Slashdot Mirror

What sort of summary were you expecting to be 'written in stone'?
These ideas, fleshed out in detail, in science and mathematics, may grow to be so much more than a cliched one liner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
compare with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

In what sense are these not science?

Maybe you are being confused over the terminology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

or more simply

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Models have indeed been surprisingly accurate.

The fact is that the climate is warming, and it is caused by human emissions of CO2.

The "only a theory" nonsense is typical creationist BS. It is not only a theory. It's a scientific theory. Your ignorance about science says it all, really.

Higher CO2 is, in fact, detrimental to food production. Just because plants live off of CO2 doesn't mean that extreme amounts of it is good for them. I'm sure you'll agree that even though you need water to survive, drowning is unpleasant indeed.

You are simply ignorant. Not only of the actual science, but also of the scientific process. Typical creationist/climate denialist.

AGW means that humans are causing the observed warning. We are causing it with our CO2 emissions. The science is clear on this, regardless of your attempt to lie about the science for political reasons.

The "only a theory" nonsense is typical creationist BS. It is not only a theory. It's a scientific theory. Your ignorance about science says it all, really.

Climategate was a manufactured controversy which did nothing to provide evidence against AGW. You are exactly like a creationist with your lies, quote mining and general BS.

NO, a law in science is NOT an absolute truth, it's only a theory which has never been proved to be wrong.

No, theories never become laws. Laws describe facts, while theories explain them.

Yes, it is a belief, it is not the proof/fact of evolution, it is STILL referred to as the Theory of Evolution. Not getting into that debate, even though a theory does have a lot of evidence, unless it's provable it's still a theory

No wonder you are getting all your claims wrong. You don't even understand how science works. In science, a theory is the highest order. It's the goal of science. It's what makes science useful. There is no higher level than a scientific theory. You need to educate yourself.

Evolution is not a belief. It's a scientific theory, which is the highest level in science. It's also one of the most solid scientific theories we have.

(Yes, some aspects of evolution are considered fact by the scientific community, but not the retarded monkey fish frog aspect)

What is the "monkey fish frog aspect"? We have observed everything from new genes appearing to new species evolving.

It is no more right to force a theory as fact as it is right to force your god on me.

Facts in science are data used to support theories. Theories never become facts.

However, it is insulting to people when instead of just saying "I believe this", you say "I believe this so your belief is wrong" - which both sides of the debate do.

Your side says "I believe". The other side says "the facts clearly contradict your beliefs".

It takes faith to believe in anything

It doesn't take faith to accept scientific consensus.

most science regarding the Universe and creation is still THEORY.

Nothing ever becomes more than a theory. Electricity is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Theory is the highest level in science. So "just a theory" is another dishonest way creationists try to undermine science. You may want to educate yourself.

I, for one, have no problem with the schools teaching the theory of evolution as a theory

Ah, the standard creationist dishonesty. "It's just a theory!" You should read this, and educate yourself.

Indeed
http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Emphasis on the word "just"

"Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!"

Evolution has been a theory for not very long

Just more than 100 years.

evolution is a theory, but the scientific community holds to it as if it WERE a law

You clearly need to educate yourself about scientific terminology.

known hoaxes were mentioned as proof

Such as?

It really is just a theory folks.

Poe's Law?

Just in case.

The answer to where we came from? Why we're here?

Evolution is a model which explains how life changes over time.

However. That is not how it was presented. It was presented as straight up truth, not guess.

What was presented as straight up truth, and in what way?

Evolution is not a guess. If it were a "guess", it would be a hypothesis (although some random guess doesn't qualify as a hypothesis - it needs to be founded in reality). However, Evolution is a scientific theory, which means that it is supported by all known facts, and contradicted by none. Furthermore, it makes true predictions and has practical applications. You can educate yourself about what these terms mean at notjustatheory.com.

Best guess at explaining how the universe works?

Evolution deals with biology, not cosmology.

There is no real separation between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Only people who are anti-science will do that. No faith is needed for evolution, whether it is "micro" or "macro". It is all about the evidence.

There is a macro verses micro evolution. It is defined by people who claim part of evolution is real and part of it is some fairy tale cooked up in your head.

Those who belong to the latter are anti-scientists who seek to replace science with religion.

And the onus isn't on me showing something preventing it, it is on you to prove that evolution can create enough changes over time to stop a species from being itself and taking on another altogether.

Which has already been demonstrated. See the fruit fly experiment where a population of fruit flies is split in two, and after a while they stop being able to interbreed. Speciation has taken place. You also have Nylonase, where a completely new enzyme/protein has been formed in the last few decades, and if there is no limit to how proteins can change there is no limit to how the organism itself can change. You can also observe for example domestic breeding of dogs, where huge differences in both appearance and functionality (sense of smell, hearing, etc.) have arisen by artificial selection.

