|
|
| [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat (658779) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (658784) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 16:46:03 2010, in response to [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Sep 2 16:29:59 2010. Excellent! The republicans now have their 2012 Presidential candidate!
|
|
|
| (658786) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Sep 2 16:48:42 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 16:46:03 2010. I thought the USA had corned the market on ignorant zealous nutcases. I digress. |
|
|
| (658790) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:05:31 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by bingbong on Thu Sep 2 16:48:42 2010. There's not a single Christian denomination in American which claims Biblical proof of a flat earth and sun. At least Christians accept facts that can be easily proven. Evolution, though likely true, is still just a theory, and will remain just a theory until we've been around long enough to catalog it in action. Might take a few hundred thousand years for that to happen. Meanwhile, all we need to do is take a picture from a satellite to prove the Earth is round.One of the biggest misconceptions ever was that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo because he said the sun was at the center of the solar system and not the Earth. The Church had already accepted this fact. What got Galileo in trouble was claiming that the New Testament was wrong when it adopted the Aristotle model as the Gospel Truth. The Church had no problem with science conflicting with dogma, it had a problem with people claiming science was more important than religion. |
|
|
| (658792) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 17:08:08 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:05:31 2010. Pssst! Google is your friend ... plug in "republicans flat earth" and see what happens. :) |
|
|
| (658794) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:12:29 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 17:08:08 2010. Have you been working with those Chinese bots to game Google searches again? Darn, and Google was finally starting to show actual legitimate results for everyone typing in "miserable failure" .... |
|
|
| (658798) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 17:16:37 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:12:29 2010. I've actually been nailing quite a few of them lately and making them eat their raman instead of giggles. But no - giggles works on an algorhythm of "if everybody else jumped off a building, then you want to also" with their results ... the more people that type in stupid shit, the more important it must be. :) |
|
|
| (658802) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 17:18:58 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:05:31 2010. Evolution, though likely true, is still just a theory, and will remain just a theory until we've been around long enough to catalog it in action.Once again you show that you have no idea what a theory is. Evolution is as much of a theory as gravity, and as much of a fact. |
|
|
| (658807) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 2 17:30:01 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:05:31 2010. There's not a single Christian denomination in American which claims Biblical proof of a flat earth and sunThe Bible says the earth is round. |
|
|
| (658809) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 2 17:32:27 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 17:18:58 2010. Wrong again. Theories are not fact. Laws are fact. You even have a degree in any scientific discipline? |
|
|
| (658812) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 17:34:21 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 17:18:58 2010. False. Evolution is a real email program, and included in KNOS ... :)
|
|
|
| (658813) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:34:36 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 17:18:58 2010. That's bunk. Gravity has been demonstrated to exist. It was physically proven during on of the Apollo missions:Relativity was elevated from theory to truth during a 1919 eclipse, when astronomers could actually see light behave in exactly the way Einstein theorized it would. The only way to elevate evolution from theory to fact is to catalog it as it takes place, over time. Like I said, evolution is probably true, heck likely true, but it's not something we can say with absolute certainty. The theory itself has changed dramatically since it was first put forth by Anaximander in the 6th century BC, even many of Darwin's conclusions concerning it have been dismissed by later science. |
|
|
| (658819) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:40:02 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 2 17:30:01 2010. I know. But that was based on an already accepted, rational belief. What this Islamic doofus wants is to get people to believe that the Koran is right and that everything else which proves it wrong is....wrong, and for no other reason than it being in the Koran, uttered by the Prophet.There's no precedent in the history of Christianity which would be analogous to this. Dark aged Christians who lived near the sea knew the Earth was round, they did not need Biblical dogma to convince them of something they could see with their own two eyes. |
|
|
| (658820) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Sep 2 17:40:21 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:05:31 2010. Evolution, though likely true, is still just a theory, and will remain just a theory until we've been around long enough to catalog it in action.Yeah, it is indeed the Holy Spirit that creates drug-resistant mutated bacteria. |
|
|
| (658821) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 2 17:40:36 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:34:36 2010. Correct. There are laws of gravity (they date back to Isaac Newton), but no laws of evolution. |
|
|
| (658823) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 2 17:45:10 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:40:02 2010. Well, when you have concepts of a spherical Earth supported by the likes of Aristotle and Erastothenes (the latter of whom estimated the earth's circumference very closely), it merely speaks to science and scripture agreeing. |
|
|
