Creationism in science classes

[Mycernius]

Theories are what they are, an educated guess, drawing conclusions. I can accept that, why can't we co-exist?

A scientific theory is not a educated guess or a drawn conclusion. A scientific theory is a collection of laws that are similar and come under a theory. For example the Laws of Gravity come under the theory of Gravitation. A scientific theory is as close as you can get to the truth.

 

[Malamis]

For a distressingly insightful artistic summation of this whole (thematic) debate, I would direct you to Tim Kreider's Science V.S. Norse Mythology, and point out that folk genuinely complained against the portrayal of Odin in a sacrilegious manner, as well as a syndicated newspaper lampooning their religious beliefs.

Fundy though I may be, the fact is that the ID trying to be imposed is not science, as in it does not present a catalog of independently verifiable reactions & events, exhortation to method or the rigor of politics in the field. While poking holes in prevailing scientific theory is of itself a good thing regardless of the field ( if it cant withstand it, its to be discarded or revised after all) doing it out of vindictiveness and in the hopes of solidifying (or at this point in time, creating) a power base quite frankly does more harm than good.

But then the bulk of (state-funded) academic policy in this country is 96% politics, so one shouldn't really hope for too much. The best I personally hope for is that the exercise will promote critical thinking in those who will actually amount to something in the field of science & engineering, and give Jack Carpenter or Sophie Psychologist less to distract them from the pursuit of their personal fulfillment.

 

[Emoni]

I don't think Emoni was directing any hostility towards you. His post was directly after yours, but I think he was addressing the issue as a whole.

You're correct. I'm addressing was addressing the issue as a whole. I do want to clarify that anyone is welcome to "believe" whatever they want. If they want to think there is a magic super friend in the sky, and that their way of thinking of the creation of the world is correct, they are welcome to do so even if they have no proof at all. However, in education and in science, you kind of half to have a valid argument for people to assume something exists on such a grand scale... without any proof or sane reasoning to back it up.

In the US, (and other places as well in this modern age) you are free to believe what you want, but it keep religion separate from the state. It is not only the law, it is also sensible. Because if you start telling everyone what to believe based on effectively no proof just "blind faith" that some little book written by barely literate cult members is correct, you just became a dictator and sent us back to the dark ages. Religious wars soon to follow.

My stance is simple, believe what you want, but if you don't have a shred of evidence for your belief in magic, then keep it out of the intelligent realm of science. No real scientist believes in this "intelligent design" crap. It's literally stating "Gee, we don't understand it now, so a magic man made it~ We can stop studying it now."

 

[Emoni]

A scientific theory is not a educated guess or a drawn conclusion. A scientific theory is a collection of laws that are similar and come under a theory. For example the Laws of Gravity come under the theory of Gravitation. A scientific theory is as close as you can get to the truth.

Just to add to this. I still strongly believe that a basic lack of knowledge of not only science but scientific theory, the mechanics and complexity of evolutions and genetics, along with plenty more, leads to people thinking they can just throw stuff in as science or make the grand idiotic statement of, "it's just a theory." There is a fundamental lack of knowledge in regards to science, maybe simply because when you go into the subject of how the world, universe and life exist and run it is so complex.

However, I often wonder how the joke of a "debate" could be solved by asking those in favor of "intelligent design" to explain in detail the mechanics of evolution and scientific theory along with the scientific method, then finally explain what methods they came to use, or what were used in the creation of this pseudo-science. A very small percentage will be able to solve the first part (probably not even myself as it is so complex beyond the basics) but absolutely NO ONE will be able to solve the second... because it simply isn't even science.

 

[Malamis]

In the US, (and other places as well in this modern age) you are free to believe what you want, but it keep religion separate from the state. It is not only the law, it is also sensible.

Umh.. which law would that be ? The first amendment to the US constitution (as I read it anyway) means that the sovereign cannot force folk to be Discordianists, it doesnt make any provision for the prevention of one from meddling in the other. In fact one could argue that it makes a n explicit provision for one to meddle in the other, through the guarantee of freedom to assemble peacefully in redressing grievances.