I notice that you still can't point to the specific barrier which prevents small changes from resulting in large changes over time. That's because you are willfully ignorant, and ignore all facts that don't match your religion.

So far, all the evidence pointing to that ability is circumstantial at best and most a product of thought.

Wrong. It is only you who are either ignorant or even willfully ignorant on the matter, YEC.

It is sad that you had to hijack another thread in order to press your opinions onto other people.

That's because Slashdot blocks replies after a while, and I'm not going to let you get away with lying and willfully ignoring facts.

Pick a story and stick with it.

I did. DNA evidence shows that we and Neanderthals share a common ancestor rather than being on the same branch.

You are adding to what those respected researchers claim and twisting the stuff around in the same ways you claim creationists are doing.

No, I am pointing out the fact that actual scientists show YECs to be wrong.

you didn't do any of the research either

I don't need to since real scientists are doing it already.

There are some creationist who do the research and publish in the same peer reviewed journals.

Show me one single example of that. Show me one single piece of new, original research by creationists published in an actual scientific journal. AiG's circle-jerk "publication" doesn't count.

I'm not promoting anything

You are. You are promoting pseudoscience.

You have seem to of taken science and turned it into a pseudo-religion.

No, I have pointed out that you are promoting pseudoscience and willfully ignoring facts that do not match your religion. Just because I give you shit over being an ignorant moron doesn't make the actual science behind the fact that evolution, micro or macro, any less scientific.

evolution in the context of the dispute between religion and science (macro evolution) isn't fact, it is an educated guess.

Wrong. An "educated guess" is called "hypothesis" in science. Evolution (macro or micro) is not a hypothesis, but a scientific theory. Educate yourself: "In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ulti

Oddly, back in the 1980's when I was in school, I was always told that there was a scientific difference between a proof and a theory and that a theory was, in essence, a guess based upon a series of supposed inferences based on data.

Then someone told you a lie. A theory in science is the highest order of things there is. A theory is the most useful thing in science. It is the goal of all scientific work.

A proof was data that could be experimentally verified.

No, that is called "evidence".

Evolution is a guess; admittedly a complicated one but a guess nonetheless.

Wrong. Evolution is: "A well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be."

I am an advocate that if you're teaching an opinion then *all* opinions are valid.

So alchemy should be taught in chemistry classes? Astrology in astronomy classes? Flat earth should be taught in geology classes? Holocaust denial in history classes?

If you can show me an actual scientific proof

Please stop being dishonest. I just explained this to you: "Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence."

My other point is that Athiests and Secular Humanists have used evolution as a religion substitute

Please provide me with evidence of this. Not that it matters. Making an argument from how desirable something is, is a fallacy. Whether or not Evolution is true does not depend on whether it is true or not.

wrecks and ruins a world-view where the only morality is a self-imposed one based on nothing other than the whims and the moment-to-moment of the desires of the self.

False. Morality depends on the culture. Morality is basically the way society has organized itself and taught new inhabitants how things work. By the way, in more secular countries like Norway and Sweden, crime rates are extremely low compared to more religious countries like the US. Why is that? I mean, if what you say is correct, then all the atheists in those countries should have caused a lot of problems already, but they don't. Crime raes are extremely low! Your claim is pure nonsense.

Darwinism would have us give all of that up for a moral black hole since there would be no commonly accepted frame of reference for right and wrong

In case you haven't noticed, there's no such thing as objective morals. It is all passed on through society.

and a deepest sense of purposelessness because there is nothing to look forward to in a life that is short, brutish, and pointless.

Nonsense. First of all, you can enjoy life without believing in God. Secondly, lots of christians accept evolution. You are just being dishonest again.

As far as proof of Suppression Science goes: Check out http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

I asked you for ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. How hard can that be?

The movie you are referring to is a dishonest hit piece full of lies. Such as the nonsense with Dr. Sternberg, who was fired from his position as an editor of a scientific journal. The claim in Expelled is that he was fired for being a creationist, but this is a blatant lie. Sternberg was a member of a creationist organization before he got the job, and his employer knew it.

Sternberg was fired not for being a creationist, but for circumventing the standard procedures for publishing in scientific journals. He ignored all the rules and published a religious text in the scientific journ

I see Darwin's **Theory** getting it's ass kicked monthly.

Let's present a Theory as such - mere conjecture, a blind guess - and allow *ALL* theories to be taught including Creation.

"In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be."

Even "just a theory", since yes, is it just a theory, in both "science" talk and "normal" talk.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Evolution is a theory, but not just a theory.