Common misconceptions

[SlyPokerDog]

There is no evidence that Vikings wore horns on their helmets.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-8 In fact, the image of Vikings wearing horned helmets stems from the scenography of an 1876 production of the Der Ring des Nibelungen opera cycle by Richard Wagner.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It is commonly claimed that the Great Wall of China is the only human-made object visible from the Moon. This is false. None of the Apollo astronauts reported seeing any specific human-made object from the Moon, and even Earth-orbiting astronauts can barely see it. City lights, however, are easily visible on the night side of Earth from orbit.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-119 Shuttle astronaut Jay Apt has been quoted as saying that "the Great Wall is almost invisible from only 180 miles (290 km) up."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-120 ISS commander Chris Hadfield attempted to find it from space, but said that it was "hard as it's narrow and dun-colored

 

[PDXFonz]

Here's another one: Mods don't make rookie mistakes.

Edit: I think I had heard the first one. Had no idea about the second!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms. "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable",http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-168 and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of lifehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-170 or the origin and development of the universe. While biological evolution describes the process by which species and other levels of biological organization originate, and ultimately leads all life forms back to a universal common ancestor, it is not primarily concerned with the origin of life itself,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-171 and does not pertain at all to the origin and evolution of the universe and its components. The theory of evolution deals primarily with changes in successive generations over time after life has already originated.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-172 The scientific model concerned with the origin of the first organisms from organic or inorganic molecules is known as abiogenesis, and the prevailing theory for explaining the early development of our universe is the Big Bang model.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Here's another one: Mods don't make rookie mistakes.

We intentionally make mistakes just to trick you into believing we're human.

 

[jlprk]

You write well, Sly. I'm sure you'd have an attribution if it weren't yours.

It is commonly claimed that the Great Wall of China is the only human-made object visible from the Moon. This is false. None of the Apollo astronauts reported seeing any specific human-made object from the Moon, and even Earth-orbiting astronauts can barely see it. City lights, however, are easily visible on the night side of Earth from orbit.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-119 Shuttle astronaut Jay Apt has been quoted as saying that "the Great Wall is almost invisible from only 180 miles (290 km) up."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-120 ISS commander Chris Hadfield attempted to find it from space, but said that it was "hard as it's narrow and dun-colored

I've always read it's from Earth orbit, not the Moon, and only for astronauts who see better than 20-20. It's easy for an author to shoot down something he makes up. That was you, Sly. Why did you invent this tale?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

The one that really pisses me off is the misuse of "Beg the Question". Fortunately, there's this.

 

[Minstrel]

The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms. "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable",http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-168 and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation.

PapaG's head just exploded.

 

[Minstrel]

The one that really pisses me off is the misuse of "Beg the Question". Fortunately, there's this.

While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage. This is why we fight.

Nothing would be lost. Our culture has adapted.

Using their example, "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly," sure, in the past you could say "Begging the question!"

However, now you can respond as such: "[citation needed]"

 

[magnifier661]

The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms. "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable",http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-168 and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation.

As many mainstream scientists agree, the theory of creation cannot be ruled out. Just like the theory of evolution or the Big Bang.

In some regard, the theory of genesis and the Big Bang are compatible.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Vomiting was not a regular part of Roman dining customs. In ancient Rome, the architectural feature called a vomitorium was the entranceway through which crowds entered and exited a stadium, not a special room used for purging food during meals.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Napoleon Bonaparte (pictured) was not short; rather he was slightly taller than the average Frenchman of his time. After his death in 1821, the French emperor’s height was recorded as 5 feet 2 inches in French feet, which is 5 feet 7 inches (1.69 m). Some believe that he was nicknamed le Petit Caporal (The Little Corporal) as a term of affection. Napoléon was often accompanied by his imperial guard, who were selected for their height - some suggest that this could have contributed to a perception that he was relatively short

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of lifehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-170 or the origin and development of the universe. While biological evolution describes the process by which species and other levels of biological organization originate, and ultimately leads all life forms back to a universal common ancestor, it is not primarily concerned with the origin of life itself, and does not pertain at all to the origin and evolution of the universe and its components. The theory of evolution deals primarily with changes in successive generations over time after life has already originated.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-172 The scientific model concerned with the origin of the first organisms from organic or inorganic molecules is known as abiogenesis, and the prevailing theory for explaining the early development of our universe is the Big Bang model.

 

[julius]

[video=youtube;kxIGlMrrhQM]

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

As many mainstream scientists agree, the theory of creation cannot be ruled out. Just like the theory of evolution or the Big Bang.

In some regard, the theory of genesis and the Big Bang are compatible.

Let's revisit this part:

a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms

and now please explain how the "theory of creation" is anything like the theory of evolution.

 

[magnifier661]

Let's revisit this part:



and now please explain how the "theory of creation" is anything like the theory of evolution.

Interesting... So the theory of abiogenesis shall be discredited then?

 

[magnifier661]

Let's get this straight hoojacks...