My stance is simple, believe what you want, but if you don't have a shred of evidence for your belief in magic, then keep it out of the intelligent realm of science. No real scientist believes in this "intelligent design" crap. It's literally stating "Gee, we don't understand it now, so a magic man made it~ We can stop studying it now."

so instead we have ﾂ"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.ﾂ" -- Terry Pratchett
An oversimplification, but its the one thing that most folk of that turn of mind will agree on, with great consternation over winkling out the details.
I will agree with you though; ID -ism or whatever the string theorists are talking about presently as the basis for how stuff happened should encourage folk to look to the past for answers to the future, e.g. how can we make a new sun when this one burns out and similar. It shouldn't be the be all and end all of investigation of the matter.

Just to add to this. I still strongly believe that a basic lack of knowledge of not only science but scientific theory, the mechanics and complexity of evolutions and genetics, along with plenty more, leads to people thinking they can just throw stuff in as science or make the grand idiotic statement of, "it's just a theory."

Everything can eventually be broken down to abominably complicated maths you know <.<

There is a fundamental lack of knowledge in regards to science, maybe simply because when you go into the subject of how the world, universe and life exist and run it is so complex.

Or possibly we're trying to approach it with tools that are too simple ( e.g. abominably complicated maths). Point conceded.

However, I often wonder how the joke of a "debate" could be solved by asking those in favor of "intelligent design" to explain in detail the mechanics of evolution and scientific theory along with the scientific method, then finally explain what methods they came to use, or what were used in the creation of this pseudo-science. A very small percentage will be able to solve the first part (probably not even myself as it is so complex beyond the basics) but absolutely NO ONE will be able to solve the second... because it simply isn't even science.

Ideas are tested by experiment is the core of science, with everything else being method, politics and book keeping. Quite frankly the only evidence non batshit-fundies can use to support their theories is the fact that we exist, and will interpret anything along the bias of whatever pet doctrine they intend to prove, usually with a persecution complex. You cannot tell me non-IDists do not act this way as well. they're all human and have to get a paycheck from somewhere, typically a research foundation who have something they want to prove,improve or investigate, and aren't generally interested in anything contrary.

Mendel and his pea plants (for example of bias) was discarded because it was unhelpful to the prevailing mindset, until someone ( I think it were Hugo de Vrais) found it as a good underlying for his interpretation of natural selection, which was then argued rigorously until the community of the time found the convenient balance of both. This was itself was determined by many experiments by folk who (lets be frank) had something to prove.

The absolute answer cannot and never will be found so long as a bias exists. To that end, may the Singularity and it's Consequence come that much sooner

 

[Emoni]

The first amendment to the US constitution (as I read it anyway) means that the sovereign cannot force folk to be Discordianists, it doesnt make any provision for the prevention of one from meddling in the other.
As I see it, public education which is funded, certified, and run by various government entities falls directly under the category. To have the ironically named "Intelligent Design" taught as an actual alternative to the theory of evolution when it is not science, no part of it is based in scientific method or thought, and when it favors specifically the Christian belief via a government institution violates the first amendment directly.

instead we have ﾂ"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.ﾂ" -- Terry Pratchett

Not only is this a frightening misrepresentation of what science understands about the laws of the universe, it is missing the point of science in general. It is a search for understanding and knowledge. "Making sh*t up" when you don't know isn't an acceptable "alternative" to science nor the theory of evolution. I'd also like to state that cosmic science and the theory of evolution are two different subjects. Science isn't religion. It is a method and way of thinking and learning. People do NOT have all the answers, and to learn more is the purpose of science in general. Creationist simply say that a little book written 1000+ years ago and modified and reinterpreted a billion times over somehow explains everything with the dumbfounding circular logic that to understand how something exists a "creator" created it... with no thoughts to what made the creator. Oh, but he just is assumed to always be. Yeah um... Moreover, I can promise you that most creationist don't have anywhere NEAR a grasp at all that science has discovered and learned about the university, evolution, and life in general. While science does NOT have all the answers (and never says it does, hence "theories" which are the highest that science can achieve... or anyone can due to limited perception of reality which gets in to philosophy in some respects) it does give a heck of a lot.

The absolute answer cannot and never will be found so long as a bias exists. To that end, may the Singularity and it's Consequence come that much sooner

It will be an interesting day that I will probably never see, if there is every created a "Theory of everything." (creationists please look this up before taking the name too literally and misunderstanding everything) The backlash from religion would ultimately be quite extreme I believe.

