BIG-o-try

[D H]

I agree with what swansont said. A moderator's job is to look for violations of the rules. Getting facts wrong is not a violation of the rules in and of itself. Misleading or incorrect facts are against the rules only if they construe a fallacy. This site would have far fewer members if getting one's facts wrong were a rules violation all by itself.

 

Regarding the post in question, if Hellbinder had said 99% of all biologists rather than 99% of all scientists he would have been on solid ground. What is going on here is a quibbling with words, and excuse my shouting, five year old words at that.

[eleven]

Evolution is just a theory, it makes sense; however, so does creation by an omniponent. I don't see why one towers the other, seeing as you require the creationist view to even proceed with scientific experiments. Without religion being invented, we would have never proceeded with science. Religion is the backbone for order, initial advancement + control as well as many other important factors to building a civilization. Science basically repents religion, or better said, had repented religion to take steps in learning about creation. Religion taught a religious-science view on life; then in came government and money, along with science. If no-one ever said, "there's a God", science would have never said, "there is no God," and continued experimenting against the rules of religion.

 

What came first, Religion or Science? Religion. They are opposite ends of the bridge, and they rarely cross each other as the beliefs are totally different. As science repents relgion, it kills it slowly, as the money introduced gives power to one and not the other. Science is taught in schools as that's where the money is, and religion is ridiculed using stupid stories and inputs from religious-dumb people. A government-educated religious person is in-fact dumb compared to a true educated-religious person - you rarely see a religious-smart person, they're usually priests muttering a stupid fictional story, in place of the correct more-scientific(religious) version.

 

So a creationist view is just as justified as a scientific view. A creationist view looks at the big picture while science looks at each individual microscopic micro-picture. An example:

 

Religion: What goes up, must come down.

Science: What goes up is a result of Gravity blah blah blah, neutrons and quarks blah blah blah - it's nothing special just a bunch of blah blah blah.......

 

Each has there own input on life, but to class religion as 'not-science' is unfair, disrespectful and evil. As religion is the backbone for any science to become possible - if it wasn't for religion I doubt humans would have made it where they are today. It must have got to the point where another factor needed to be introduced, so science came in for profits and advancement. That's probably the cause of the 3rd Reich - I doubt hitler killed the Jews for the simple fact they believed in an omniponent, there must have been other factors, like the way they repented science, etc. I wouldn't be surpised, with the amount of budding religious smart people lately, if the 4th reich occured - however that's just me looking at previous events and comparing them to the events I see occuring at this moment, as well as revelations.

 

tl:dr no.

edit:

-1 rep (scientist)

+1 rep (creationist)

perfect example

Edited August 4, 2010 by eleven

[ydoaPs]

Evolution is just a theory

Ugh. Learn what science is and what the word 'theory' means. Then get back to us. A 'theory' is far from a baseless guess.

 

I don't see why one towers the other

Evidence

 

seeing as you require the creationist view to even proceed with scientific experiments.

Um, no.

 

Science is taught in schools as that's where the money is, and religion is ridiculed using stupid stories and inputs from religious-dumb people.

Science is taught not because "that's where the money is", but rather, because it is the only known method of obtaining knowledge of the world. It is basically checking your answer.

 

PS₁->TT₁->EE₁->PS₂

 

Given a Problem Situation(PS), we come up with Tentative Theories(TT)[tentative theories can range from hypotheses to actual theories] which we then subject to Error Elimination(EE) via testing predictions. How do we test predictions? We can't do it by proving the positive:

 

If P, then Q

Q, therefore P

 

Is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. The reason that it works is that there could be any number of reasons for Q aside from P. If we see Q exemplified, it could be because P is true, but it could also be due to a different reason and P happens to be false.

 

We test our tentative theories by proving the negative.

 

If P, then Q

Not Q, therefore not P

 

We perform our Error Elimination testing by setting up situations P, based on predictions produced by our Tentative Theory, and observe to see whether or not Q is exemplified. If Q is not exemplified, then we know our TT is wrong or at least not entirely correct; it needs replaces or refined. How do we know if it it needs replaced or refined? Well, many sciences have the great fortune of having a very precise mathematical underpinning such that we can predict Q accurately(and with a known allowable margin of error for the TT) based on the P from the TT. We can quantitatively see if we are close or orders of magnitude off the mark. This one test alone, however, is not sufficient to provide absolute validity for our TT as there is no viable method of induction; we must continue to test or TT and eliminate options to raise our confidence in our TT.

