• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

lomiller said:
Scientific theories can be challenged only if you have a body of data that contradicts it.
Click to expand...
Wrong. If an alternative theory is equally consistent with existing data and makes the same predictions as the original theory then both theories are equally valid. Occam's Razor usually applies in a case like this.
 
psionl0 said:
As usual your claim is that if there are two scientific theories about the same thing then one of them must be religion.
Click to expand...

What a load of of horse-cock!

Firstly, biblical creation is NOT a scientific theory, its religious dogma anchored in faith, fantasy and fairlytales for which there is ZERO evidence.... None! Nada! Zip! Not a ******* skerret!

Secondly, no-one... absolutely no-one here has suggested, or even implied that scientific theories which compete with an accepted theory, are religion.... you are simply straight up, bare faced lying about that. Science doesn't work the way you are saying. It is a self correcting process that welcomes competing, theories that are supported and substantiated with evidence and facts.

Lastly, competing scientific theories happen all the time. There are plenty of examples of this, and none of them are regarded as "religion". Classical Newtonian mechanics, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are good examples of this. ALL three are theories and ideas which compete to explain aspects of space and science. In fact, Classical mechanics is still used in the calculation of Ephemerides for sky observers because the additional accuracy afforded by accounting for relativistic effects is not worth the extra effort. As an amateur astronomer, I don't need to know the rise and set times for the Moon and Mercury down to the last millisecond. A planetary scientist/engineer however, calculating the orbital trajectory of a probe to Mercury WOULD need that extra accuracy.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
And what are those two theories? Can you even identify them?

1. Evolution
2. ???

Care to fill in the blank?
Click to expand...

Could be one of....

Lamarckism
Catastrophism
Orthogenesis
Vitalism
Structuralism
Saltationism

...all of which have been thoroughly debunked for over a century


But, you and I both know what he's really driving at, don't we? ;)
 
psionl0 said:
I mention "two scientific theories". Somebody says "religion". You say "nobody says religion". You are clearly on auto pilot.
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
That doesn't mean that contemporary theories must be regarded as sacrosanct. All theories should be subject to change if or when new data is discovered.

Otherwise, science is just another religion (Science be praised).
Click to expand...

:)
 
abaddon said:
And what are those two theories? Can you even identify them?

1. Evolution
2. ???

Care to fill in the blank?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Let's repeat this question. What other scientific theory do you (psionl0) have in mind?

While waiting for your response I'll just reiterate that there aren't any. And in anticipation of your lying in response I'll point out that does not mean it is "sacrosanct". All the debates about evolution now are within the theory. For examples: were Neanderthals and sapiens capable of interbreeding to the point that they should be consider the same species? That's a debate within evolution. And it would be great if our science classes could get to the point that it's feasible to teach that relativity advanced concept in public schools.

Would you (psionl0) like to include outdated theories? Feel free. Explaining how they were rejected would be great. But again, that requires just getting the basics in first.
 
Right now, Psion sounds exactly like the Hydrino/BLP gang on Reddit.

Extremely educated people (some of them post on this very forum) tell them again and again and again that the math behind hydrino is faulty and they respond with "The Church of QM must not be questioned" (again and again and again)
 
I really get the feeling that people are talking at cross-purposes here. But surely nothing should be taught as belief handed down from on high. To understand, you must teach the reasoning behind the resulting theory.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Yeah. Let's repeat this question. What other scientific theory do you (psionl0) have in mind?
Click to expand...
It has been mentioned before that there is no such thing as a single fixed theory called evolution (or an "official" theory of evolution).

This subject has been done to death in other threads and is OT in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom