Tennessee passes bill allowing bullying to other LGBT students

[SeventhSandwich]

So you're telling me you know the origin of the universe and not some stuff based on assumption?

No, I wasn't talking about the origin of the universe and if you knew even some rudimentary basics about the theory of evolution, you'd recognize that it doesn't cover the origin of the universe either.

Everything is based in /uncertainty/ in science. When you read a scientific paper, data is accompanied by a p-value confidence interval that represents how certain you can be in the data. If it's 0.05, that means that you can be 95% certain that the data (whatever it is in the paper) is accurate of a representative sample.

[Ad Bot]

[Mega-Bear]

So you believe in evolution? Thats a big surprise (not really at all). There are also people out there who think that Creationism is true and have every right to promote it as a fact.

So basically you're not really open minded at all and you are all for promoting things that would prevent people from having access to a view that opposes yours.

You're warping the concept of open mindedness. Being open minded means you're willing to listen to new ideas. I know what creationism is: a supernatural explanation of natural processes.

Creationism is not a legitimate viewpoint. It relies on un-falsifiable stories for support. It has no evidence--in fact, the vast majority of everything we know about biology, geology, and cosmology directly contradicts it.

Removing creationism from schools isn't being close minded. That's a fallacy. Creationism is a religious concept that has been proven wrong. Teaching it in schools wouldn't be promoting some sort of middle ground. Halfway between the truth and a lie is still a lie.

opinion

No, it is true.

either side knows jack stuff

You're an absolute idiot. Fields of science thrive off of studying evolution. There are thousands of research papers and experiments and skeletons that point to evolution as a real phenomena. Saying scientists don't know stuff is ignorant and nothing more.

So you're telling me you know the origin of the universe and not some stuff based on assumption?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Supported by:
- Cosmic background radiation
- Redshifted celestial bodies
- Expanding universe
- The entire field of cosmology

before the big bang, an all-powerful being created that... thing, whatever it was, that would become the big bang
I can say that
that would be a creationist belief
and you can't prove it wrong

(I don't really believe that, but that's not the point. I don't really believe in anything)

That's not creationism, that's deism.

[Night Fox]

That's not creationism, that's deism.

okay, I see. but I'm almost entirely sure that he meant such a thing, too. and besides, I could also say that however many thousands of years ago, some being created everything, and then gave the celestial bodies all that movement and stuff that we use as evidence for the big bang. can't prove that wrong either

[SeventhSandwich]

Yes yes, you beleive it and you're studied into it and you think its true. Good for you.

I don't 'beleive'[sic] in evolution. It's supported by all evidence that organisms undergo changes in genetic traits over time, and the theory of evolution explains how that happens. It's by far the most well-substantiated explanation for this phenomenon, and until science refines it into something different, it's what should be taught as science in public schools.

can't prove that wrong either

Asking people to 'prove things wrong' is really stupid. Here's a fantastic example for why this line of reasoning is ridiculous:

"Prove reindeer can't fly"

Okay, so if you want to start to try proving 'reindeer can't fly' you'd start by throwing reindeer off a roof top. After throwing 300 of them off the roof, none of which start flying, you still haven't proven that they cannot fly. This is because 'what if maybe the reindeer /decided/ not to fly?'. Or what if 'maybe the reindeer can only fly on Tuesdays'. In fact, if you threw millions of reindeer off a roof on every different day of the week and every different time, you still wouldn't have proven that they 'can't' fly because the question is stupid.

The problem with asking people to prove things false is that it's unfalsifiable. If you ask someone to prove reindeer /can/ fly, and you throw reindeer off a roof, if none of them start flying, you're shown that "so far, reindeer haven't been shown to be able to fly".

Does this clear it up?

[Lockebox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Supported by:
- Cosmic background radiation
- Redshifted celestial bodies
- Expanding universe
- The entire field of cosmology

Supported but not proven. Naturally. You can point to me that manatees exist and its proof of the origin of the universe being from manatees and their gassy farts.