 

[Half-n-Half]

Not only is this a frightening misrepresentation of what science understands about the laws of the universe, it is missing the point of science in general.

Well, to put it bluntly, it is also wrong. The Big Bang, to which Malamis was referring to with that quote, states the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state. For that there is evidence. It doesn't say everything exploded from nothing.

It will be an interesting day that I will probably never see, if there is every created a "Theory of everything." (creationists please look this up before taking the name too literally and misunderstanding everything) The backlash from religion would ultimately be quite extreme I believe.

I'm sure there wouldn't really be much. That is, if you are referring to the "Theory of Everything" that tries to unify the four fundamental forces. But, if you are talking more generally about a theory that explains how the universe started, perhaps. Who knows, maybe the theory will only work if a god figure is present

 

[Remixer]

I have skipped through the very most of the thread. Pardon me.

I just have the following to say:

- Creationism is just as much a theory as is the Theory of Evolution, whether or not qualifies in the aspect of sophistication is irrelevant.

- Plenty of scientists are religious. While the parameters within Creationism are very vague and empirical data is practically non-existent, it does not mean they don't seriously work on proving this theory to be a fact.

- Quantum Physics agrees to some extent that Creationism is more than acceptable and realistic a theory.

- While I understand that dating the Earth as not being older than 6000 years comes across as ridiculous, I ask for you to first gain an understanding that time as an independent entity does not exist. It is a purely subjective thing.
(For your information, I do not believe the Earth to be 6000 years old. For the sake of a level of objectivity, I had to say it.)

- The Theory of Evolution with all its numerous flaws and logical fallacies, not to speak of the lack of evidence, in the area of Macroevolution is unfortunately being presented too strongly as a fact within the scientific community and most educational bodies.

I conclude that Creationism just as much has a place in Science classes as does the Theory of Evolution.

I may be a muslim, but I am nowhere as gullible as many of my fellow believers, I can assure you.

Cheers


Remixer

 

[Emoni]

- Creationism is just as much a theory as is the Theory of Evolution, whether or not qualifies in the aspect of sophistication is irrelevant.

No, it isn't. Please look up and learn what "theory" actually means please before you make up crap. After you look up what a scientific theory actually is (remember this is going in a science class) please explain in detail the process which creationism has come to prove its claims. You will be completely unable to do this.

- Plenty of scientists are religious. While the parameters within Creationism are very vague and empirical data is practically non-existent, it does not mean they don't seriously work on proving this theory to be a fact.

Yes, there are. However, being spiritual, religious, etc, doesn't mean being Christian to the extent where you are insane enough to think teaching science as if the bible is evidence of anything is real science. Creationism isn't vague, it is interpreted to mean whatever anyone wants it to be.

- Quantum Physics agrees to some extent that Creationism is more than acceptable and realistic a theory.

Again, no it doesn't. Before you state things like this do you want to explain HOW and where you are basing this claim? It fits more Taoist logic (which I don't really consider logic, more of a philosophy of view things) FAR more than creationism.

- While I understand that dating the Earth as not being older than 6000 years comes across as ridiculous,

Let's just stop right there. You've already made my point.

- The Theory of Evolution with all its numerous flaws and logical fallacies, not to speak of the lack of evidence,

There is MASSIVE amounts of evidence that support the theory of evolution THAT IS WHY IT IS A THEORY. Please learn science and what that even means. All areas of science lead to this theory being the best understanding we have so far of how creatures and life evolves (evolves by the way, NOT how it originated. Don't confuse the two) Genetics, species analysis, viruses, DNA, observation (yes, changes such have been viewed on a minor scale many times), fossils... the list goes longer than I can say. Look it up.

I conclude that Creationism just as much has a place in Science classes as does the Theory of Evolution.

You conclude it maybe; however, you have shown not knowledge of even the basics of science, what a theory is, nor an understanding of evolution in general. Luckily, you aren't making the choice if it goes in science classes.

Simply put, not only is the idea of putting religious belief in science classes asinine and pure idiocy, it goes against the first amendment and favors Christian belief systems. You might as well put in Norse mythology (which Christianity takes part of its belief of hell from), satanism, witchcraft, lamb sacrifices, astrology and more in class. In fact you'd have to otherwise you would be favoring one religion over the other and violate the first amendment. All of them have about the same amount of scientific evidence backing them up.

