Author Topic: Tennessee passes bill allowing bullying to other LGBT students  (Read 9860 times)

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.

I welcome anyone to point me in the direction of science in support of creationism. I'd be amazed if there wasn't more reputable research that overrules it.

EDIT:

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".

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There's nowhere near enough evidence to support the idea that a god created everything in its current form 6000 years ago, or that evolution has never happened, or that Pangaea never existed.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 08:15:47 PM by Mega-Bear »

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".


This

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.
Teach us, teach us!

Quote
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.
Proof and evidence in general conversation mean about the same thing. In science, you can only substantiate an explanation. The more evidence you have for it, the more confident you can be that the explanation represents reality. You cannot /prove/ an explanation because there's always uncertainty.

Furthermore, people do not get outraged when people question science. In fact, skepticism is one of the most integral parts of how science works as a community. Peer-review is where experts in a field criticize the stuff out of a paper until they're sure that it's quality(simplified explanation). Scientists get ticked off when people who don't know how science works make criticisms that don't make sense, like the whole "prove creationism false" argument.

Quote
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.

I don't consider creationism as a model to be impossible. It's sure /possible/ that a bearded guy in the sky drove evolution and set all of the evidence for evolution down as a 'trap' to catch non-believers, but how /likely/ is that? The only thing we can know about nature is what we can observe and brown townyze through science. So far, there is no evidence at all that creationism is the explanation for why genetic frequency changes over time in organisms, and I don't /think/ that's going to change soon.

Also, after giving a cursory look over that website, I wasn't able to find any experiments done by researchers that support creationism. If you could send me a direct link to the article, I would be really glad.

A big explosion of the past can't be observed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background



Just to clarify, you don't necessarily need to observe things with your eyes and ears. You can use instruments to observe things too far away or too small for your eyes to do the work.

I welcome anyone to point me in the direction of science in support of creationism. I'd be amazed if there wasn't more reputable research that overrules it.
I bet i can throw my ball farther than your ball, and if yours goes farther, i'll just think up an even better ball that flys farther. But then YOU will think of a better ball that goes farther than mine. But then ILL-

yeah beliefs are a clusterforget of headless chickens running around

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.
I don't see any way to prove the big bang wrong?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_descent
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
somehow I doubt that website is unbiased. wikipedia is certainly better
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

and their creationism article is a joke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
just compare the lists of references, lol

somehow I doubt that website is unbiased.
It's completely biased. Rationalwiki is basically encyclopediadramatica for science fans. You shouldn't take it seriously and only read it for fun.



WELL

HOT

DIGGIDY

DAWG


I'm sorry but, there is no reason why ANYONE running around with belief in Christianity or The Big bang has a right to tell the other that they are not allowed to teach their beliefs in schools.

somehow I doubt that website is unbiased.

You're right, it is biased. Towards science.


WELL

HOT

DIGGIDY

DAWG

You know why it's "assumed" to be left over from the Big Bang?
BECAUSE THE MODEL loving PREDICTS THE BACKGROUND RADIATION AND THEY FOUND IT

You're right, it is biased. Towards science.

You know why it's "assumed" to be left over from the Big Bang?
BECAUSE THE MODEL loving PREDICTS THE BACKGROUND RADIATION AND THEY FOUND IT
SO IT MUST BE FROM THE BIG BANG GREAT SCOTT CALL THE PRESIDENT

Or maybe it came from something else?????

You're right, it is biased. Towards science.
it's not science if it's biased ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't see any way to prove the big bang wrong?
The concept is more of "could this potentially one day be disproven/tested" more than "can it currently be disproven/tested."

DAWG
Data always carries some measure of assumption. If you ask 10,000 randomly selected individuals what their shoe size is, you can be pretty confident that the measurements you get will be similar to the ones everyone on Earth has because you took a large, representative sample. Sure, there's still a chance that your randomly selected individuals were all people with genes that gave them abnormally small feet, but since you selected 10,000 people, you can be reasonably confident that didn't happen.

On a similar note, there's other reasons why we can confidently assume that the CMBR comes from the Big Bang, which are discussed in the article if you read farther than a paragraph down.


I only take knowledge with a grain of salt if it doesn't include a word with the 3 letters ass in it. Either that or if its observable.

I don't see any way to prove the big bang wrong?

Yeah, but you also come from a background of having zero cosmological experience.

1. Provide a contradiction of Hubble's law. This would support the idea of a steady-state universe.
2. Provide a contradiction of Olbers's Paradox. A dark night sky supports the idea of an expanding universe.

The concept is more of "could this potentially one day be disproven/tested" more than "can it currently be disproven/tested."

Wrong, see my above two examples. There are more where those came from. "Could this potentially one day be disproven/tested" is unscientific because it implies scientists are doing guesswork and sticking with a conclusion that has no supporting evidence.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 08:26:47 PM by Mega-Bear »