Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Bill Nye the science guy owns creationists.

Page 2 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

01 Dec 2013, 10:04 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:
Is a Theory really a conclusion?


Yes. Or, at least, the result of many conclusions.

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

Wikipedia wrote:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

01 Dec 2013, 10:28 pm

Anyone can own creationists. My own dog can own them.



TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

02 Dec 2013, 2:31 am

VIDEODROME wrote:
sliqua-jcooter wrote:
To accept science, and more specifically the scientific method - you would have to reject evolution based on logic, but prove it with evidence, experimentation and observation. A scientist with a hypothesis, a conclusion, and no evidence connecting them is a philosopher.


Even if Evolution is still just a Theory and not concrete enough to be called a Law?


VIDEODROME, there is much confusion among the general public regarding the relative status or veracity of scientific laws versus scientific theories. Theories do not become laws, and in some ways a scientific theory is stronger than a law, not weaker. Also, the use of the word "law" is unfortunate because to many people that automatically implies a lawgiver. Scientific "laws" are just observed regularities of nature.

I found the following on a .edu website (the quoted material is the last paragraph from http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html):
Ronald H. Matson wrote:
Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature "conform" to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don't conform.


_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

03 Dec 2013, 10:48 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UmllHcOYcA[/youtube]These people are soo stupid..Im sorry they are! :lmao: Keep up the good work Bill!


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

03 Dec 2013, 4:47 pm

AspieOtaku wrote:
These people are soo stupid..Im sorry they are! :lmao: Keep up the good work Bill!


Some creationists may be stupid, some may even be insane, but most people who deny the reality of evolution do so because they have been very badly misinformed about this subject. Creationist sources concerning evolution are among the most blatantly dishonest sources of information I have ever encountered on any subject. Besides ignoring, distorting or denying the truth about the actual evidence for evolution, creationist sources are also notorious for their practice of "quote mining." The way they cherry pick parts of quotations out of context to misrepresent what the full quotation actually says is incredible.

Needless to say, if someone trusts these creationist sources as their sole source of information on this subject then of course they will make very stupid statements. Garbage in, garbage out. Such sources shame Christ by spreading falsehoods in His name. Most Christian denominations either accept the fact evolution happens or say it doesn't matter to their faith, but the very vocal fundamentalist minority makes all Christians look really stupid.


_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008