Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you don't believe in evolution, you do NOT believe in science, period.
That depends on if you are referring to the theory of evolution or the theory of how life began. Some levels of evolution can be demonstrated, but the creation of life from basic gases has not.
Last night's episode of Cosmos was awesome and I’m happy to see that science isn’t allowing itself to be intimidated by dogma. Evolution is fact and everyone who isn’t a religious zealot knows it.
Zealots. Yes. I appreciate the fact that you don't bundle all religious people together considering that many of us embrace and support science. I'm a believer and don't see any reason to put down science just because of that fact. Long live science and hopefully it will always be ethical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzmeister
Last night's episode of Cosmos was awesome and I’m happy to see that science isn’t allowing itself to be intimidated by dogma. Evolution is fact and everyone who isn’t a religious zealot knows it.
Last night's episode of Cosmos was awesome and I’m happy to see that science isn’t allowing itself to be intimidated by dogma. Evolution is fact and everyone who isn’t a religious zealot knows it.
No, most people engaging in this type of discourse understand how science works just fine. Yes, it is self "correcting" but still always open ended...
What scientists fail to admit is that this is a perfect environment to rip off the general publics pockets and it is the perfect political tool. They also don't like to discuss flaws with peer review, the "opaqueness" of the fields (particle physics/astrophysics in particular), and how MOST of the world simply cannot replicate or test what is being told to us.
Science means presenting an alternative theory that is better proven than our existing understanding of the universe. Science is not just lazily whining "nuh uh" in response to something one prefers not to hear.
Not necessarily. For all of the whining about how Bruno wasn't a scientist, and thus didn't belong on COSMOS, it's worth recalling that Einstein came up with Relativity in a similar manner - using thought experiments, assuming that Newton's laws were outdated and Electromagnetic Theory was correct (the two were impossible to reconcile), and ignoring the majority thinking that said that it was EM theory that must be wrong. It wasn't until later that scientists were able to run actual experiments in order to test Einstein's theories, and to verify them to any extent. He was certainly more rigorous than Bruno was, but Einstein's theory still came down to a guess.
I said before that the segment on Bruno was focused on the sense of awe at the sheer immensity of reality, and that's true. But it's also true that the series is an answer to what it's creators see as a rising tide of anti-scientist and anti-intellectualism in the US, and frankly, it's not their fault if religion lies at the heart of much of this. I would expect that the episode on global warming will call out the obvious profit interests of the leaders of the denial movement (eg. Coal mining companies - by the way, ever notice how the deniers can never actually name a benefit that climate scientists would get by pushing climate change as a theory?)
That depends on if you are referring to the theory of evolution or the theory of how life began. Some levels of evolution can be demonstrated, but the creation of life from basic gases has not.
Evolution doesn't even attempt to explain where life came from so you are, idiotically, whining that it didn't do something it was never designed to do or even tried to do. Do you also claim to not believe in cars since they don't fly? I mean that's also something they weren't ever designed to do.
All you are doing is displaying your ignorance because, yes, if you're anti-evolution then you are anti-science and nothing in modern biology makes sense.
Last night's episode of Cosmos was awesome and I’m happy to see that science isn’t allowing itself to be intimidated by dogma. Evolution is fact and everyone who isn’t a religious zealot knows it.
As anyone who has ever watched a science documentary knows, evolution is always presented as fact. This episode was no different. I especially loved the way he talked about artificial selection and natural selection. The dog being domesticated from the wolf as artificial selection, and the arctic bear turning white to better catch pray in the snow as natural selection.
It was done better than in the original series, though the story of the people in Japan believing that the Samarai warriors killed in an ancient sea battle turned into crabs and the people seeing their faces on the crabs and consistently throwing those crabs back into the water was a very interesting story on the original series.
I may just have to get my kids to watch the original series on Netflix this summer, if it's still on there. I know it was a few months ago. Hopefully it won't seem too dated after watching the updated version.
[quote=Hadoken;33923722]Not necessarily. For all of the whining about how Bruno wasn't a scientist, and thus didn't belong on COSMOS, it's worth recalling that Einstein came up with Relativity in a similar manner - using thought experiments, assuming that Newton's laws were outdated and Electromagnetic Theory was correct (the two were impossible to reconcile), and ignoring the majority thinking that said that it was EM theory that must be wrong. It wasn't until later that scientists were able to run actual experiments in order to test Einstein's theories, and to verify them to any extent. He was certainly more rigorous than Bruno was, but Einstein's theory still came down to a guess.
I said before that the segment on Bruno was focused on the sense of awe at the sheer immensity of reality, and that's true. But it's also true that the series is an answer to what it's creators see as a rising tide of anti-scientist and anti-intellectualism in the US, and frankly, it's not their fault if religion lies at the heart of much of this. I would expect that the episode on global warming will call out the obvious profit interests of the leaders of the denial movement (eg. Coal mining companies - by the way, ever notice how the deniers can never actually name a benefit that climate scientists would get by pushing climate change as a theory?)[/quote]
On this I have to disagree. There have been plenty of arguments that the benefit climate scientists get is that they get to keep their jobs. If it was proven that man's contributions to climate won't have the catastrophic effects previously claimed, then what need for whole colleges on the subject or the numerous grants the colleges get for their research?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