Absolutely, none.

 

[Remixer]

Hi there Emoni.

My reply to you:

- Definition of the word "theory":

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Please consider Definitions 6 and 7 as well.


- My understanding of Creationism might differ from yours, I suppose. I understand it to be the artificiality of the Universe, to put it simply. There is plenty of evidence supporting it. One theory which would apply in this case is the Theory of the Fractal Universe. Look it up, if you would like to.


- To boil it down for you, Quantum Physic theorem allows for the notion that Reality in itself may be nothing more than a thought, or a fragment of imagination. Such a notion does not seem all that far fetched when one understands, that the uttermost basic component of everything, be it physical or mental, is energy.
I can already gather that you are the type of debater, who will ask for direct references and scientific explanations. I can't give these things to you for three reasons:
1) I am not involved professionally or leisurely in this field. As such, I do not keep an archive regarding this subject.
2) The explanations are too long-winded for an online forum such as this.
3) I do not have the time nor the patience to explain it, given the high probability that it will be a wasted effort on here.


- No, I have not made your point. On the contrary, I was trying to make the point that I understand why it appears to be ridiculous to a simple mind such as yours. Please continue to read the full paragraph.


- Please read my paragraph regarding the Theory of Evolution again. I was referring to Macroevolution. Microevolution is a perfectly sound part of the Theory of Evolution.


- Hopefully, you are in no position to decide on the Science curriculum of students either.

- I do not know when you edited your comment, but it wasn't edited when I read it.
Please read my second point in this comment. Plenty evidence in favor of it does exist.


I appreciate the aggressive approach in your response. It appears I offended you with my opinion. Please forgive me for doing such a thing.

Kind Regards


Remixer

 

[Emoni]

Hi there Emoni.

My reply to you:

- Definition of the word "theory":

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Please consider Definitions 6 and 7 as well.

Other than your speculation that quantum theory allows existence by thought, this does not mean creationism is true nor is it connected. Philosophy of thought and such based around quantum theory might, since it isn't fully understood at ALL, but the theory itself doesn't mean that there is a creator nor back up creationism in the slightest. That is like observing a slit experiment and stating, "OMG I SEE JESUS!" No. It doesn't relate sorry.

Most importantly, this is a SCIENCE CLASS we are talking about. I specifically said to look up the meaning of theory in relation to SCIENTIFIC THEORY (you know, the type that is used in SCIENCE CLASS?) 6 and 7 are totally unrelated.

 

[Half-n-Half]

Hi there Emoni.

My reply to you:

- Definition of the word "theory":

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Please consider Definitions 6 and 7 as well.

6 and 7 are by no means the definition for the scientific use of theory.

- Please read my paragraph regarding the Theory of Evolution again. I was referring to Macroevolution. Microevolution is a perfectly sound part of the Theory of Evolution.

People often get these two confused. The only difference between micro and macroevolution is the time scale. Macroevolution is just many microevolutions over a longer period of time. You cannot have microevolution without macroevolution.

- Hopefully, you are in no position to decide on the Science curriculum of students either.

*snip*
I appreciate the aggressive approach in your response. It appears I offended you with my opinion. Please forgive me for doing such a thing.

While I understand Emoni can get pretty heated and aggressive when it comes to topics like these, he does have valid arguments and points. He is right when he says Creationism is not a theory like the Theory of Evolution. You're right when you say sophistication isn't an issue. However, evidence is. For Creationism, there is no empirical evidence.

 

[Remixer]

Another round, I see.


- I asked for you to consider Definitions 6 and 7 as well. I should have put emphasis on Definition 2 for you.


- Definition of "scientific theory":
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

With this definition, most, if not all, theories on the existence of the world would qualify. Boy, did you make a good point there.


- It is not my speculation, that Quantum Physics allows it, it is the opinion of two scientists I have met and talked with.


I look forward to your next response.



Remixer

 

[Emoni]

Another round, I see.


- I asked for you to consider Definitions 6 and 7 as well. I should have put emphasis on Definition 2 for you.