| (658824) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:45:12 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 2 17:40:36 2010. And there are massive gaps in the fossil record, one so large that the writers of Battlestar Galactica used it to provide a plausible way to end their story. |
|
|
| (658825) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 2 17:46:15 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:45:12 2010. Nah; they stole that from Douglas Adams. (They ended up being analogous to the Golgafrinchans.) |
|
|
| (658830) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:53:20 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 2 17:46:15 2010. I don't think they stole the idea, they merely adopted it because it was the only real way to match actual known fact to the story. The problem with the original story was that humans were not native to the Earth and that we came here from another planet thousands of years ago. Science proves that to be impossible. I had always wondered how the writers would get around this, and I even predicted them using a similar mechanism back when the series debuted. |
|
|
| (658844) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Thu Sep 2 18:51:53 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:34:36 2010. only way to elevate evolution from theory to fact is to catalog it as it takes place, over time.Which they have done, thanks to fossil DNA. Case closed. |
|
|
| (658847) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 19:04:06 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by JohnL on Thu Sep 2 18:51:53 2010. good post. |
|
|
| (658848) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 19:05:02 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 2 17:32:27 2010. If you have such a degree, then I pray that the institution that granted it to you was either a victim of your fraud or it needs to be disaccredited and shut down immediately. |
|
|
| (658849) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 19:07:20 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:34:36 2010. The only way to elevate evolution from theory to fact is to catalog it as it takes place, over time. Like I said, evolution is probably true, heck likely true, but it's not something we can say with absolute certainty. The theory itself has changed dramatically since it was first put forth by Anaximander in the 6th century BC, even many of Darwin's conclusions concerning it have been dismissed by later science.Peppered moths and drug-resistant bacteria are among the examples of ONGOING evolution. And ignoring that, how do you explain fossils? Satan put them there to trick humanity? |
|
|
| (658850) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 19:08:28 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:45:12 2010. BSG pretty much endorsed creationism with their ending, so that's a bad example. I still think it was a good ending, but an analogue to science it is not. |
|
|
| (658856) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 19:16:49 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 19:05:02 2010. University of Phoenix ... |
|
|
| (658858) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 19:20:55 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 19:07:20 2010. Republican jesus says, "Truth! It's biblical!" :)
|
|
|
| (658866) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 19:52:52 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by JohnL on Thu Sep 2 18:51:53 2010. There is no continuous chain in the fossil DNA. There cannot be because there are significant gaps in the fossil records, with hundreds of thousands of years of evolution unaccounted for.I'm not bashing evolution. I believe it to be the most plausible explanation for why life exists. I just don't like people presenting something that is not what they say it is. Evolution is a wonderful theory and most likely true, but it's not verifiable fact. |
|
|
| (658869) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 19:57:11 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 19:52:52 2010. 
|
|
|
| (658879) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Sep 2 20:09:47 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 19:52:52 2010. You just have no clue what "theory" means in science do you?Do you purposely come here to make people laugh at you? |
|
|
| (658884) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 20:13:14 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 19:08:28 2010. I never saw it that way. It accepted that there was something guiding events that was beyond understanding. I saw no difference between this and Star Trek's Q.Besides, how can you do serious anthropology on a planet your species did not originate on? |
|
|
| (658885) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 20:14:35 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 19:57:11 2010. Anyone can make a graph. It's harder to collect physical proof at every single stage of it. |
|
|
| (658886) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 20:16:16 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 19:07:20 2010. Peppered moths and drug-resistant bacteria are among the examples of ONGOING evolution.No, it proves mutation. If man continues to find new medicines to kill drug resistant bacteria, no evolution can take place. |
|
|
| (658887) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 20:18:25 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 19:20:55 2010. Do you ever listen? I believe in evolution. I am not a Bible thumper. Creationism is junk science. We are arguing over how to define evolution. You are saying it is absolute fact. I am saying that it's the most likely explanation. I am not running for a Kansas school board position! |
|
|
| (658892) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 20:31:25 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 20:18:25 2010. Evolution obviously happens and it can explain the descent of many species from one common ancestor. It's possible there's more than one common ancestor, but that doesn't mean that evolution doesn't happen. |
|
|
| (658895) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 20:34:00 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 19:52:52 2010. Look up what theory actually means and then get back to us.Gaps in the fossil record mean nothing. If it opens the door for alternate explanations, why have these alternate explanations not yet been discovered? |
