Please read Asimov.

Try defending your position instead of being a smart ass.

It's hard when what I'm arguing against is the equivalence to astrology.

 

And have you ever taken a science course? You seem to know nothing about it.

Edited March 9, 201115 yr by BigSqwert

Just....no.

 

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Good read. Thanks for the link.

Questioning scientific theory is one thing...questioning proven scientific fact is another.

 

For example, gravity isn't a theory, it's a fact, you cannot question it's existence. That said, there is a LOT of scientific theory taken as fact...questioning such science, IMO, is not bad, and it's probably what you actually meant to convey here.

 

That's my point. It's stupid to question evolutionary facts, it's quite another to question theory.

That and Sagan's "Dragon in my Garage" are pretty standard go-to's for me.

 

There really is no comparison between belief in a well-established scientific theory and religious belief. It's equivocation at it's finest.

It's hard when what I'm arguing against is the equivalence to astrology.

 

And have you ever taken a science course? You seem to know nothing about it.

 

Nope. Never. What's science?

That and Sagan's "Dragon in my Garage" are pretty standard go-to's for me.

 

There really is no comparison between belief in a well-established scientific theory and religious belief. It's equivocation at it's finest.

 

Please tell me where I said this.

 

You guys are being "purposefully ignorant" of my point. I've never said all science is garbage. I never said that religious belief is better or a more sound explanation.

That and Sagan's "Dragon in my Garage" are pretty standard go-to's for me.

 

There really is no comparison between belief in a well-established scientific theory and religious belief. It's equivocation at it's finest.

 

Even if it's a well-established theory, it's still just a theory, and has yet to be proven as scientific fact. It cannot be proven right or wrong any more than the existence of God/Gods at that point...and that's the problem. After it's been proven, it's another story altogether.

Edited March 9, 201115 yr by Y2HH

That's my point. It's stupid to question evolutionary facts, it's quite another to question theory.

 

It's not stupid to question the frontiers of modern evolutionary theory. That's what professional scientists do.

 

It is pretty ignorant to question the basic concept of evolutionary theory, though. And that's what the anti-intellectual movement on the right does. They're not arguing over whether there was a single out-of-Africa event or multiple ones, the details of the transition of dinosaurs to birds, etc. They're saying "Evolution is wrong and evil and responsible for Hitler and God did it all, possibly in 6 literal days 6000 years ago."

That and Sagan's "Dragon in my Garage" are pretty standard go-to's for me.

 

There really is no comparison between belief in a well-established scientific theory and religious belief. It's equivocation at it's finest.

 

 

*bookmarked*

Even if it's a well-established theory, it's still just a theory, and has yet to be proven as scientific fact. It cannot be proven right or wrong any more than the existence of God/Gods...and that's the problem.

 

Scientific theories don't "progress" to become facts. Facts are simply pieces of data. Theories are explanations. And they can be shown to be the best known explanation for known data and a good predictor for future data. Proofs are left for mathematicians.

 

That's how science works, and that's a little different than "is there a god?!?!"

Please read Asimov.

 

Again, you've misconstrued my point. This isn't even relevant to what i'm saying. The only thing I'm equating between science and religious is that both have "elitists."

Even if it's a well-established theory, it's still just a theory, and has yet to be proven as scientific fact. It cannot be proven right or wrong any more than the existence of God/Gods at that point...and that's the problem. After it's been proven, it's another story altogether.

 

The existence of God/Gods isn't even a theory.

Scientific theories don't "progress" to become facts. Facts are simply pieces of data. Theories are possible explanations. And they can be shown to be the best known explanation for known data and a good predictor for future data. Proofs are left for mathematicians.

 

That's how science works, and that's a little different than "is there a god?!?!"

 

Fixed that for you.

Please tell me where I said this.

 

You guys are being "purposefully ignorant" of my point. I've never said all science is garbage. I never said that religious belief is better or a more sound explanation.

 

You equated proclamations from the Pope to scientific findings, or at least scientists. Sorry, there's pretty strong anti-authoritarian currents in science. And then you added that "science can only take you so far" and that you need faith to accept theories. That's equivocation between different types of "faith."

The existence of God/Gods isn't even a theory.

 

You know I'm not a deist, so you won't get an argument on that with me.

Fixed that for you.

 

Well, sure. Read the Asimov link. All scientific knowledge is provisional.

 

"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful."

It's not stupid to question the frontiers of modern evolutionary theory. That's what professional scientists do.

 

It is pretty ignorant to question the basic concept of evolutionary theory, though. And that's what the anti-intellectual movement on the right does. They're not arguing over whether there was a single out-of-Africa event or multiple ones, the details of the transition of dinosaurs to birds, etc. They're saying "Evolution is wrong and evil and responsible for Hitler and God did it all, possibly in 6 literal days 6000 years ago."

 

I think the majority of the people who believe in creationism also agree with a certain amount of evolution. If Beck actually believes that no evolution of any kind exists, then sure, he's an idiot. But I doubt that's what he thinks.

You equated proclamations from the Pope to scientific findings, or at least scientists. Sorry, there's pretty strong anti-authoritarian currents in science. And then you added that "science can only take you so far" and that you need faith to accept theories. That's equivocation between different types of "faith."

 

In that the Pope and certain scientists are so hell-bent on their view of the world that they're completely closed off from any other possible explanation.

 

Why are you taking my point and applying it to basic scientific principles? I'm not arguing how something like combustion works, we're clearly talking about unprovable theories such as creation. Global warming is another example. If you are denying that ANY global warming exists, then yeah, you're a close-minded idiot. But it's an entirely different argument if you're questioning the cause (or the amount of the cause) that say humans have contributed. Science will put its best theory together to try and explain it. But that doesn't make it FACT, so there's nothing wrong with questioning the THEORY.

Edited March 9, 201115 yr by Jenksismybitch

I think the majority of the people who believe in creationism also agree with a certain amount of evolution. If Beck actually believes that no evolution of any kind exists, then sure, he's an idiot. But I doubt that's what he thinks.

 

He'd probably never say it, because he's selling himself to a target audience which probably doesn't believe in evolution, at all...even if he does.

Actually that isn't true anymore.

 

What isn't?

What isn't?

 

The President makes $400k/yr

He'd probably never say it, because he's selling himself to a target audience which probably doesn't believe in evolution, at all...even if he does.

 

There's the whole macro/micro crap these days. Even Answers In Genesis, one of the bigger young-earth creationist groups out there, argues for "evolution within a kind."

 

Questioning the basic ideas of evolution and asserting special creation of individual species or kinds is still anti-science.

Why are you taking my point and applying it to basic scientific principles? I'm not arguing how something like combustion works, we're clearly talking about unprovable theories such as creation.

 

Combustion theory is an on-going science. All models are wrong, some are useful etc.

 

Global warming is another example. If you are denying that ANY global warming exists, then yeah, you're a close-minded idiot. But it's an entirely different argument if you're questioning the cause (or the amount of the cause) that say humans have contributed. Science will put its best theory together to try and explain it. But that doesn't make it FACT, so there's nothing wrong with questioning the THEORY.

 

There's nothing wrong with legitimate skepticism. That's not what the anti-intellectual, anti-science movement on the right engages in.

Maybe Fox News will give Vivian Schiller a $2M contract now?