 

Theories such as Evolution and Relativity have been so accurately and exhaustively tested that it is absurd to think that they are flat out wrong. However, there's always room for refinement.

 

Now let's look at creationism as a TT and we're going to perform EE.

 

If the universe is only 6000 years old, then the farthest we can see out is 6000 light years.

We can see mind bogglingly farther than 6000 light years.

Therefore, creationism is falsified.

 

Creationism has been falsified extensively. In fact, for it to be true, pretty much every single area of science must be wrong.

 

So a creationist view is just as justified as a scientific view.

No, not at all. Evidence > make believe.

 

A creationist view looks at the big picture while science looks at each individual microscopic micro-picture.

Again, no.

 

Each has there own input on life, but to class religion as 'not-science' is unfair, disrespectful and evil

Not at all.

 

You're fractally wrong.

[eleven]

What you've just produced is a classic technique me and my brothers like to call: "No u!". This debate is possible as we're talking about Religion and Science. So what you've done is completely disregard previous events, beliefs and great people to come up with your own interpretation of what you believe religion is. You've already shown in amongst other threads that you don't take relgion seriously, and that you have a breif understanding of what God represents. You are science-smart, where as I am religion-smart - you're interpretation of relgion is false, where as my interpretation of science is correct. I enjoy science and agree that to advance it is required - however, to say that religion is a bunch of ideas with no premise is wrong.

 

The God you interpret is nothing like the God me and many others interpret. Just because you can ask, "Oh, well how can you say I'm wrong and you're right?", does not mean that religious claims are incorrect - highly misoverstood if anything. It's been poisoned, diluted and edited over the last few generations. People running round in capes and large pointy hats preaching to people, "believe in this man in the sky," and science standing in the background snickering, "there is no God! hehehehe," like little naked-mole-rats. If you can't take religion seriously then you're not religious smart; therefore you view on religion is invalid, and any supposedly scientific view you have on religion is false.

 

Religion brought humanity to a certain point where we couldn't advance no more. Then science was introduced to continue advancement. Religion believes "1" created something - it doesn't mean that the "1" religion explains is a man sitting on a cloud, or a flying spagetti monster (I like this one), or a magic pencil. It just means 1, and from that belief came life-experiments, where the prophets would experiment, just like science, using this omniponent view.

 

At whatever point science was introduced, it repented religion to move forward. Religion came before science and no matter how much you troll and throw insulting science-proud pictures at it, you're never gonna lose it - it's always here because it's the basis to your view, until you gain victory, keep your paycheck and kill off religion. It's unfair, wrong and all you're doing is 'not-believing' as 'believing' is what you're repenting. You understand, I explained correctly, I don't even need to see your reaction to know the impact it has on your brain. I can also predict that you'll come back with a statement like: "Which God? Hmmm? Spagetti monster?" or "No, science is nothing like religion, religion is a fictional story, hehehe" or something insulting. Doesn't work with me. I'm immune and religious-smart.

 

You say that religion has no evidence?

I'm here though, and I think. I can see whats outside because my eyes are attracted to whatevers there. If I ask you how did nothing becoming something? You say "LOL I DUNNO, not God," therefore your argument falls down, cause no matter if you prove evolution right, I can still say, "God did it". You have no proof of 'nothing', you have no proof of 'God'. Therefore it's 50/50. I don't lose, I gain benefits - A much more beautiful outlook on life, my morality is stable, I have no respect for money and I admire all of creation. Where as you repent that, you love money, you love destroying the planet to make equipment to reach space, you don't care for starving children, you'd rather explore space (what us religious-smart people already know about). Do you see where you stand with us? I repent you as you repent me. You're evidence does not prove God doesn't exist, in-fact it just shows Gods creation. You're essentially prooving genesis as you go along and you have no clue about it as you still interpret any religious book you see as a fictional story - when someone says that to you, you say "because that's what it is, a work of fiction".

 

"God exists" - Religion

"God doesn't exist" - Anti-Religion

 

Some scientists are relgious - doesn't change a thing. All that means is they're putting "faith" into something that is truly more scientific. If you can't put trust and know God is there 100% how can you say you 'believe' in God, as oppose to "Maybe". It's stupid to have faith at all - you either do believe or you don't.

