{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/31/2014 12:56:14 PM
33
Creationism was never really believed (literally) by Christians until the puritans and evangelicals that came about after the Reformation.
It's super silly, whereas evolution is stone cold fact.
English
-
Not true. The Dark Ages.
-
Even in the Dark Ages most Christian theologians didn't believe the Bible was totally literal, even if they put more trust in it than later.
-
The masses did.
-
>stone cold fact lol
-
Would you like to deny gravity while you're at it?
-
Evolution is a THEORY, not a fact.
-
Yeah, you're right. It is a theory, a SCIENTIFIC theory. Which basically means it's proven to be true.
-
So if it's a scientific theory, it means it's automatically true? Countless scientific theories have been disproven before such as bloodletting, the geocentric solar system model and the static universe theory. Just because something's theory, doesn't make it fact. The ways in which we measure and calculate these theories will always change through our advancement of technology so some of the theories that we all know and accept today may very well be disproven in a centuary or so.
-
Edited by Mr Mulberry: 11/5/2014 3:27:22 PMNo, just people see the word [i]theory[/i] and automatically denounce it's legitimacy. In the scientific world a [i]theory[/i] holds a different definition other than connotation that most people imply. The examples you provided aren't scientific theories. They were ideas backed by little to no evidence other than what the observer thought. No tests were ever conducted and no evidence was ever obtained to prove these thoughts. Evolution? Much evidence backs evolution.
-
I don't completely denounce the legitimacy of evolution, there are pieces of evidence that strongly side with the theory of evolution. But to call it a 'stone cold fact' is ludicrous as we simply do not, and may never fully know enough to fully back this up. It is the most plausible theory we have regarding our origins, but it is not 100% fact. The examples I provided may not be scientific theories by today's standards, but at the time, the way in which these theories were measured and 'proven' were revolutionary. Of course, since then these theories have gone on to be partially or fully disproven. This is exactly what will happen with some of the modern scientific theories we hold dear today. The way in which we have backed up our theories are revolutionary for our time, but in the future, these methods will almost certainly look archaic as we find more accurate ways of testing and proving these theories.
-
[quote]Evolution is a THEORY, not a fact.[/quote] You use the word theory as most ignorant people do, thinking a theory is just an idea. In the scientific world theory =/= fact in terms of definition. Although the difference isn't that substantial it's still a big mistake to make. Going back to your examples, bloodletting wasn't a theory. They didn't test to see if it worked, if so they wouldn't have used the practice as long as they did. A theory also doesn't mean widely excepted. Just because most people thought the earth was flat doesn't mean it was a theory. I'm getting the vibe you don't really understand what a theory is.
-
The definition of theory when used in scientific terms [quote]A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[/quote]
-
All things are theories if you look at them hard enough. You can't say anything is actually a fact, since nothing can actually be proved. It all depends which theory you think is more scientifically sound. Things can be disproved, but you can never truly prove anything; your data can [b]strongly suggest[/b] something, but it can't prove it.
-
Actually, you [i]can[/i] prove things through the use of gathered data, at which point it is known as a scientific law, or a property pertaining to assumed figures supported by physical observation. This includes gravity, conservation of substance, and lots of other things which can be easily proven, we just typically don't know all the mechanics behind as to why one such property remains constant.
-
Edited by The Cellar Door: 11/4/2014 10:42:00 AM[quote]Actually, you [i]can[/i] prove things through the use of gathered data, at which point it is known as a scientific law, or a property pertaining to assumed figures supported by physical observation. This includes gravity, conservation of substance, and lots of other things which can be easily proven, we just typically don't know all the mechanics behind as to why one such property remains constant.[/quote] A scientific law is the same thing as a theory, except a theory explains and a law describes. I don't understand where people get these wild beliefs that a law is all powerful, and that if a theory were to be proven as fact it would become a law. Neither of those statements are the least bit true, [b]a law is simply a byproduct of the scientific method with which [u]describes[/u] a natural, observed phenomenon and is [i]valid until proven wrong.[/i][/b] Replace the underlined word with "explains" and you have a theory. Also, gravity is not a law, it is a concept. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation simply describes, what most people consider today, as gravity, and does not mention the actual word in it's original text. Newton himself could not use f=G((m1•m2)/r^2) correctly because he did not have an accurate value for G, the gravitational constant. More modernly, Einstein's Theories of Special and General Relativity are literally better at explaining what gravity, as a concept, actually is, (It is a byproduct of the curvature of spacetime) in terms of accuracy and understandability. I study this shit for my livelihood, I love physics, so please, for the sake of other people, do not talk out of your ass on a subject like this. It saves you face, and other people from becoming ignorant.
-
But if something new happened tomorrow that changed the way gravity works, would it still be a fact? The problem is that we can never 100% prove [i]anything.[/i] We assume that principles that are highly supported by data are fact, but that doesn't necessarily make them so. It just makes our lives easier. :) Taking any science as a fact is flawed in itself; it would mean you could never expand on that "fact".
-
If something happened that changed the function of gravity, gravity as the human concept would either still remain a fact that objects with a great enough mass would still attract others, although there would be a new factor which was required to solve in order to discover what had caused the gravitational fluctuation. To say that science is not factual is to say that racism is what happens when you eat your food too fast, as science, by definition, is knowledge gained through observations and research of the world
-
I can tell that you're not a scientist, friend. :) No true scientist is silly enough to think that their knowledge is factual/absolute. :)
-
Gravity is also a theory
-
Your point being?
-
Questioning evolution is the same as questioning gravity. Silly.
-
No, it really isn't. It's a lot harder to test the validity of a theory of our origins than a theory about a natural phenomenon that is constantly happening.
-
There is plenty of evidence for both.
-
Read what I said again. There's evidence for both, but we can only really test one of these theories.
-
We can only assume causation, if you want to be pedantic. Either way, it's stupid to doubt evolution.