- Definition of "scientific theory":
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

With this definition, most, if not all, theories on the existence of the world would qualify. Boy, did you make a good point there.


- It is not my speculation, that Quantum Physics allows it, it is the opinion of two scientists I have met and talked with.


I look forward to your next response.



Remixer

... honestly you haven't given me anything to respond to. All I can do is repeat what I've said and recommend you learn a LOT more about science and scientific theory and the scientific method.

As much as I know you will take it as an "aggressive statement," and maybe it is, you have clearly shown that you have a very low understanding of what science even is. This is quite common from what I've seen from almost every single creationist promoting intelligent design as science. It is difficult, if not pointless, to have a conversation with someone who cannot follow or understand the basic concepts behind both sides of the argument.

 

[Remixer]

Hi there Half-n-Half.


- Microevolution is sound because it limits changes and adaptations to within a species. I understand that Micro does not exist without Macro. However, the given explanation or definition of Macro does not have to be correct, even when Micro's basis and logic is. Macro is the linkage of all Micros. I believe the given and widely accepted explanation of Macroevolution to be false.


- Evidence is not an issue. As I pointed out before, evidence, even of empirical nature, exists. The Theory of the Fractal Universe was the example I gave. It incorporates a vast amount of empirical astronomic data as support. Artificiality of the Universe subsequently requires a Being to have been the Designer of the Universe.



Remixer

 

[Glenski]

Definitions 6 and 7 don't belong in a science class, as the main point of this thread is directed. Sorry, Remixer. Wanna say creationism is a valid scientific theory? Nope. It's not.

To say "Evidence is not an issue. " is just begging for a flame war. Please refrain from making such comments. You might as well say, "My dad can beat up your dad" or something more PeeWee Herman-ish.

"artificiality of the universe"? C'mon! You think it was made on some Toyota assembly line or something? How much more natural can things get than the universe?

I think this thread is due for a closure. We're going in endless circles, as always happens with this argument. The only question is whether it's an oscillating universe of Q&A, or an expanding one?

 

[Remixer]

Emino,

it is easy to come up with a weak counter.

You yourself, on multiple occasions, specifically told me to look up the definitions of both "theory" and "scientific theory". When done so, it did not provide anything in favor to your argumentation.

Not only did you fail at providing a solid argumentation against mine, you jump to conclusions on my level of knowledge.

I see that your debating skills still have to develop a great deal. In turn, I will aim for a better understanding of science, which I, supposedly, do not have much of.

On a side-note, I never in my life thought that Creationism should be taught in Science class, but I just enjoy being the Devil's Advocate. Especially, when the solidity in argumentation lacks a great deal.

I enjoyed debating with you, however short it was. Thank you.



Remixer

 

[Half-n-Half]

Hi there Half-n-Half.
- Microevolution is sound because it limits changes and adaptations to within a species. I understand that Micro does not exist without Macro. However, the given explanation or definition of Macro does not have to be correct, even when Micro's basis and logic is. Macro is the linkage of all Micros. I believe the given and widely accepted explanation of Macroevolution to be false.

Macroevolution is microevolution. Think of it like this. You have a brick, which we say is microevolution. Then you obtain more bricks. Soon, you build a house. This house is macroevolution. To say that the house does not exist but the bricks do is absurd.

I bolded that portion because I am confused as to what you said. Do you believe macro is the linkage of all micros, but this definition is false?

- Evidence is not an issue. As I pointed out before, evidence, even of empirical nature, exists. The Theory of the Fractal Universe was the example I gave. It incorporates a vast amount of empirical astronomic data as support. Artificiality of the Universe subsequently requires a Being to have been the Designer of the Universe.

A fractal universe does not prove a creator. That is a false dichotomy. It just means nature follows physical laws we can observe and test.

The only question is whether it's an oscillating universe of Q&A, or an expanding one?

It's actually an oscillating-expanding duality. It's weird, I know, but just trust me.

 

[Remixer]

Hi Glenski.


- No, I never did vindicate such a thing.


- When evidence is not an issue, it really is not. The arrogance and ignorance displayed in regards to available evidence should be cited as begging for a flame war, whatever that may be.


- I am sorry. I do not quite understand what your point was in your paragraph about the artificiality of the Universe. Artificiality of the Universe proposes that an intended Design was involved in the creation of all things. It does not mean for the Universe to be a clumsy Roboter from the 80's.


