By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - I have never seen an article so offensive to Christianity as this

madman25 on 26 March 2009

This is an instance when it would be wiser for the OP to turn the other cheek. It's been stated multiple times what scientific theory means.
Ditto to Rocketpig's "Creationists deserve to be taken to task for attempting to fuck up our childrens' educations."
I just hope every child would continue to question religious dogma and not blindly accept what parents/church state as fact. I started asking uncomfortable questions about religion when I was about 13 and am so glad I had the courage of my convictions.



Playing: Borderlands(great co-op,HUGE amount of content),Too Human(better late than never lol),Saints Row 3(Penetrator ftw),Minecraft 360,Harry Potter Lego. 

Patiently waiting for:  Tomb Raider, Borderlands 2

Around the Network
appolose on 26 March 2009

As much as I hesitate to say this, it's too often ignored: evolution (at least, most of the idea) is wholly unscientific. Observability, testability, repeatability, and falsifiability are the hallmarks of the scientific method, and not much of these can be applied to a large amount of evolutionary work (as much of it deals with the past). So much of it can't be called a theory, and certainly not science.

That doesn't necessarily destroy any certainty in evolution, but as many of you are moved to demonstrate the definition of theory, this might be a good thing to know.

One might call it a "historical" theory (in the branch of historical science), but that would be quite different than the word "theory" in the phrase "theory of gravity".



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
The_vagabond7 on 26 March 2009
appolose said:
As much as I hesitate to say this, it's too often ignored: evolution (at least, most of the idea) is wholly unscientific. Observability, testability, repeatability, and falsifiability are the hallmarks of the scientific method, and not much of these can be applied to a large amount of evolutionary work (as much of it deals with the past). So much of it can't be called a theory, and certainly not science.

That doesn't necessarily destroy any certainty in evolution, but as many of you are moved to demonstrate the definition of theory, this might be a good thing to know.

One might call it a "historical" theory (in the branch of historical science), but that would be quite different than the word "theory" in the phrase "theory of gravity".

Sorry Appolose but this post is only ignorance. Go read "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne and then come back and say that it hasn't been observed, tested, isn't repeatable and is unfalsifiable. I could make a long post as to all the things that have been done within the theory but you really just need to read up on it instead of get a couple of tidbits. But what you said isn't even close to true.

You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

The_vagabond7 on 26 March 2009

I'll check on this later tonight, as I'm sure this topic will go on for a while (always does) as for now I'm going to go grill some salmon.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Words Of Wisdom on 26 March 2009

I'm surprised a thread mentioning evolutionary theory has gone this long without someone posting a pokemon picture and annoying everyone in it.



Around the Network
appolose on 26 March 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
appolose said:
As much as I hesitate to say this, it's too often ignored: evolution (at least, most of the idea) is wholly unscientific. Observability, testability, repeatability, and falsifiability are the hallmarks of the scientific method, and not much of these can be applied to a large amount of evolutionary work (as much of it deals with the past). So much of it can't be called a theory, and certainly not science.

That doesn't necessarily destroy any certainty in evolution, but as many of you are moved to demonstrate the definition of theory, this might be a good thing to know.

One might call it a "historical" theory (in the branch of historical science), but that would be quite different than the word "theory" in the phrase "theory of gravity".

 

Sorry Appolose but this post is only ignorance. Go read "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne and then come back and say that it hasn't been observed, tested, isn't repeatable and is unfalsifiable. I could make a long post as to all the things that have been done within the theory but you really just need to read up on it instead of get a couple of tidbits. But what you said isn't even close to true.

 

 Of course it's true; we're talking definition here.  Nothing said of history can be called science (and, thus, theory), as it instantly falls outside of the hallmarks of science.  I'm not saying that history shouldn't be trusted therefore, I'm saying it's just not science.

And I did say most of evolution isn't science; I'm aware that aspects of evolution could well be qualified as science (observing evolution in a present-day species), but I'm referring to the historical positions of evolutionary theory (I use the word loosely here).



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
appolose on 26 March 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
I'll check on this later tonight, as I'm sure this topic will go on for a while (always does) as for now I'm going to go grill some salmon.

 

 Yeah, I imagine I just started a 4 day post war :(



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
luinil on 26 March 2009

Words Of Wisdom said:

I'm surprised a thread mentioning evolutionary theory has gone this long without someone posting a pokemon picture and annoying everyone in it.

Is this better?



Luinil - Marisa (FE:SS). She's calm, collected, and really likes swords. (Courtesy of Words of Wisdom)
Tag: luinil - "Liberalism is a mental disorder." - Thanks fkusumot!
The_vagabond7 on 26 March 2009
appolose said:
The_vagabond7 said:
appolose said:
As much as I hesitate to say this, it's too often ignored: evolution (at least, most of the idea) is wholly unscientific. Observability, testability, repeatability, and falsifiability are the hallmarks of the scientific method, and not much of these can be applied to a large amount of evolutionary work (as much of it deals with the past). So much of it can't be called a theory, and certainly not science.

That doesn't necessarily destroy any certainty in evolution, but as many of you are moved to demonstrate the definition of theory, this might be a good thing to know.

One might call it a "historical" theory (in the branch of historical science), but that would be quite different than the word "theory" in the phrase "theory of gravity".

 

Sorry Appolose but this post is only ignorance. Go read "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne and then come back and say that it hasn't been observed, tested, isn't repeatable and is unfalsifiable. I could make a long post as to all the things that have been done within the theory but you really just need to read up on it instead of get a couple of tidbits. But what you said isn't even close to true.

 

 Of course it's true; we're talking definition here.  Nothing said of history can be called science (and, thus, theory), as it instantly falls outside of the hallmarks of science.  I'm not saying that history shouldn't be trusted therefore, I'm saying it's just not science.

And I did say most of evolution isn't science; I'm aware that aspects of evolution could well be qualified as science (observing evolution in a present-day species), but I'm referring to the historical positions of evolutionary theory (I use the word loosely here).

 

Sorry, but that's just a splitting of hairs. I guess a large portion of cosmology isn't science either. I mean the big bang happened 14 billion years ago, I guess it's untestable whether or not it really happened. I guess we can assume that the universe exploded into existence 14 billion years ago based on the piles of evidence, and test predictions that should be true based on that model, but that's not really science now is it?



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

rocketpig on 26 March 2009

Using that thinking, a huge chunk of astonomy, geology, and a handful of other sciences aren't really "science", either.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/