 

You never look at the possiblities in life. You see a tree as: wood and leaves. I look at the tree and see a creation, I see a possiblity, a pattern in life. It looks like a tree, It's not just a peice of wood and leaves, because they're not seperate - it's a thing, it's a possiblity. As well as the sky, I look up and see a blue sky. I think "WoW beautiful, how on earth was this designed?" where as you say it's a structure of the atmosphere or something scientific. That does not prove God doesn't exist, it just explains God's creation.

 

You take religion as some kind of joke. Patrolling these boards taking part in every religion thread you see, using "No U" on every post and claiming "Troll" or "Dumb", then getting a few people on your side to argue the point, resulting in thread closure. You don't discuss religion, you ridicule it and pass it off as nothing serious. Shame on you for doing so - however, you're free to do so. Just don't think after you click that submit button that I walk away feeling down about my beliefs, because I sit here laughing at yours.

Edited August 4, 2010 by eleven

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

eleven, what you have just posted is a giant ad hominem and strawman attack on ydoaPs, ignoring the valid points he made (such as the nature of science) to laugh at him instead. You claim ydoaPs is "free" to call people dumb, ridicule posters, and pass off arguments as "nothing serious," when of course those are the exact things the staff try their very hardest to stop.

 

Incidentally, those are the same crimes you have just committed in your post. If you're going to make an off-topic debate, please be civil about it, and preferably do it in its own topic.

[ydoaPs]

You've already shown in amongst other threads that you don't take relgion seriously, and that you have a breif understanding of what God represents.

Oh? Really? Try actually reading my posts and get back to me.

 

You are science-smart, where as I am religion-smart

Based on your limited number of posts, I don't think you're either. It also seems that you may be a sockpuppet which is against forum rules.

 

The God you interpret is nothing like the God me and many others interpret. Just because you can ask, "Oh, well how can you say I'm wrong and you're right?", does not mean that religious claims are incorrect - highly misoverstood if anything. It's been poisoned, diluted and edited over the last few generations. People running round in capes and large pointy hats preaching to people, "believe in this man in the sky," and science standing in the background snickering, "there is no God! hehehehe," like little naked-mole-rats. If you can't take religion seriously then you're not religious smart; therefore you view on religion is invalid, and any supposedly scientific view you have on religion is false.

You've obviously never read my posts.

 

I'm in Ignostic Agnostic Weak Atheist. Now, let's break that down a bit.

 

Atheism is an umbrella term that encompasses a gradient of positions. Atheism is just a response to theism. Theists say "One or more deities exist". And atheism is just people saying "I don't believe you." This can take on varying degrees of forcefulness(ranging from Weak Atheism: "I don't believe deities exist" to Strong Atheism:"I believe that no deities exist.") Weak Atheism(the core of atheism) obviously requires no faith and as such is often blatantly ignored by theists. Strong Atheism, on the other hand, requires just as much faith as theism. All that defines an atheist is that they do not answer "yes" when asked "Do you believe in the existence of one or more deities?".

 

"Agnostic" is a term that is misused as nausium. I suspect that it is mostly due to the social stigma(which is thankfully somewhat receding) of the term Atheist. Agnostic is a modifier of the terms Theist and Atheist, and as such cannot stand on it's own. You either believe in the existence of one or more deities, or you don't; there is no middle ground. Atheism and Theism are the only options. Agnosticism is merely one flavour of the choices. "Agnostic" merely means that one believe that one cannot know whether or not deities exist. Thus, one can be an Agnostic Theist(believe one or more deities exist, but it is impossible to know for a fact that this is the truth) or one can be an Agnostic Atheist(lack a belief in deities, but also believe it is impossible to know whether or not deities exist), but one cannot JUST be an Agnostic. There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief; you either believe or you lack belief.

 

Much of the previous, for me at least, hinges on the Ignostic part. Ignosticism basically means that the question of whether or not deities exist is irrelevant until we can come to an agreement on a coherent concept of what a deity is. How can I know if something exists if I don't know what it is supposed to be?

 

I hold that religious claims need not necessarily be excluded from science. In fact, I want them to be included in science, as I want to be able to know if they're true. The discussion on whether or not deities exist is a discussion about the nature of the universe and should fall into the realm of science. Many religions make claims that can be investigated using science(as it should be). Was there a global flood 4000 years ago? I don't know, let's make predictions and test them.

 

A god whose existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence isn't very godlike at all, imo.

