Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'SHH Community Forum' started by sithgoblin, Dec 14, 2007.
That is funny that you say that, I was telling a coworker today about the UFP being Communistic. Funny how it came up on here too.
You don't understand this science thing, do you?
To be fair, most of the people teaching high school level science don't either. I remember even my chemistry prof at community college repeated that myth that "a scientific theory has to be around for a long time and undergo careful scrutiny before it becomes a law. The law of gravity was just a theory at one time". I dropped that class.
You did the right thing.
Technically, it was a theory until it was actually verified to be valid. Of course what your teacher said about needing time to become a law is pretty off.
Actually, there is evidence out there supporting the Big Bang Theory. So it is more than just faith to believe in it.
However like a lot of things that happened before mankind came to be, it can't be 100% proven at all simply because we weren't there.
Probability is luck of the draw in a lot of cases. There probably are billions of planets out there flowing with life. Plenty of them will be inferior to ours, plenty of them will be just like ours, and plenty of them will be superior to ours. There's really nothing special about it.
And I guarantee that there are way more planets and moons that are incapable of supporting life than those that can. Mostly because of the very strict set of circumstances. Earth just happened to have them.
Evolution is promoted to a great degree because it has been observed. The lack of evidence in terms of "missing links and holes" in the fossil record is more the fault of the mechanics of fossil formation than evolution itself. There is more than enough evidence in many different sciences to support evolution.
But with all that, the honest scientist will tell you that it is the "best explanation for the complexity of life on earth." Science isn't about providing laws or end-all be-all answers. It never was. It is simply a sound method to find the best possible answer until new evidence comes to light.
Intelligent Design is really a fancy way of saying, "I don't understand how things got so complex on their own, they must have been created by something." It's faulty logic at best with no discernable theory or method of testability, which invalidates it as science.
Of course it can never be proven or disproven, but neither can the spaghetti monster. If we concern ourselves with all the possible variables of what can't be proven we would never be able to concentrate on what can. In the end, the best possible answer, which is all science strives for, is the one that can be supported by empirical evidence.
You certainly understand the 'how to be an ass thing'.
Science is quite like religion. Our way is THE way and most people pushing either extreme are usually a$$holes.
I may not know as much as you feel that you do, but I can still have my own opinion either way.
The law was proven mathematically, sure. However, there is still a theory of gravitation, and there always will be because you can't really prove why something like that is happening, only that it happens universally throughout the universe. Consequently, most scientific laws are found in physics with a few in chemistry, hence their more common name physical laws. The idea that the theory of evolution not being a physical law invalidates it is preposterous. Indeed, the notion that the theory of evolution could ever be a physical law is woefully misguided.
Opinion. That's why you're not getting this science thing.
The scientific method (which everyone seems to disregard and which some people have to bring up) is the big thing of science. Of course it is going to be rigid... it's the rules on how to have something be scientific. If someone looked at the rules to be religious they might think they were rigid also. And in both, you have to follow every single one of them to count.
And yes, you can dismiss something because it doesn't follow the scientific method, when you are talking about science.
I believe his argument is that science is wrong or short sighted.
Okay. You obviouslly haven't clearly read any of my posts.
Well now I know thanks to Sandman, there's no use in talking to you.
Because what you're talking about isn't science, it's reflexology.
That's not it either. Science is very right in a lot of ways. Now, this has completely gotten off of the original topic. What I'm trying to say, is that my personal opinion on Evolution Vs Intelligent Design is split. I believe that there is a little bit of both at work.
You're a complete idiot. That doesn't even make any sense. It's psychobabble bull**** trying to be clever.
You need a girlfriend man.
Someone doesn't like Penn and Teller: Bulls**t.
Dude, f**k Penn & Teller.
Dude, I get it. But some people apparently have to read to much into **** and over analyze it. Point clearly stated. Next.
This is just a ridiculous post. There are so many ways to prove you wrong on this, but its easier just to shake my head and laugh.
This is absolutely outstanding! A f**king Wiki article? C'mon dude, don't tell me you get all your info from a **** site that allows my friend's dog to edit it.
Well that just means if your friend's dog can understand it, you can also.
Intelligent design is and always has been a pseudoscience relying on the comeback, "oh yeah, prove me wrong."