Flat Earth Society

---

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: unsupervised Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: OldFolksHere's the reason it's important to not devalue science and let just any theory into the classroom, i.e. intelligent design. ...or evolution. and all those other stupid theories... inertia, gravity, and such. Nah...intertia and gravity have been proven. See...that's the difference between a theory and a fact. I like how you think that a theory can become a fact. Science works differently in your head, doesn't it my elderly friend?

Originally Posted By: damienWoo-hoo! Another evolution/creation/science argument!I was SO hoping there would be another one soon! Stop being such a buzz-kill!

Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: damienWoo-hoo! Another evolution/creation/science argument!I was SO hoping there would be another one soon! Stop being such a buzz-kill! Actually, I was just thinking how interesting it would be if I really jumped into this thread and started arguing for evolution and against natural selection. That might at least make it interesting, no?

if it ever became a purely intellectual debate instead of a bunch of kids jumping up and down and crying, then it would be interesting

Originally Posted By: damien Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: damienWoo-hoo! Another evolution/creation/science argument!I was SO hoping there would be another one soon! Stop being such a buzz-kill! Actually, I was just thinking how interesting it would be if I really jumped into this thread and started arguing for evolution and against natural selection. That might at least make it interesting, no? Actually, I'd argue the same thing. Most folks on this board can't seem to separate the two, though.

Originally Posted By: thorActually, I'd argue the same thing. Most folks on this board can't seem to separate the two, though. Too right Thor.Damien, if you want to argue for Evolution and against Natural Selection then feel free to do so. The problem is, and this will trouble Thor greatly, your argument has to be completely logical and backed up by evidence. We're talking about a physical mechanism, not the philosophy of evil, so there can be no appeals to the unknown. You either have evidence and tests to support your hypothesis, or you have nothing.

Most don't seem to know what a Scientific Theory is either.

Though I find it ironic that you were criticizing evolution in previous posts as opposed to natural selection.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousDamien, if you want to argue for Evolution and against Natural Selection then feel free to do so. The problem is, and this will trouble Thor greatly, your argument has to be completely logical and backed up by evidence. We're talking about a physical mechanism, not the philosophy of evil, so there can be no appeals to the unknown. You either have evidence and tests to support your hypothesis, or you have nothing. See...there's the problem, Bob. How can you expect me to levee an adequate argument for evolution using logic and evidence, without appeals to the unknown?Bwahahahahahaha!!!I'm kidding...I'm kidding...

Originally Posted By: CiderThough I find it ironic that you were criticizing evolution in previous posts as opposed to natural selection. As I've already stated, most folks don't know enough to separate the two. They are both taught together in school, you know. See how that works?

Modern Problem: Everyone's an Expert By Jeremy Hsu, Staff Writerposted: 04 March 2009 12:59 pm ETModern society depends on experts, or people with specialized skills and experience in certain areas. But scientists have found a growing number of people challenging their expertise, even on issues where strong scientific agreement exists.For instance, parents and child advocates have continued to argue that some vaccines may cause childhood autism -- despite overwhelming medical evidence showing no link. That has led to cases where unvaccinated children unwittingly caused outbreaks of diseases that had largely disappeared from modern life."The prospect of a society that entirely rejects the values of science and expertise is too awful to contemplate," said Harry Collins, a social scientist at Cardiff University in the U.K., in a commentary for this week's issue of the journal Nature.Collins suggests a possible start to a solution -- reconsidering how we think about scientific expertise.Who's an expert?People have different levels of expertise, Collins noted. This can range from the lowest-level "beer mat" knowledge of scientific facts useful for playing Quizzo or "Jeopardy," to the highest level of professional scientists who contribute to research.Most people know to rely on the highest-level practicing experts, whether they're getting medical attention for a broken leg or finding an electrician to do the wiring in a house."I'm going to ask someone who knows about it rather than choose my mum," Collins told LiveScience.Even Holiday Inn Express' "Stay Smart" ads get their humorous kick from turning assumptions about experts upside down. "You trainers are saviors, man," says a basketball player in one TV spot. "Oh, I'm not a trainer ... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night," responds the man working on the player's leg – to which the player looks confused and a bit terrified.That same bewilderment might describe scientists' reactions to lower-level experts who have emerged on issues such as autism, HIV/AIDS and climate change. Public debates on these issues run the whole gamut of scientific knowledge, and people aren't necessarily listening to those with the most scientific expertise.Sorting through controversySome non-scientists do achieve fairly good understandings of science, whether it's "popular understanding" from reading sites such as LiveScience, or even "primary source knowledge" from reading journal articles published in Science and Nature.But work by Collins and others suggests that lower-level experts run into trouble on disputed science issues, without full working knowledge of the details and not having spent years in the scientific community. That may lead them to latch more readily onto minority scientific opinions which don't fit well into overall scientific understanding of a particular area.In those cases, a person with primary source knowledge may not understand the underlying science much better than a chess novice understands a bishop's move, Collins said.Science, not scriptureCollins added that scientists can also do better in communicating their expertise to the public. Trying to convey science as an absolute truth or revelation – not unlike religious truth – ultimately backfires because science is uncertain and constantly changing. And besides, he noted, it smacks of hubris that most people have little patience for."You do have people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking presenting the kind of model of science that is damaging; the old 'revelation of mystery,' doctrinaire atheism stuff which implicitly claims that science can authoritatively solve all cultural problems," Collins said.Dawkins has become known as an evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist who often spurs controversy with his criticism of religion. Hawking is a renowned theoretical physicist who has written several popular science books, but whom Collins describes as fostering a "science that looks more like religion, including himself as an icon."However, many scientists take great pains to carefully stress the uncertainties of their work. That may provide the middle road for a modest science that can impress with its values – open debate and understanding based on observation, theorization and experimentation."Science’s findings are to be preferred over religion’s revealed truths, and are braver than the logic of skepticism, but they are not certain," Collins writes. "They are a better grounding for society precisely, and only, because they are provisional."

3 words...Beer Pong Herpesyup, everyone is a fucking expert

"Hawking is a renowned theoretical physicist who has written several popular science books, but whom Collins describes as fostering a 'science that looks more like religion, including himself as an icon.'"I can see that seeing as every single book that I've seen of his has his picture as the cover.

Then why perpetuate this misunderstanding by referring to one as the other?What do you think is the driving force of evolution, then?

Originally Posted By: CiderThen why perpetuate this misunderstanding by referring to one as the other?So people understand what you're talking about without your having to go into a mile-long explanation every five minutes. I don't know about you, but I haven't got the time. Quote:What do you think is the driving force of evolution, then? Intelligent design...God. Period.

And your evidence for this?

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

And your evidence for this?

The Bible has more and more of it's history scientifically confirmed as factual (mostly through archealogical digs) every day. The same cannot be said, to any degree, of natural selection. Use that as a starting point...

Darwin appears on wall.

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobaliciousAnd your evidence for this? The Bible has more and more of it's history scientifically confirmed as factual (mostly through archealogical digs) every day. So you think God is the key to evolution?Torah, Bible and other holy books..........human existence outdates the books. They can prove some historical facts stated in the books but are not proof enough to believe God is the key to our existence. I wouldnt believe that God would be the key to evolution

I cant believe this.........A stain!!!........and people flock over like its a holy place or something .........well I am gonna a make stain of some great man on a wall and earn money selling everybody tickets to see it

Originally Posted By: SayaI wouldnt believe that God would be the key to evolution I'd bet my life on it.