Cheers



Remixer

 

[Remixer]

"Macroevolution is microevolution. Think of it like this. You have a brick, which we say is microevolution. Then you obtain more bricks. Soon, you build a house. This house is macroevolution. To say that the house does not exist but the bricks do is absurd."

I completely understand the concept. Furthermore, while it also is the accumulation of bricks, the house is also made of cement (or whatever keeps bricks together).

Microevolution concerns itself with a single species at a time. I believe the notions on genetic changes through multiplication, phenotype alterations and physical as well as behavioral adaptation to changes in the environment to be true, within a species.

Macroevolution proposes for trans-species evolution, a species changing over millions of years, and after a multitude of adaptations, into a new one.

I believe that to be false.

EDIT: I should say "The accepted definition of Macroevolution proposes [...]", really.

EDIT2: I just googled a definition of Macroevolution:

mac⋅ro⋅ev⋅o⋅lu⋅tion
/ˌmækroʊˌɛvəˈluʃən
–noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.



Regarding the Fractal Universe: It can of course be taken as another example for the coincidental awesomeness that our Universe is, but I believe it to be in support of Artificiality.



Remixer

 

[Half-n-Half]

Macroevolution proposes for trans-species evolution, a species changing over millions of years, and after a multitude of adaptations, into a new one.

I believe that to be false.

EDIT: I should say "The accepted definition of Macroevolution proposes [...]", really.

There have been observed instances of speciation. That is, there is direct, observed evidence of one species becoming a different species.

 

[Remixer]

There have been observed instances of speciation. That is, there is direct, observed evidence of one species becoming a different species.

Now that is surprising to hear.

Unless it's the transformation from a caterpillar into a butterfly, this would be extremely interesting.

By any chance, do you know which species' were involved or under which keywords I may be able to find out more via Google?

Cheers



Remixer

 

[Half-n-Half]

Here is a link:

Observed Instances of Speciation

I can assure you, it is not a caterpillar into a butterfly

 

[Emoni]

Emino,

it is easy to come up with a weak counter.

You yourself, on multiple occasions, specifically told me to look up the definitions of both "theory" and "scientific theory". When done so, it did not provide anything in favor to your argumentation.

Not only did you fail at providing a solid argumentation against mine, you jump to conclusions on my level of knowledge.

I see that your debating skills still have to develop a great deal. In turn, I will aim for a better understanding of science, which I, supposedly, do not have much of.

On a side-note, I never in my life thought that Creationism should be taught in Science class, but I just enjoy being the Devil's Advocate. Especially, when the solidity in argumentation lacks a great deal.

I enjoyed debating with you, however short it was. Thank you.



Remixer

First, my name is Emoni. How you got the letters right but messed them up in the wrong order is... ironic. Maybe you can just claim that was on purpose to and point to your name as the source of some pun.

Second I wasn't debating you nor was that a debate. You consistently misunderstanding science, the meaning of scientific theory, and over posting of smiles doesn't qualify as a debate nor an actual valid argument.Then you claim you didn't think it should be taught in schools anyway. I'm not sure if you are a troll or just are missing something up there. Debate? This was me, along with other posters, trying to explain things to you like a grade school science teacher. Fun for you, boring for us.

Third... I agree with Glenski, this thread is just going in circles. Speaking about a logically absurd concept when one side has method, and the other simply resorts to... well imaginary friends, just isn't going to give much of a show.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread along with Glenski. If people want to learn and get an education they will have to put some effort into it themselves. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.

 

[Remixer]

Really, the condescending attitude with a hint of cynicism by pseudo-intellectuals is becoming an incredibly boring routine.

Your attitude did not really allow it to be a proper debate, but yes, from my side, it very well was one.

Please, explain Science and Scientific Theory in your own terms then. Apparently it is too hard for me to grasp that concept.

Being a Devil's Advocate has nothing to do with being a troll, as I never intended to be aggressive towards others to begin with, or to be condescending. All I aimed to promote was a balanced array of pro/contra arguments. Such a simple concept so easily misunderstood by cynical people.

Your aggressive approach begets an aggressive reaction. Why you fail to see that is your own issue to deal with.



Remixer