Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
The All Purpose SCIENTIFIC Debate Thread (Former Evo Thread)
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences:
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics).
Actually, just to have some fun, in reality, the Earth doesn't technically "orbit around the sun". It orbits around a point in our solar system. The Sun orbits the same point, which is directly in the centre of said orbit. Because of that, you can argue, with solid math, that the Sun orbits the Earth. True shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooter1
Creationism = Batsh*t Crazy Story
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
In Creationism....'God' made water before he made stars....apparently....which begs the question....where did the one part oxygen of one part oxygen 2 parts hydrogen...aka 'water', come from? Did 'God' make special oxygen molecules just for the water on earth??
What's the more likely explanation, that the Jewish 'God', which is also the Christian and Muslim God by the way....made special oxygen because he *****ed up the order of the way 'he' made the laws of physics work from the get go, or that this is just a story, that lives as close to 'the truth' as Santa does to the North Pole.
Like I said....Creationism = Batsh*t Crazy Story....and anyone who believes in it over empirical facts, is a moron, in the truest definitional sense of the word.
I suppose you could argue the bolded, but that's extremely complex for a Christian to understand. Not many average people understand that complex atoms like Oxygen are only formed through fusion in stars that have depleted their H reserves and are about to go Supernova.
The easier, and more obvious, mistake is that light and darkness existed before he created the Sun and the moon (and so did plants, which begs the question "how did plants photosynthesize without the Sun?"). Most Christians would understand the reason why that's wrong.
Last edited by Leafsdude7: 04-13-2012 at 08:22 AM.
Actually, just to have some fun, in reality, the Earth doesn't technically "orbit around the sun". It orbits around a point in our solar system. The Sun orbits the same point, which is directly in the centre of said orbit. Because of that, you can argue, with solid math, that the Sun orbits the Earth. True shit.
From a certain point of view, yhea, sure Obi-Wan :-P
Actually, just to have some fun, in reality, the Earth doesn't technically "orbit around the sun". It orbits around a point in our solar system. The Sun orbits the same point, which is directly in the centre of said orbit. Because of that, you can argue, with solid math, that the Sun orbits the Earth. True shit.
The earth elliptically orbits the Sun...even if the Sun orbits another point in space.
Technically, philosophically, materially and rationally speaking.
Quote:
I suppose you could argue the bolded, but that's extremely complex for a Christian to understand. Not many average people understand that complex atoms like Oxygen are only formed through fusion in stars that have depleted their H reserves and are about to go Supernova.
The easier, and more obvious, mistake is that light and darkness existed before he created the Sun and the moon (and so did plants, which begs the question "how did plants photosynthesize without the Sun?"). Most Christians would understand the reason why that's wrong.
Most Christians play mental gymnastics in order to continue being believers....much like how children are told that Santa flies really fast when delivering presents to all kids, when kids ask how it's possible to deliver them all in one night.
Bullsh*t begets bullsh*t.....and creationism is just about the biggest bullsh*t story i've ever heard.....right up there with the rest of the fairytales in the almost 2000 year old compendium of fairytales.
I feel like adding a pic of Sheldon Cooper after that.
He is just playing semantics. No different than you saying "Awww, isn't that a pretty sunset" and some guy running up and saying "LOL, THE SUN DOESN'T SET RETARD".
I suppose you could argue the bolded, but that's extremely complex for a Christian to understand. Not many average people understand that complex atoms like Oxygen are only formed through fusion in stars that have depleted their H reserves and are about to go Supernova.
It's not extremely complex for a Christian to understand.
The creation story from the Bible, for Catholicism, is not meant to be taken literally. They do not believe that the earth, universe etc. was created in literally 7 days. For Catholics, it is (like the majority of the Old Testament) nothing more than allegory.
However, Protestant Christians interpret this story literally, and firmly believe that the earth was created in 7 days...no more, no less.
You can't lump all Christians into the same category with regards to creationism.
It's not extremely complex for a Christian to understand.
The creation story from the Bible, for Catholicism, is not meant to be taken literally. They do not believe that the earth, universe etc. was created in literally 7 days. For Catholics, it is (like the majority of the Old Testament) nothing more than allegory.
However, Protestant Christians interpret this story literally, and firmly believe that the earth was created in 7 days...no more, no less.
You can't lump all Christians into the same category with regards to creationism.
