Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Foxnews.com poll on evolution (scary?)


Zen-like Todd

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by DrunkenBoxer

dude, relativity is sooooooo proven.

-DB

Um, actually, no. Relativity is the theory that best explains phenomena we observe on a macro scale. Results agree with it, and it's useful in that it has predictive value. But Einstein's version is definitely wrong (the gravitational constant introduced to maintain the size of the universe, for example, is bogus), and the theory is completely incompetent at describing phenoma observable on the micro scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AtB

what you've said IS true to some extent. But you'd have to mean micro as in the planck length. If we want to describe what happens inside a nucleus or when particles bounce off each other... we definately use relativity. Reletivistic Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Field Theory. QED, QCD, it's all based on relativity.

Your point holds for general relativity, which only makes sense at long distances, but is entirrely irrelevant for short distances... unless you get really short or really high energy. Basically we can't do quantum gravity. So that's where that gets messed up. But if you look at String Theory, you still have a theory that maintains the spirit of genreal relativity while allowing for quantum effects.

As for the COSMOLOGICAL constant, well that's another fun fact. We're pretty sure it is there... but in a way that contradicts einstein's origional purpose. Before he ided, einstein said that introducing the constant was one of the dumbest things he ever did. All measurements of the cosmic microwave background have shown a constant with the opposite sign of einstein's predicitons.

I did my research last summer on the cosmological constant, trying to explain it's presence by hypothesizing extra dimensions. Cool stuff that didn't work out.

Anyway, the important point with all these theories is that you only take them as true at the scales they claim to be true in. General Relativity is a great theory, so long as you don't need to do Quantum Gravity. That's just about every phenomena we EVER run into.

But you are in a sense right as well. Perhaps you meant to stab more at the word proof than I saw. If we are taking the statement "I have a foot" to be a proven fact, then GR belongs on the list of proven theories. That the word proof has long since vanished from the vocabulary of science is good thing that would be best left unearthed for the lay.

-DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Um, actually, no. Relativity is the theory that best explains phenomena we observe on a macro scale. Results agree with it, and it's useful in that it has predictive value. But Einstein's version is definitely wrong (the gravitational constant introduced to maintain the size of the universe, for example, is bogus), and the theory is completely incompetent at describing phenoma observable on the micro scale.

ok, um, now in english please. :laugh:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this poll reflects the demographic of the FoxNews audience more than anything else. No question it is a more conservative, religious audience and would have a higher percentage of members that are fundamentalist and reject evolution as contrary to the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I believe that public high schools should teach the truth, which is neither evolution or creationism. The fact of the matter is we were all spawned from monkeys on acid in the 60's. All of this "history" we read about was in fact implanted into our brains by the head monkey. Actually there are no monkeys either. We don't exist. We are stuck in the matrix, or something like that.

I need a drink.

:pint:

Sorry about that, it's been a long day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

And while you are explaining that, can you also explain the ending to the updated Planet of the Apes movie. I didn't understand it!

Actually, the ending in the movie was almost identical to the ending of the original book - the only difference is the ending in the book took place at the Eiffel Tower, not in DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think schools should teach the theory of evolution alongside creationalism as both have educational value in our society. Fox New Opinion Dynamics performs the same function as Gallup. It's a random sampling of people. For those who seem to think this is some alternate universe of people answering, well, you're doing yourself a disservice as alternate views such as those expressed in that poll should be accepted with a bit more tolerance than you guys seem to wish to accept them with.

I'm guessing if a poll were to ask if you thought creationalism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools, a percentage greater than 39 percent would be against it which is even more tragic than this poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Art

I think schools should teach the theory of evolution alongside creationalism as both have educational value in our society. Fox New Opinion Dynamics performs the same function as Gallup. It's a random sampling of people. For those who seem to think this is some alternate universe of people answering, well, you're doing yourself a disservice as alternate views such as those expressed in that poll should be accepted with a bit more tolerance than you guys seem to wish to accept them with.

I'm guessing if a poll were to ask if you thought creationalism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools, a percentage greater than 39 percent would be against it which is even more tragic than this poll.

This is not a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll. This poll was on the front page of foxnews.com, accessible to those who frequent the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Zen-like Todd

This is not a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll. This poll was on the front page of foxnews.com, accessible to those who frequent the site.

Gotcha. Didn't see a link so the assumption I made was it was their polling department. Thanks for the clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...