Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 23, 2014 at 1:34 pm)Harry37 Wrote: I'm quite aware of how they spell it in the U.K. (which, btw, includes Canada, New Zealand and Australia). As with so many other things, you missed the point of the comment.
Which is that science and evolution are scary things and not to be trusted.
(November 22, 2014 at 4:44 pm)Harry37 Wrote: Dear atheist acquaintance:
I appreciate the definition of "theory" that you provided from the National Centre for Science Education - whoever they are. The Centre's definition proves my point. Notice that it says the theory's "explanation" can include facts, laws, INFERENCES, etc. What is an inference? And the word, "CAN," demonstrates that the theory might have some facts in it, as well as other things including "inferences." Therefore, a theory isn't a 100%, absolute fact. Nice try, though.
No, a theory isn't a fact, because in scientific terms theories outrank facts. A fact, if you'd bothered to follow the link, is "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” ". Theories can include facts, laws, inferences etc but theories themselves are not any of those things. For example, gravity, evolution, plate tectonics are all facts - the theory of gravity, theory of evolution, theory of plate tectonics etc are models which explain how those facts operate and allow predictions based on that knowledge. There is no higher accolade in science.
To think of something as 'just' a theory is to call a world-class athlete as 'just' a gold medal winner, or a lifesaving drug treatment as 'just' a cure for cancer.
Nice try, thoiugh.
(November 22, 2014 at 4:44 pm)Harry37 Wrote: BTW, I found your "Centre." It's located here in the states, so you misspelled "Center."
That the best you got? So I'm English. Great, you caught me. And?
Grow up.
(November 22, 2014 at 4:44 pm)Harry37 Wrote: It also heads its website with the statement: "Defending the Teaching of Evolution and Climate Science." So much for its objectivity.
When did I say they were objective?
Objectivity is important in any discussion where one wishes to learn and discover. The implication of subjectivity is, "Don't bother me with truth."
(November 22, 2014 at 4:44 pm)Harry37 Wrote: So long, "neighbour."
(November 22, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Stimbo Wrote: No, a theory isn't a fact, because in scientific terms theories outrank facts. A fact, if you'd bothered to follow the link, is "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” ". Theories can include facts, laws, inferences etc but theories themselves are not any of those things. For example, gravity, evolution, plate tectonics are all facts - the theory of gravity, theory of evolution, theory of plate tectonics etc are models which explain how those facts operate and allow predictions based on that knowledge. There is no higher accolade in science.
To think of something as 'just' a theory is to call a world-class athlete as 'just' a gold medal winner, or a lifesaving drug treatment as 'just' a cure for cancer.
Nice try, thoiugh.
That the best you got? So I'm English. Great, you caught me. And?
Grow up.
When did I say they were objective?
Objectivity is important in any discussion where one wishes to learn and discover. The implication of subjectivity is, "Don't bother me with truth."
Cheerio, cuz.
Sayonara
Hide tags are your friend.
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay
0/10
Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
(November 11, 2014 at 2:33 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Wow, prof. Just wow. You do understand how plate tectonics work and how that relates with the age of the fossils to determine when mountains were formed, right? You do know the planet has been changing since the beginning of its existence, right? That piece of 'remarkable evidence' is so unremarkable that the only results for googling them are literally all creationist shill sites. There's nothing in your post that is even remotely relevant to your implication, let alone controversial.
Why don't you have that scientific perspective on Genesis 1?
November 29, 2014 at 11:12 am (This post was last modified: November 29, 2014 at 11:12 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Plants appear on day three....the sun.....day 4. It's magic from root to stamen C4. A "scientific perspective" doesn't accommodate magic.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Even more impressive if those days were ages, or aeons or whatever, instead of actual twenty-four-hour periods. Those plants must have been even more desperate than me by Thursday.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'