 

 

Religion brought humanity to a certain point where we couldn't advance no more. Then science was introduced to continue advancement. Religion believes "1" created something - it doesn't mean that the "1" religion explains is a man sitting on a cloud, or a flying spagetti monster (I like this one), or a magic pencil. It just means 1, and from that belief came life-experiments, where the prophets would experiment, just like science, using this omniponent view.

Religion has no method of validating its ideas whereas science does.

 

it's the basis to your view

Not in any way. Notice how you didn't actually address my post, but rather made more condescending remarks and blatantly false claims(repeating many).

 

I can also predict that you'll come back with a statement like: "Which God? Hmmm? Spagetti monster?" or "No, science is nothing like religion, religion is a fictional story, hehehe" or something insulting. Doesn't work with me. I'm immune and religious-smart.

Go read my posts. Until then, you have zero basis for pretending you know me. Edited August 4, 2010 by ydoaPs

[eleven]

I see a reoccuring pattern. I think you claim that ad hominem in every religion topic at some point. None of his points were valid, they're beliefs/false interpretations. That's like me saying, "God exists," - to which you reply, "No he doesn't," and then me debating and you clearly saying "You're ignoring contradicting evidence. There is no contradicting evidence, only contradicting to your interpretation. Also he did call religion stupid, using a differen't method, look at his choice of words. Obviously you're biased to his view - well that's unfair, so when I reply with a 50/50 insulting + contradicting post you should judge us both fairly. Just because you agree with one and not the other doesn't mean you should give one harsher treatment. Ironic topic name.

 

I'm discussing, debating - not insulting. I'm staying on level with his technique. He want's to show confidence in his views, and pity to mine - I can show the exact same confidence and compete with his view. If I don't do this then I seem weak and foolish like most of the religious people you scare of. Ad hominem again? No, truth. Stop claiming that to posts that are simply defending religion, especially when you sit there insulting it and passing it off as fiction in the view of many religious folks... Geeez, you have to be fair and just.

 

Atheism is a spawn of science/education. It comes with the science package I explained.

What you're essentially doing now is saying that I'm wrong and you're right. That's not reading my posts, thats repenting them... Come on, how many times do I need to explain to you? You repent my belief, because my belief is that of a true religious-smart person. I believe in God, you weakly believe in God. That's stupid, listen, you can't sit there and tell me my beliefs are false when you have a weak-belief in God - because I have full-belief in God. You have weak-belief because of science, nothing else. If you weren't taught science, you would be taught religion. Damn. You can't expect me to take your posts seriously when you pass mine off as false. That's 'no-discussion' that's bigotry.

Edited August 4, 2010 by eleven

[swansont]

eleven, what you have just posted is a giant ad hominem and strawman attack on ydoaPs, ignoring the valid points he made (such as the nature of science) to laugh at him instead. You claim ydoaPs is "free" to call people dumb, ridicule posters, and pass off arguments as "nothing serious," when of course those are the exact things the staff try their very hardest to stop.

 

Incidentally, those are the same crimes you have just committed in your post. If you're going to make an off-topic debate, please be civil about it, and preferably do it in its own topic.

 

And it is the frequency of such transgressions in the past which contributed toward the attitude that we not entertain discussions about the topic.

[ydoaPs]

I see a reoccuring pattern. I think you claim that ad hominem in every religion topic at some point. None of his points were valid, they're beliefs/false interpretations. That's like me saying, "God exists," - to which you reply, "No he doesn't," and then me debating and you clearly saying "You're ignoring contradicting evidence. There is no contradicting evidence, only contradicting to your interpretation. Also he did call religion stupid, using a differen't method, look at his choice of words. Obviously you're biased to his view - well that's unfair, so when I reply with a 50/50 insulting + contradicting post you should judge us both fairly. Just because you agree with one and not the other doesn't mean you should give one harsher treatment. Ironic topic name.

 

I'm discussing, debating - not insulting. I'm staying on level with his technique. He want's to show confidence in his views, and pity to mine - I can show the exact same confidence and compete with his view. If I don't do this then I seem weak and foolish like most of the religious people you scare of. Ad hominem again? No, truth. Stop claiming that to posts that are simply defending religion, especially when you sit there insulting it and passing it off as fiction in the view of many religious folks... Geeez, you have to be fair and just.

 

Atheism is a spawn of science/education. It comes with the science package I explained.