|
|
| (658896) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 20:35:42 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 20:14:35 2010. You don't need physical proof of every stage. That's overkill. |
|
|
| (658897) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 20:39:04 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 20:13:14 2010. There is no room for a guiding force. It's just forcing an explanation in there that's not necessary. Like putting a steam engine in a car that already has an internal combustion engine that powers it fine and no extra power is added. |
|
|
| (658899) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 20:39:46 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 20:16:16 2010. Evolution is mutation resulting in new species. |
|
|
| (658903) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Sep 2 20:47:39 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:34:36 2010. The only way to elevate evolution from theory to fact is to catalog it as it takes place, over time.But it's just a theory This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using. Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory. The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory." A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious. A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well. For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force. There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. It is a synthesis of many scientific fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology, geology, zoology, microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced lamarckism, which replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather), which expanded the ideas of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification of Karl von Linne. (see also: Darwin's Precursors and Influences) So there is the theory of evolution. Then there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists readily admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. |
|
|
| (658907) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Sep 2 20:56:39 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Easy on Thu Sep 2 20:47:39 2010. As if he's actually going to read that. |
|
|
| (658926) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Sep 2 21:31:35 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 17:34:21 2010. thos names remind me of all the names on my email at work. I hope all the Indians aren't taking up two jobs with their record growth from our stimulous. |
|
|
| (658927) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Sep 2 21:32:36 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 19:07:20 2010. dont' bring islam into this |
|
|
| (658937) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 21:54:09 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 20:18:25 2010. I don't believe in evolution myself ... I merely accept it as a likely possibility. |
|
|
| (658948) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Sep 2 23:14:11 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Sep 2 21:31:35 2010. Well ... problem is that they actually do some work. :( |
|
|
| (658976) | ||||||||||||
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
||||||||||||
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Sep 2 23:52:01 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 2 20:35:42 2010. Sure you do, if you're dealing with an idiot.
|
||||||||||||
|
| (658980) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Sep 3 00:18:14 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Sep 2 17:34:36 2010. Except that gravity may not be the incontrovertible fact we take it to be. Certainly Newton's law of universal gravity appears to break down on the scales of galaxies, superclusters, and so on. The currently accepted theory to explain this problem at the largest scales is to introduce Dark Matter, an as-yet unobserved particle with mass, yet little interaction with the matter we can observe. But we can also modify Newton's laws of universal gravitation to make it less universal and instead to vary its effect based on scale. Modified Newtonian Dynamics would result in no visible effect on the scale we deal with, but would result in proper galactic formation without requiring another subatomic particle. MOND doesn't work for simulating superclusters, but it does hold up for galactic formation and rotation speed. Chances are the truth lies somewhere between a rigidly constant universal gravitation with dark matter, and the flexibility of MOND with just the known particles. |
|
|
| (658994) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 3 01:11:27 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by WillD on Fri Sep 3 00:18:14 2010. Informative. Just goes to show that a scientific theory will NEVER be fully understood, so it's foolish to say that evolution is not a fact because we haven't been able to observe everything about it. |
|
|
| (658997) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 3 01:59:06 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 3 01:11:27 2010. No logic in that statement. Nobody said that evolution wasn't necessarily a fact, only that asserting it as a fact is spurious especially in the face of no evidence thereto. |
|
|
| (658998) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 3 02:12:28 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by WillD on Fri Sep 3 00:18:14 2010. The problem there is that they keep trying to find data to support the "big bang" theory and reconcile it with Newton's law, which is still a law certainly on Earth, and can be reconciled with Einstein's "curved space-time". Scientists ought to not take all of their observations for granted from the Earth-centric vantage point; the only way to know for sure is to be out beyond the planet. |
|
|
| (659003) | |
Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Sep 3 03:51:22 2010, in response to Re: [Future] MSNBC debates if the Earth is actually flat, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 3 01:59:06 2010. Nobody said that evolution wasn't necessarily a fact, only that asserting it as a fact is spurious especially in the face of no evidence thereto.Says the person who denies the Bosnian Genocide. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|