Touche. I should have said Creationists, not Christians. My apologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccupySheen
Evolution is not a theory, it is practically a fact.
What is a theory is "GOD"
Way more evidence exists to support evolution, than "GOD" at this time.
I would guess the absolute truth lies somewhere in between
The idea of teaching creationism in schools is damn looney....if you want to teach your children that, take them to church.......
Actually, it's both.
There's the theory of evolution which tries to explain the diversity of life, and there's evolutionary law that says that species give birth to offspring with genetic variation.
He is just playing semantics. No different than you saying "Awww, isn't that a pretty sunset" and some guy running up and saying "LOL, THE SUN DOESN'T SET RETARD".
Also, that show is absolutely terrible.
I hope you're not suggesting I'm saying anything of the sort...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussi
I feel like adding a pic of Sheldon Cooper after that.
He is just playing semantics. No different than you saying "Awww, isn't that a pretty sunset" and some guy running up and saying "LOL, THE SUN DOESN'T SET RETARD".
Sorry to call you out, but this is downright false.
Ever hear of String Theory? It is a theory without a single stitch of evidence to support it. Notice that it is still a valid scientific theory? Much is the same with numerous theories.
Edited: Tried to make it sound more civil
Last edited by Minimalist*: 04-27-2012 at 11:43 AM.
Sorry to call you out, but this is downright false.
Ever hear of String Theory? It is a theory without a single stitch of evidence to support it. Notice that it is still a valid scientific theory? Much is the same with numerous theories.
Edited: Tried to make it sound more civil
Without getting into the complexities of string theory, to say there's not "a single stitch of evidence to support it" is quite exaggerated. It hasn't made experimentally-verified predictions, but various formulations of string theory are consistent with existing data and experimental results.
Also, one could argue that since string theory, at its present state, is closer to pure mathematics than experimental/observational physics, it fits instead under the generally used form of "theory" in mathematics.
Without getting into the complexities of string theory, to say there's not "a single stitch of evidence to support it" is quite exaggerated. It hasn't made experimentally-verified predictions, but various formulations of string theory are consistent with existing data and experimental results.
Also, one could argue that since string theory, at its present state, is closer to pure mathematics than experimental/observational physics, it fits instead under the generally used form of "theory" in mathematics.
Well, it's not. String theory is a purely mathematical theory with zero empirical evidence, and is widely ridiculed and criticized within the scientific community.
The only reason it exists in the form that it does today is because of repeated failures of the theory in the past.
String theory tries to unite QM with GTR, and the equations break down. So they add an extra dimension to expand the field upon which the equations play to allow themselves more 'wiggle room' to work out the equations. Those fail too. So they add yet another dimension to widen the field even more. Those fail too. Another dimension is added, that also fails. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Doesn't exactly fit the mold of "proven hypothesis".
That point aside, what I was saying is that there exists numerous theories wherein there is no verified hypothesis that are still considered 'theories'.
Penrose has proposed concentric circles in the wmap as evidence of prebang activity.
Smolin has theories of quantum gravity that lack any evidence.
People support multiverse and holographic theories, which not only have as little empirical evidence as string theory, but no sound mathematical foundations either.
Hell, even General Relativity is a theory which has some extremely strong evidence suggesting that it is incorrect, yet it is still widely viewed as the most accurate theory of gravity.
even if you believe in creationism, how can you not see how everything has EVOLVED? that's evolution.....so we were all just created out of thin air one day and just remained the same? this is why evolution should be taught in schools...logic police hello?
Well, it's not. String theory is a purely mathematical theory with zero empirical evidence, and is widely ridiculed and criticized within the scientific community.
Edward Witten is ridiculed in the scientific community?
Keep in mind that well-respected scientist Michio Kaku is one of the leaders in string theory and Stephen Hawking supports it, too.
And Isaac Newton (quite possibly the most intelligent person to ever walk the earth) believed in angels and demons. He even wrote papers about it.
Point is, the quality of man behind the theory has very little relevance to the falsity or accuracy of said theory.
String theory is a joke. Just because Greene managed to persuade the ignorant populace through a massive PR campaign that it is a widely adored theory, does not make it true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo
Edward Witten is ridiculed in the scientific community?
I said string theory is widely ridiculed, not people who work on it. Kaku and Greene are very well respected. String Theory in and of itself however, is not.