What you're essentially doing now is saying that I'm wrong and you're right. That's not reading my posts, thats repenting them... Come on, how many times do I need to explain to you? You repent my belief, because my belief is that of a true religious-smart person. I believe in God, you weakly believe in God. That's stupid, listen, you can't sit there and tell me my beliefs are false when you have a weak-belief in God - because I have full-belief in God. You have weak-belief because of science, nothing else. If you weren't taught science, you would be taught religion. Damn. You can't expect me to take your posts seriously when you pass mine off as false. That's 'no-discussion' that's bigotry.

I suggest that you back up your claims about me. Thanks.

[Mr Skeptic]

Evolution is just a theory, it makes sense; however, so does creation by an omniponent.

 

I wouldn't call creation by an omnipotent a theory, not even a hypothesis. It would have to make predictions. No predictions --> no hypothesis. Its just useless nonsense. "A literal interpretation of the Bible" would be a hypothesis, since it makes predictions (wrong predictions such as the genetics restrictions Noah's ark would require).

 

I do think these things count. I just disagree that this is the proper resolution to the issue. Editing a member's post for inaccuracy is, IMO, a huge deal. Moderators are simply not empowered to do this — we have a moderation policy, and it is centered on rules violations — those are the only threads we edit, and then it is to delete passages that violate rules (e.g. advertising links, smut, flaming)

 

But the nature of that thread is different than from most. It looks to me as the posts on that thread are speaking more on behalf of SFN than saying their own thing.

[eleven]

I wouldn't call creation by an omnipotent a theory, not even a hypothesis. It would have to make predictions. No predictions --> no hypothesis. Its just useless nonsense. "A literal interpretation of the Bible" would be a hypothesis, since it makes predictions (wrong predictions such as the genetics restrictions Noah's ark would require).

 

The fictional story you're seeing is nothing like the non-fictional story I'm seeing. I understand the bible quite well. I've read it time and time again, I interpret it as something other than a story - and it makes sense to interpret it that way, (wisdom) we're talking about creation, so keep it simple, the first steps in time (genesis 1). It's not like god is sat in a cloud and suddently it creates a planet and heavens in the first few seconds. God does it bit by bit - what's wrong with this view? Not the educated one?

 

It's repenting, that's all you're doing. I don't believe you - you don't believe me. Let's leave it at that?

 

[Emilio Primo]

I wouldn't call creation by an omnipotent a theory, not even a hypothesis. It would have to make predictions. No predictions --> no hypothesis. Its just useless nonsense. "A literal interpretation of the Bible" would be a hypothesis, since it makes predictions (wrong predictions such as the genetics restrictions Noah's ark would require).

 

 

So what would you call dark matter, black holes, big bang theory?

[ydoaPs]

So what would you call dark matter, black holes, big bang theory?

Odd that you would pick things with evidence and predictive power as your comparison.

[Emilio Primo]

Odd that you would pick things with evidence and predictive power as your comparison.

 

How so? What is the evidence for these?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I suggest you try searching the Internet, or, if that fails, open another topic to ask, because this is completely unrelated to the question at hand.

[Emilio Primo]

I suggest you try searching the Internet, or, if that fails, open another topic, because this is completely unrelated to the question at hand.

 

It's a simple question, but the reason why I ask is because how do we know(we as in Science) that black holes and dark matter do exist, when neither have never been observed or studied.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's a simple question, but the reason why I ask is because how do we know(we as in Science) that black holes and dark matter do exist, when neither have never been observed or studied.

 

As I said, you should search the Internet first:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210173609.htm

 

An international team of scientists has observed four super-massive black holes at the center of galaxies, which may provide new information on how these central black hole systems operate.

 

So, er, yeah. If you want to ask more about dark matter, black holes, or whatever else, open a new topic. Dark matter has similar evidence for it if you just do a search.

[Emilio Primo]

As I said, you should search the Internet first:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210173609.htm

 

 

 

So, er, yeah. If you want to ask more about dark matter, black holes, or whatever else, open a new topic. Dark matter has similar evidence for it if you just do a search.

 

 

So do they actually see the black hole, or do they see the effects of what they call a black hole?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I did say, "If you want to ask more about dark matter, black holes, or whatever else, open a new topic."

[PlutoXid3]

The thread was locked because it was not meant as a discussion. We don't do creationism here; as a discussion it's been covered in ample detail elsewhere and the claims thoroughly debunked. It's unlikely there is any new ground to cover. Creationism as scientific inquiry is on the same scrap heap as astrology and other pseudoscience. Calling it bigotry is misguided; science isn't tolerant of crap. It's not a democracy.

