13 things that confuse the smartest people on Earth.

[simbrooks]

I'm quite certain that if you sat down with Einstein, Bohr, Newton, Feynmann, Hawking, or basically any other good theoretical physicist, they would all be more than happy to debate any theories on their merits.. and the vast majority of physicists will be very quick to tell you that they have very little evidence on which to base any "beginning of the universe" theories, and that everything we have now is just a best guess.

I'd like to know which high level scientist you talked to that called you a simple minded moron instead of discussing our current physical theories.

The fact is that these people would not *be* theoretical physicists if they didn't have a desire to question the very foundations of what we call our knowledge.

Actually i can see where this is put about as more than a theory - in schools (at least in the UK, not sure about here), the theories of evolution, big bang etc are put about as solved cases and this is what we all should believe. Maybe the top level scientists realise and can debate this way, but the way it filters down to Joe Public in school (and what they then go on and think afterwards) is very much that it is pretty hard science. There are many things taught in schools that i dont agree with, but when i raise my own children i shall ensure they get a balanced viewpoint on many subjects...
BTW - not teacher bashing here, more the institutions.

As for the apes, you and yours might be a highly specialized branch of the simian tree but me and mine are fearfully and wonderfully made.

Wow. That's.... wow.

As for GM's "you and yours" comment i take it to mean those who are into evolutionism rather than creationism, as two groups - us and them kind of stuff, rather than any kind of racial slur against Andy personally - at least i hope that is the case

 

[jonnythan]

Actually i can see where this is put about as more than a theory - in schools (at least in the UK, not sure about here), the theories of evolution, big bang etc are put about as solved cases and this is what we all should believe. Maybe the top level scientists realise and can debate this way, but the way it filters down to Joe Public in school (and what they then go on and think afterwards) is very much that it is pretty hard science. There are many things taught in schools that i dont agree with, but when i raise my own children i shall ensure they get a balanced viewpoint on many subjects...

I see your point, but no one is going to be able to properly debate the big bang theory or theology with schoolchildren.. or their teachers for that matter.

Green made it clear in his first post that he was talking about real scientists, not kids in high school.

 

[simbrooks]

I see your point, but no one is going to be able to properly debate the big bang theory or theology with schoolchildren.. or their teachers for that matter.

Green made it clear in his first post that he was talking about real scientists, not kids in high school.

I dont know who he was aiming it at, but my point continues that if people think that such and such is so, it starts the ball rolling that this is the definitive answer no questions asked, unless they have an inquizitive mind and read around the subjects. I will say that my knowledge of those subjects is nowhere near complete, but i have a fairly balanced grounding i believe from my further research on many topics - but do other kids/adults do that so much?

 

[jonnythan]

I dont know who he was aiming it at, but my point continues that if people think that such and such is so, it starts the ball rolling that this is the definitive answer no questions asked, unless they have an inquizitive mind and read around the subjects. I will say that my knowledge of those subjects is nowhere near complete, but i have a fairly balanced grounding i believe from my further research on many topics - but do other kids/adults do that so much?

Do kids/adults know enough about either side to make an intelligent decision? By and large they do not, and what they believe is in any case basically irrelevant to the debate in the intellectual community, which Green was obviously targeting: "I am also well aware of the evolutionary bent of many scientists and their theories; which frequently are not referred to as theories, but statements of fact with no observable proof."

I responded to that statement, and the statement immediately following it, because I believe it is unfair, unfounded, and reactionary.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Wow, another wierd thread. LOL Well since I haven't been doing much diving and it doesn't look like I will be it doesn't leave much to talk about there anyway.

The big bang, evolutionists or whatever have some theories some of which fit the few facts we have better than others but there are tons of hole and unanswered questions in all of them.

Creationists have the Bible which they believe to be the word of God. Still, the Bible doesn't give a lot of detail on the creation of the universe. Some of us are satisfied to file the lack of detail away in the "unimportant deatail" section. If though we ever get to hear the rest of the story I'd listen.

I will say that come the day that someone puts a bunch of completely lefeless primordial oooz (or any other kind of ooz) in a bag and shakes, mixes, cooks or whatever else they think they need to do to it and brings it to life, I will be impressed. I'll be really impressed when I can sit and have a conversation with the "no longer lifeless" ooz about it's beginnings over a glass of wine.

 

[CBulla]

Its all about theorys.. everyone subscribes to different ones and Simon has it right about presenting it to your own kids. As mine get older they will recieve much the same education regarding science, theology, music, art, math, etc., as I did and I'll explain what I can and refer them to friends or people I know who can explain what I can't. In my eyes, I have two brilliant young minds who deserve to know the most they can about everything presented so they can make a decision on their own and feel confident that they made the right decision for them.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

As for GM's "you and yours" comment i take it to mean those who are into evolutionism rather than creationism, as two groups - us and them kind of stuff, rather than any kind of racial slur against Andy personally - at least i hope that is the case

No racial slur intended.

My deepest apology if I offended. :06:

 

[SueMermaid]

I didn't read it that way, for what it's worth.

 

[simbrooks]

No racial slur intended.

My deepest apology if I offended.

Glad that was the case, but it appears that wasnt the issue:

I didn't read it that way, for what it's worth.

I guess the other grouping was enough of creation vs evolution, it'll cause division until something is sorted out for sure - so much for my peace making

 

[CBulla]

Actually, I did read it that way but dropped it because I know GM's posting style and he wouldn't intend it that way. In general when the "you and yours" term is used and its not between friends referring to family, its regarded to mean you and others like you in a derogatory fashion.