saved, but ended up losing them instead. Creationism threads made up a fair number of those. I would even go so far as to say there might have been 40 or more, which would bring us to “hundreds.”

:wink:

14

I am afraid that I don’t understand?! Rude?! I guess I need to look up the definition of rude too. I am rude because I express my opinion (concern) about a STAFFman beating down a poster? There is a big difference between constructive criticism and insults. That was the purpose of my post. Is that OK?!

The fact that I don’t want to debate is besides the point. I don’t want to debate because there is NOTHING to debate about! What would you like to debate about? Gore vs. Bush?! I agree with BOTH of the theories mentioned. That is possible seeing how neither of the theories have anything to do with eachother.

And as far as the, ‘you don’t know the definition of theory in scientific terms,’ crap goes, that is false. Actually the definition is right in front of me (and you for that matter). I understand the fact that scientists need ‘special’ definitions just to make their points valid. I understand. But don’t get your feathers ruffled, there are plenty of ‘scientific theories’ out there that ARE debatable. I just don’t want to debate about these two.

In case I didn’t mention this before: I enjoy Cecil, and The Straight Dope. I have been following the show (and now the website) for years. I never really posted much in the past and now I can see why…

Please have mercy on my post, as I am merely human!

Tina D.

15

Ooh, David the STAFFman must’ve gotten his feelings hurt, 2 responses in a row. And they are both contained in my thread. Honored indeed. But shouldn’t you be researching some scientific theories so you can beat down another poster?

Actually, David the STAFFman, my concern was not with his post, it was with yours. I guess in your allegedly vast knowledge you KNEW that wasn’t a child or someone who REALLY did want an answer, not insults. But it seems as if you beat on all posts, including mine.

Don’t fret, David the STAFFman, I believe in the Theory of Evolution (as well as the Theory of Creation for that matter). I have already mentioned that fact. Wow, you are correct about one thing: There are masses of evidence out there to support it. On the other hand, there is also plenty of questions out there to question it as well.

It must be your lucky day, you are right about another thing too: I can’t get very far without starting a debate. Are you suggesting that ALL scientific theories are true? That would not be the case…

Please have mercy on my post, as I am merely human!

Tina D.

16

Tina, I can see that you are both [CENSORED BY CKDextHavn] I will leave you to your ignominious fate.

–John

NOTE - I have censored Yue Han’s comment, as inappropriate to this forum. Frankly, of course, Yue’s comments were not much worse than what has been said already, it was just one step down an already slippery slope. This thread has been going downhill in that regard for some time, and I take this action rather than move the whole topic to another forum, such as either GREAT DEBATES or, as seems more likely, BBQ PIT.

This forum is about Mailbag answers, not about personalities or name-calling. – CKDextHavn in official role as Moderator/Administrator

[Edited by CKDextHavn on 10-04-2000 at 12:36 PM]

17

Well, shoot. I guess I’ll restrain myself for CKDextHavn’s sake and just echo what David said - get thee to a science book as far as the science side of this nondebate goes.

As for how David treated the letter-writer, I’m going with him on this one as well. Have you not read Straight Dope columns before? Mocking the foolish opinions of the writers is quite possibly the most important part of them.

18

water2j: a search on evolution brings up 2207 topics; creationism, 201; creationist 288; evilution, 13; evilutionists, 5; evolution AND creationism, 161; evolution AND creation, 585.

I think the last one is most relevant, since ‘creationism’ is a rather awkward word, and ‘theory of creation’ is often used instead.

Also, a) the things discussed here are sometimes explained three or four times in one thread to latecomers who don’t read the whole thread and b) the SDMB used to be on AOL-none of those threads still exist- and UBB (as David explained.)

Finally, David has explained the scientific use of the word ‘theory’ not only in evolution threads but just about anywhere the word is being misused. He’s persistant.

Apologies to CKDextHavn.

–John

19

Ouch, another so-called science expert with ruffled feathers! So sensitive. Maybe I can say this:

First, for all you with your feathers ruffled: there ARE other theories out there besides the theory of Evolution. And there are people out there debating about it right this very second. Maybe some of you so-called experts can diversify your studies and learn about them too.

Ok, I will say, maybe I went a little far as to say the theory of Evolution holds no water. That is not true. There are many things about the theory of Evolution that are factual. However, there are many unanswered (unanswerable?) questions that still remain. For example, here are some:

http://www.creationscience.com/

In addition, the theory of Evolution is tentative. What I mean is, if new evidence were to come out tomorrow, the theory would be false (falsified)!

Please be merciful when grading my response, as I am only human!

Tina D.

20

Oh, for the love of…

I’m done until/unless this gets in the Pit. I’ve got better things to do with my time.

Checks for feathers. Sees none.
Thank you, evolution!