I went to Catholic schools and never learned a single thing in my science classes.
Florida, Florida, Florida
- Thread starter CoffeeHorse
- Start date
I'm.... Morbidly curious, but pretty sure I don't want a lot of detail
My curiosity's overriding my need to stay sane. What was being said about "Code of Hero" that revealed creationism to you, Anonymous?
Pretty sure it relates to the proto-humans.
Oh, I was reading the reactions to the episode on usenet, and it was mostly very positive, but I saw some “how dare they treat evolution as fact” responses , about the presence of hominids in the story of the episode, and it turned out that there was a specific belief system denying evolution, which I hadn’t know before.
(Watched the episode a month or two later, after a friend in the States had recorded it on VHS for me, FWIW. I can still see why it’s considered a classic TF episode.)
The series also treats transforming alien robots wearing fursuits as fact, but why bother thinking when it's so much easier to just be mad about things.
Well, technically, evolution isn't a fact, but a theory:
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
So is gravity.
And literally everything else. "Theory" doesn't mean "hypothesis" in the scientific world, because why use a word to mean the same thing it does to the layman when you can just co-opt it to mean something completely different and then get mad at the laymen for continuing to use it the way they always have?
That evolution happens is a fact.
The theory of evolution is the accepted explanation of how it happens...and is literally more certain than the current theory of gravity.
From what I've gathered, gravity is a fact, described by the theory of relativity:
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Evolution isn't a fact though, as it's not been conclusively proven (whereas we can see gravity in action and thus can prove it, I think), but I'm no scientist myself.
I believe there are concrete scientific facts that have been conclusively proven, so if that's true, they not "everything" is a theory, right?
That said, "Intelligent Design" isn't a scientific theory, but rather a "psuedo-scientific argument", right?
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Evolution is a fact. Not even creationists dispute that life has changed over time anymore, they just assert that there are limits to how much...and if they're obnoxious they'll refuse to admit that the word "evolution" applies to the part they do accept. (It does, though.)
Also, speciation has been observed.
Honestly, though, even the specific accepted theory of evolution has more evidence for it than the bare facts about most subjects.
Also, speciation has been observed.
Honestly, though, even the specific accepted theory of evolution has more evidence for it than the bare facts about most subjects.
On the ignore list you go!
We know gravity exists the same as we know evolution exist, do to actual observation. What we know with more certainty is how evolution actually works mechanically(microbes and insects are good test cases). Gravity is a bit harder to crack... Is it caused by warped spacetime as Einstein proposed(and most of the evidence we have suggests) or is it something else. Problem is gravity is SO weak that prodding it's inner workings is extremely difficult at the scales we are able to experiment with.
That's the thing, evolution is a still a (scientific) theory because it hasn't been proven conclusively and it's open to additional facts that might evolve (no pun intended) it. At least, that's what we were taught during science class. This was due to no full "missing links"being found to conclusively prove an organism has evolved from "point A" to "point B".
From what I recall, Darwin's original theory of evolution has been updated several times since it first came out, right?
The problem with those wishing to dismiss it and/or promote intelligent design, is that a "scientific theory" is still light years ahead in proof than an "pseudoscientific argument" , such as creationism, as such an argument lacks any credible scientific methodology, etc.
- https://contemporaryvocabularium.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/theory-vs-scientific-theory/
Edit: -
According to the link below, there are other reasons for why something is a theory, or a "law", too:
- https://examples.yourdictionary.com/scientific-law-vs-theory-how-are-they-different
-
Last edited:
Let's all be nice. Debate the post, not insult the poster.
Every detailed explanation of anything in science is a theory, and there is no theory that wouldn't be modified if we found new relevant data.
That doesn't mean the basics of the theory aren't "conclusively" known...and certainly not that the facts the theory explains are in dispute.
That was already wrong then, and the number of transitional fossils discovered has grown at a rapid pace in recent decades. (Also, these days the genetic evidence is so overwhelming that you could prove evolution without even using any fossils.)
I'll be charitable to your teachers and textbooks and assume it was just that common misunderstanding, where a scientist would say we don't conclusively know that a fossil is the exact ancestor of another organism, and someone would misinterpret that as meaning we didn't even know that it's a close enough relative of the ancestor to be sure of its relevance to how it evolved.
This feels like it's a violation of the first amendment, at very least.
Would you expect anything else at this point from DeFascist?
How is that NOT a violation of free speech? Thankfully I don't live in Florida and have no intentions of visiting it, so I can publish whatever I want, paid or not, about the Fascist in Chief of Florida and his top crony, as long as it's true.