|
When someone disagrees with a theory by pointing out genuine flaws in the evidence, producing new evidence which contradicts the theory, or providing a new theory which better fits the facts, then we will not laugh at them.
When someone disagrees with a theory because it contradicts their magic book[^], then laughter is an appropriate response.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: When someone disagrees with a theory because it contradicts their magic book[^], then laughter is an appropriate response.
1. OK, who needs to be moved to the soapbox now?  Not only are you bringing in religion but also trying to be offensive.
2. The people that walked out didn't understand. Bill Nye didn't say anything wrong or anything that conflicted with religion. The story makes no sense and I have to believe there is more to it than is being said.
3. There is no such thing as magic. Magic is not real.
4. Only fools mock what they do not understand.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Not only are you bringing in religion but also trying to be offensive.
- No offence was intended. I'm just trying to highlight the fact that faith often overrides rationality.
- The people who walked out believed that Bill's claim that the moon reflects light from the Sun contradicts the quoted passage from Genesis. They believe that every word written in the bible is literally true, and cannot accept anything which casts doubt on that.
- OK, now you're offending the HarryPotterists, whose religion clearly states that magic is real!
 - But it's OK to mock fools, right?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: No offence was intended.
Referring to the Bible as a "magic" book is not trying to be offensive?
Quote: I'm just trying to highlight the fact that faith often overrides rationality.
Well, since faith is believing in something you can't see, which is true, then yes, I can see how you can say this. However, keeping religion out of this, what is irrational about believing in a creator? Follow me here. I believe I can safely assume that you would agree that it is not plausible that humans are the most advanced species in all of space and time. And when you consider the vastness of space and time then most plausibly there are species more advanced than humans. So, what is irrational about believing in a creator, or in believing that something is advanced enough to create the world and place life on it?
Quote: The people who walked out believed that Bill's claim that the moon reflects light from the Sun contradicts the quoted passage from Genesis.
Like I said, if they believe that then they don't even understand the Bible. It seems odd that they would believe it the way the story was written. I still say there has to be more to it.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Referring to the Bible as a "magic" book is not trying to be offensive?
It was intended to be a humorous reference to the fact that some people believe in the literal truth of every word of a book written thousands of years ago. Judging by your response, it obviously didn't work.
RyanDev wrote: what is irrational about believing ... that something is advanced enough to create the world and place life on it?
So, keeping religion out of it, your argument is that life started somewhere else, developed advanced technology, created a planet, seeded that planet with fully-formed and unchanging creatures, planted just enough evidence to suggest that life had developed on that planet, and then buggered off?
But then how did life develop for the creators? Was there evolution on their planet, or were they in turn created by another advanced race?
How far back do you go? Is it turtles all the way down[^]? Or are you proposing some actor external to the universe to start it all off? In which case, we're back to religion again.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: It was intended to be a humorous reference
Fair enough.
Quote: your argument is that life started somewhere else, developed advanced technology, created a planet, seeded that planet with fully-formed and unchanging creatures, planted just enough evidence to suggest that life had developed on that planet, and then buggered off?
No, but that is an option. So, is that irrational?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: So, is that irrational?
It seems somewhat unlikely. I'll accept the possibility that the basic building-blocks for life could have arrived on comets, but aliens depositing fully-formed humans on the planet is a step too far for me.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: 1+1=2 is a definition, it is a fact, not a theory.
Yep that is exactly the problem.
People, well educated people, who take some or all of science and exalt it to an absolute Truth because they fail to recognize or perhaps never even learned the basics of which all science is based upon.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: The difference is those are not theories. The analogy isn't quite accurate.
It is in fact basically correct as an analogy.
For the first case, "1 + 1 = 3" one need do nothing more than recognize that one is mostly talking about term definition. I can in fact define "+" to be something else.
For the second that is just politics and is in fact stupid because it was put forth by a politician and not a mathematician. One might as well say that politicians have the right to dictate what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom based on what others think I should be doing...oh wait...they do that don't they?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I can in fact define "+" to be something else.
In that case we would laugh because it has been established as a fact that 1+1=2. It's proof, fact, truth, not theory.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: And that's fine, until they start trying to claim that their religious beliefs have as much scientific credibility as evolution, and should be given equal billing in science lessons.