Boom pow, explosion and suddenly planets life biological organisms, microbodies,

You're using stuff around you to theorize what happened before, thats good, but it doesn't mean its right. Therefore its unproven, therefore its debatable.

I don't 'beleive'[sic] in evolution. It's supported by all evidence that organisms undergo changes in genetic traits over time, and the theory of evolution explains how that happens. It's by far the most well-substantiated explanation for this phenomenon, and until science refines it into something different, it's what should be taught as science in public schools.

Big shocker, Creationists have put things forth that can be considered well substantiated. They're in just as much of the same position as the rest of every other beleif on the planet. They have an idea but not well proven. Nobody has a leg up over anyone. Beliefs are received through social popularity.

[Night Fox]

I don't 'beleive'[sic] in evolution.

wow, okay, that's what we're doing now? whining about typos? you do believe in it though. statistics are enough of a reason to believe that something made it the way it was

[Mega-Bear]

can't prove that wrong either

And that's why it can't be passed off as truth. It is unfalsifiable. Science only accepts ideas that can be proven wrong in some way. If it can't be proven wrong, it's a supernatural explanation and isn't real science.

Supported but not proven. Naturally. You can point to me that manatees exist and its proof of the origin of the universe being from manatees and their gassy farts.

Boom pow, explosion and suddenly planets life biological organisms, microbodies,

You're using stuff around you to theorize what happened before, thats good, but it doesn't mean its right. Therefore its unproven, therefore its debatable.

It's still the absolute best model the human race has built to explain the origin of the universe. All aspects of the theory have been scrutinized and peer-reviewed. It fits with all known physical laws.

Of course it's debatable, all scientific concepts are debatable. But the big bang is our best explanation for the origin of the universe, and no one has come up with anything more likely. So yeah, I guess it might not be right. But it's more likely to be right than any pseudo-scientific bullstuff someone off the street can parrot.

[SeventhSandwich]

Supported but not proven.

Science doesn't aim to prove anything. You are a patent example of a person who doesn't really understand how the scientific method works at all.

Okay, so is the theory of gravity just supported, and not "proven"? Sure, everything ELSE seems to move in accordance with gravity existing, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Is germ theory just supported, not "proven"? Sure, there are diseases that are linked to germs, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Is pasteurization just supported, not "proven"? Sure, every time it's been done it kills nearly all harmful agents, but that doesn't mean it's right.

This is an example of a person who /does/. Do what Char is doing.

wow, okay, that's what we're doing now? whining about typos? you do believe in it though. statistics are enough of a reason to believe that something made it the way it was

Believing in an explanation as indisputably and imprescritably true is unscientific because science aims to refine its explanations.

Creationists have put things forth that can be considered well substantiated. They're in just as much of the same position as the rest of every other beleif on the planet.

This is not true, and I'm willing to bet you cannot cite a well-designed experiment that supports this claim.

Beliefs are received through social popularity.

Okay, so by your logic, the Earth was flat during the middle ages, but as soon as >50% of people started believing that it was round, the entire dimensional structure of the Earth converted to a sphere because of the new paradigm.

[Char]

I can't loving believe there are people saying evolution is not fact but there are always people to deny science...
And by the way, "creationism" doesn't just refer to believing that everything was created.

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX8RpvQfjdupAKFWKjtMhTe

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_descent
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

So you're telling me you know the origin of the universe and not some stuff based on assumption?

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, nor the origin of life. Evolution explains the diversifying of life once life appeared.
If you're going to pull a "list of scientists that reject evolution" thing on me, here.

okay, I see. but I'm almost entirely sure that he meant such a thing, too. and besides, I could also say that however many thousands of years ago, some being created everything, and then gave the celestial bodies all that movement and stuff that we use as evidence for the big bang. can't prove that wrong either

You don't have to disprove a claim with no evidence.