You want to discredit creation because you believe that you cannot set the theory on principles that explains "observable natural phenomena". Yet abiogenesis has never been observed, which is the foundation of evolution.

As the saying goes... Cut the head off the snake and the entire thing dies.

Your snake = life existed by chance and evolved naturally.

Your snake head = abiogenesis

Since you want to discredit creation based on the concept that it must be observed naturally, would also discredit abiogenesis in the same regard.

So are you saying that abiogenesis and creation are not "scientific"?

Personally I don't argue that evolution did not exist, but I just argue how genesis could have been the snake head. Add a creator and the entire evolution concept can be valid.

 

[Minstrel]

Yet abiogenesis has never been observed, which is the foundation of evolution.

It's not the foundation of evolution. Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis while evolution is an independent scientific theory. Evolution describes how life developed after it arose--it does not attempt to describe how life arose nor is the theory of evolution based on any specific hypothesis for how life arose.

 

[magnifier661]

It's not the foundation of evolution. Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis while evolution is an independent scientific theory. Evolution describes how life developed after it arose--it does not attempt to describe how life arose nor is that theory based on any other hypothesis for how life arose.

Okay fine... We can both agree that evolution existed and is still happening as we speak.

We can take it completely out of the equation.

Now let's ask the question... What was the egg? Abiogenesis or creator?

Both have not been observed as hoojacks said, therefor both are just as valid. If abiogenesis is scientific, then "let there be light" by a creator is just as scientific.

 

[magnifier661]

[video=youtube;kxIGlMrrhQM]

That was awesome!

I never knew Dr. Ruth was a sniper for the Israelian army?!?!

 

[MarAzul]

The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms. "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable",http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-168 and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation.

Perhaps you have it Dog. But the use of the word Therory in the title of the book might be a bit hopeful in its usage suggesting the subject of the book has the status of a theorem.
Mathematically a theorem means, "An idea accepted as a demonstrable truth". The book never gained that level of acceptance from any group.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Humans did not evolve from either of the living species of chimpanzees.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-173 Humans did however evolve from a species of extinct chimpanzee, dubbed Pan prior.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-175 The two modern species (common chimpanzees and bonobos) are humans' closest living relatives and some anthropologists and primatologists accept that humans are not only descended from an extinct chimpanzee, but are themselves a species of living chimpanzee.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-177 The most recent common ancestor of humans and the other living chimpanzees lived between 5 and 8 million years ago.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-pbs_evolution_faq-178 Finds of the 4.4 million year old Ardipithecus indicate the ancestor was a moderately competent bipedal walker rather than a knucklewalker, and was small and rather more long limbed than a chimpanzee and with a shorter snout. Contrary to the idea of chimpanzees as "primitive", they too have evolved since the split, becoming larger, more aggressive and more capable climbers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-NatGeo-News-179 Together with the other apes, humans and chimpanzees constitute the family Hominidae. This group evolved from a common ancestor with the Old World monkeys some 40 million years ago

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Eating less than an hour before swimming does not increase the risk of experiencing muscle cramps or drowning. One study shows a correlation between alcohol consumption and drowning, but there is no evidence cited regarding stomach cramps or the consumption of food.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

• It is true that life expectancy in the Middle Ages and earlier was low; however, one should not infer that people usually died around the age of 30.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-6 In fact, the low life expectancy is an average very strongly influenced by high infant mortality, and the life expectancy of people who lived to adulthood was much higher. A 21-year-old man in medieval England, for example, could by one estimate expect to live to the age of 64.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-apps.business.ualberta.ca-7

 

[MarAzul]

Eating less than an hour before swimming does not increase the risk of experiencing muscle cramps or drowning. One study shows a correlation between alcohol consumption and drowning, but there is no evidence cited regarding stomach cramps or the consumption of food.

Try selling that theory without making the assumption that all food consumed is good food. When the food is bad as was often the case back in the day before refrigerated food storage for an outing. Sometimes a violent rejection of the tainted is stuff the normal body reaction. Not good when you are in over your head.

 

[crowTrobot]

In some regard, the theory of genesis and the Big Bang are compatible.

The big bang theory is just a description of how the universe evolved from a very early stage. It does not describe the origin or cause.

 

[magnifier661]

The big bang theory is just a description of how the universe evolved from a very early stage. It does not describe the origin or cause.

The Big Bang is a theory that explains the origin of the universe. Space and time was created during that series of events. How could you not think its a description of origin?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) has a widespread reputation for triggering migraine headache exacerbations, but there are no consistent data to support this relationship. Although there have been reports of an MSG-sensitive subset of the population, this has not been demonstrated in placebo-controlled trials.

 

[crowTrobot]

Both have not been observed as hoojacks said, therefor both are just as valid.

Obviously just because 2 hypothesis are both not directly observable does not make them equally probable. "Dinosaurs had sex" and "dinosaurs danced the Tango" are not equally valid.

Scientists don't have to rule out the possibility of ID to consider natural abiogenesis a much more probable hypothesis based on other factors. They can look at the universe today and observe that it appears to operates entirely by natural laws, and judge that it is most probable that the same applies to the origin of life.