Hold up! You don't do creationism or astrology?! Is this an anti-religious site? I'm lost and confused. Evolution cannot be proved and it's just as much 'pseudoscience' as claiming Pluto did it. I'm unsure of the rules. Could someone tell me the law on discussing creationism and astrology -- furthermore what is pseudoscience?

[ydoaPs]

Hold up! You don't do creationism or astrology?! Is this an anti-religious site? I'm lost and confused. Evolution cannot be proved and it's just as much 'pseudoscience' as claiming Pluto did it. I'm unsure of the rules. Could someone tell me the law on discussing creationism and astrology -- furthermore what is pseudoscience?

Your sock smells, puppet.

[PlutoXid3]

Your sock smells, puppet.

 

Your sense makes, none. Are you a mental case?

[ydoaPs]

Evolution cannot be proved and it's just as much 'pseudoscience' as claiming Pluto did it.

Not at all. I'm going to go ahead and quote myself a bit as I already discussed this in this very thread. Scienceis the only known method of obtaining knowledge of the world. It is basically checking your answer.

 

PS1->TT1->EE1->PS2

 

Given a Problem Situation(PS), we come up with Tentative Theories(TT)[tentative theories can range from hypotheses to actual theories] which we then subject to Error Elimination(EE) via testing predictions. How do we test predictions? We can't do it by proving the positive:

 

If P, then Q

Q, therefore P

 

Is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. The reason that it works is that there could be any number of reasons for Q aside from P. If we see Q exemplified, it could be because P is true, but it could also be due to a different reason and P happens to be false.

 

We test our tentative theories by proving the negative.

 

If P, then Q

Not Q, therefore not P

 

We perform our Error Elimination testing by setting up situations P, based on predictions produced by our Tentative Theory, and observe to see whether or not Q is exemplified. If Q is not exemplified, then we know our TT is wrong or at least not entirely correct; it needs replaces or refined. How do we know if it it needs replaced or refined? Well, many sciences have the great fortune of having a very precise mathematical underpinning such that we can predict Q accurately(and with a known allowable margin of error for the TT) based on the P from the TT. We can quantitatively see if we are close or orders of magnitude off the mark. This one test alone, however, is not sufficient to provide absolute validity for our TT as there is no viable method of induction; we must continue to test or TT and eliminate options to raise our confidence in our TT. There's vast difference between a constantly tested and never falsified theory and a wild guess; suggesting otherwise is extremely intellectually dishonest.

 

Theories such as Evolution and Relativity have been so accurately and exhaustively tested that it is absurd to think that they are flat out wrong. However, there's always room for refinement.

 

Now let's look at creationism as a TT and we're going to perform EE.

 

If the universe is only 6000 years old, then the farthest we can see out is 6000 light years.

We can see mind bogglingly farther than 6000 light years.

Therefore, creationism is falsified.

 

Creationism has been falsified extensively. In fact, for it to be true, pretty much every single area of science must be wrong. If evolution is wrong, how do you explain the results of the Lenski experiment.?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm unsure of the rules. Could someone tell me the law on discussing creationism and astrology -- furthermore what is pseudoscience?

Spotting Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience for the Responsible

Why Has My Post Been Moved to Speculations?

Welcome, Creationists, to ScienceForums.Net

All of which are found stickied in the pseudoscience board.

In addition, we have Forum Rules and Forum Etiquette Guidelines. If you have any issues or questions, you can also Contact A Staff Member.

[PlutoXid3]

Thanks sir ~_~

 

I understand scientific method -- evolution doesn't fall into that category as you cannot manually experiment on it. I was just surprised that evolution is okay whilst astrology isn't. We came from a meteor, which most likely came from a star - if anything astrology is the most important factor of evolution -- from the cell stage to the mammal stage. Anyhoo! Understood. I'll hang around for a bit longer to get to know the jist of things around here.

 

 

^PoX3.

[AzurePhoenix]

Thanks sir ~_~

 

I understand scientific method -- evolution doesn't fall into that category as you cannot manually experiment on it. I was just surprised that evolution is okay whilst astrology isn't. We came from a meteor, which most likely came from a star - if anything astrology is the most important factor of evolution -- from the cell stage to the mammal stage. Anyhoo! Understood. I'll hang around for a bit longer to get to know the jist of things around here.

 

 

^PoX3.

Do you know what evolution is? o.O