The problem however is that scientists, almost universally, fail to respond correctly and instead deny the belief at all.
Which does nothing but display their ignorance of science itself.
Those that attempt to prove, scientifically, that the world began 6000 years ago are probably doomed to failure. Those that accept, as a belief, that the world began 6000 years ago and understand the assumptions that one makes for a belief system can go on to have a long career as a evolutionary scientist and risk only ridicule from their scientific peers who do not in fact understand science.
|
|
|
|
|
The Moon is shaped like an egg: it only looks round because the big end points towards Earth.
Shouldn't it be like egg is shaped like moon? I guess Moon existed before eggs did.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I think they need to be more specific about egg-shaped.
Eggs[^]
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Ellipsoid?
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: Half of British Adults don't believe in Evolution? Really? I didn't realise there were so many stupid people.
I don't believe in Evolution.
It's a theory (or a process, whichever) and as such it happens regardless of belief - that is pretty much fundamental to the Scientific Method. A belief is accepting a concept as the truth regardless of evidence or any form of support.
Evolution does not require me to believe in it to work, any more than gravity does (or distortion in space-time if you want to get picky).
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: Americans are one third of the mass of humanity? Possibly, I have seen some big people there.
Not even close. For hand waving purposes I'm assuming an average person weight globally of 100lbs, 6bn total people, and 300m Americans. That'd require an average weight here of ~600lbs or ~300kg; that's into bed ridden and it's only a question of if they'll keel over with a heart attack tomorrow from their next dozen bacon cheese burgers or from terror when their feeder is 5 minutes late returning from McDeaths. That's clearly bullshit; and if America is leading the charge to morbid obesity most of the rest of the rich world is only a decade or so behind us in self indulgent destruction.
Preemptive notice to obnoxious pedants: Significant figures.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
It's not the fact that scientist call it a theory (Which is is, otherwise it would be called the law of evolution; on a side not, I love watching a adamant evolutionist state, "Well it's pretty much a law" but that will be addressed later.
It's not the holes in the theory (personally I think evolution is a pretty good theory as for what we have going)
My problem with evolution, is that fundamentalist bigots are usually on the wrong side. Sure I expect the christian right to by fairly opposed but I have yet to meet an evolutionist who is wiling to concede that it is just a theory and they go to name calling fast. No offense DD but calling people stupid because they don't agree with you is bigotry [but only because of my limited vocabulary], (Yes, yes, I know it is pretty much a law) So my fundamental believe is not in evolution but that evolution fits into a larger puzzle and that only time will tell which it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote: it is just a theory
Every scientist will agree that evolution is a theory. However, the "theory" in "scientific theory" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Dont tell that to Dave 
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes, the argument that I must be wrong because I don't understand the definition of theory. I know where this is going.
I was merely stating a point. But, please, continue to make it for me : )
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea whether or not you understand the definition of "theory" as it relates to "scientific theory". However, from what I've seen, people who say "it's just a theory" are usually equating the word "theory" with the word "guess", which is the wrong definition.
Having the wrong definition of the word "theory" doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but it does make you more likely to dismiss scientific evidence as "guesswork", which would undermine your argument.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I think most educated people understand "scientific theory" as being much much more than guessing; however, that does not change the fact that it is not proof.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: that does not change the fact that it is not proof
So what? We should just give up and believe the same thing as our parents, because a bunch of farmers 5000 years ago claimed that their ideas were "facts" and not "theories"?
A scientific theory may not constitute absolute proof, but until a new theory comes along that better explains the evidence, it's the best we've got.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: We should just give up
Nope. That would be silly.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Nope. That would be silly.
Then we agree - we should continue to build on our scientific understanding of the world, adopting an evidence-based scientific approach.
We also have to accept that the caucus of human knowledge is too great for any one person to know everything. Sometimes it is necessary to accept that evidence - and perhaps proof - exists and can be examined by anyone, even though we might not possess the tools to understand it ourselves.
The only time we need to be concerned is when someone claims that evidence or proof exists but cannot be examined, or when those who are qualified to examine the evidence cannot agree on the cause.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