Supported but not proven. Naturally. You can point to me that manatees exist and its proof of the origin of the universe being from manatees and their gassy farts.

Boom pow, explosion and suddenly planets life biological organisms, microbodies,

You're using stuff around you to theorize what happened before, thats good, but it doesn't mean its right. Therefore its unproven, therefore its debatable.

Okay, so is the theory of gravity just supported, and not "proven"? Sure, everything ELSE seems to move in accordance with gravity existing, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Is germ theory just supported, not "proven"? Sure, there are diseases that are linked to germs, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Is pasteurization just supported, not "proven"? Sure, every time it's been done it kills nearly all harmful agents, but that doesn't mean it's right.

[Ninja Decoy]

You say that like it's no big deal.

Oh, I do think of it as a big deal, just didn't word it right.
I wouldn't want my child to grow up in a school that actively tells students to follow a specific religion and i wouldn't want my child to be forced to pray for something they don't believe in.

[Lockebox]

Science doesn't aim to prove anything. You are a patent example of a person who doesn't really understand how the scientific method works at all.
Why exactly do we use words like proof or fact then? If the scientific method isn't there to prove anything why is it such a horrific thing to do to question the living stuff out of it? People get into an outrage over it too easily.
Believing in an explanation as indisputably and imprescritably true is unscientific because science aims to refine its explanations.
This is not true, and I'm willing to bet you cannot cite a well-designed experiment that supports this claim.
Uh oh, looks like someone from the OPPOSING side has disbelief in its enemies. Of course I don't, because I'm not a Creationist. However, there is a website that actually Lists experiments done by researchers with Creationistic views.
http://creation.com/

But if its not your belief its not allowed to hold ANY credibility whatsoever. Just assume they are idiots and be on your way. As SOOo many people do. War is a bitch isn't it? when everyone thinks the other person is the badguy. You are bound by the enemy complex.

Okay, so is the theory of gravity just supported, and not "proven"? Sure, everything ELSE seems to move in accordance with gravity existing, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Is germ theory just supported, not "proven"? Sure, there are diseases that are linked to germs, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Is pasteurization just supported, not "proven"? Sure, every time it's been done it kills nearly all harmful agents, but that doesn't mean it's right.

They problem here is everything listed can be examined here and now. With living witnesses. A big explosion of the past can't be observed, so there is a difference in "proof". Its just that biiiiiiiiig convenient time gap you guys always have.

[Char]

But if its not your belief its not allowed to hold ANY credibility whatsoever. Just assume they are idiots and be on your way. As SOOo many people do. War is a bitch isn't it? when everyone thinks the other person is the badguy. You are bound by the enemy complex.

...um

no

not at all

[Mega-Bear]

Why exactly do we use words like proof or fact then? If the scientific method isn't there to prove anything why is it such a horrific thing to do to question the living stuff out of it? People get into an outrage over it too easily.

You're misunderstanding Sandwich. Science doesn't aim to prove anything in particular, meaning scientists don't set out with a pre-defined conclusion or end result in mind. After the scientific process has run its course, however, we end up with facts and proof.

But if its not your belief its not allowed to hold ANY credibility whatsoever.

Wtf? There's a huge difference between conflicting with my standpoint and having no credibility whatsoever. I think triceratops had quills on its back, but the opposition think it didn't. We're both credible because there's evidence supporting both of our stances.

Creationism just has no evidence at all.

[Georges]

Creationism just has no evidence at all.

Don't really want to get involved in an argument, nor do I want to start any, but this isn't true. Just because you don't know of any/haven't been taught about it doesn't mean it exists.

[Lockebox]

Creationism just has no evidence at all.

Lol, once again, it seems like you're definitely not studying much into your oppositions claims and beliefs. EVERYONE makes this mistake too easily. They're not JUST saying a space god made everything. They actually do the same thing as "credibility scientists" do and pull from the things around them to make a legitimate point. But often they go ignored because "flying space god".