Top | Newest First | Oldest First
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Because the religious people would have stroke, if it wasn't considered a belief like theirs is.
Equality in stupidity rules! While common sense is relative to the ignorant.
Equality in stupidity rules! While common sense is relative to the ignorant.
BlueSkyKing · M
@DeWayfarer You couldn’t be a biologist and a geologist without accepting evolution. My adage is: If it’s not science, it’s superstition. Gray areas don’t exist.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@BlueSkyKing I could go as far as physics and math along with your list.
EVERYTHING CHANGES!
derivatives and rates of change for mathematics.
The gradual increase in the number of elements in ANY sun for physics.
EVERYTHING CHANGES!
derivatives and rates of change for mathematics.
The gradual increase in the number of elements in ANY sun for physics.
@DeWayfarer
Could be.
Could be.
SW-User
No it should be under science, with quantum mechanics.
It’s the current paradigm.
I assume you are presenting an argument using a Newtonian paradigm.
Personally , I find the flat Earth model easiest to understand.
It’s the current paradigm.
I assume you are presenting an argument using a Newtonian paradigm.
Personally , I find the flat Earth model easiest to understand.
View 8 more replies »
LordShadowfire · 100+, M
@SW-User But it's a debunked model. You literally just have to fly high enough to see the curvature in the earth. For the right amount of money, you could be a passenger on a commercial space flight, and see for yourself that it's a bad model.
Lovesungoddess · 18-21, F
@SW-User if the earth is flat, how does weather work on a disc?
SW-User
@Lovesungoddess sorry you are missing entirely my point.
We think in a Newtonian Universe, which we now know to be wrong and should adopt a model involving the Quantum Theory and the General Theory of Relativity.
We think in a Newtonian Universe, which we now know to be wrong and should adopt a model involving the Quantum Theory and the General Theory of Relativity.
BlueSkyKing · M
I’ve complained about both evolution and constellations (being tied to the astrology section instead of astronomy) . Both are real sciences backed with strong evidence.
Perhaps we should keep protesting?
Perhaps we should keep protesting?
SW-User
@LordShadowfire No you are missing my point completely. Physicists use different models to help understand a situation or phenomena.
For example an atom. Sometimes, you can use the particle in the box model. rather than the Bohr model. And at times a wave of probability model.
If a model fits, use it.
For example an atom. Sometimes, you can use the particle in the box model. rather than the Bohr model. And at times a wave of probability model.
If a model fits, use it.
LordShadowfire · 100+, M
@SW-User I'm saying the model doesn't fit. All you have to do in order to see that it doesn't fit is to fly high enough to reach low orbit. Why do you keep insisting that it fits?
SW-User
@LordShadowfire I don’t think we are going to agree in this. But I agree this topic should be in the science section.
LordShadowfire · 100+, M
@SW-User Here. Disagree with a video feed.
https://www.youtube.com/live/_HGQZlK08gQ?si=7qWHISsedHUHsHQ6
https://www.youtube.com/live/_HGQZlK08gQ?si=7qWHISsedHUHsHQ6
Lovesungoddess · 18-21, F
That's like putting psychics in the science group instead of the spirituality group.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Are they being ignorant, or is it deliberate?
This an American site, and a lot of Americans are determined to give evolution (science generally?) a pseudo-religious taint in order to try to crush it. So is the management trying not to offend the scriptural literalists?
This an American site, and a lot of Americans are determined to give evolution (science generally?) a pseudo-religious taint in order to try to crush it. So is the management trying not to offend the scriptural literalists?
SW-User
Reading these reviews, I don’t think anyone here has a very good understanding of science, other than the popular science books.
If you want to delve deeper, John Polkinghorne books are a good starting point, He was Professor of Theoretical Physics at Cambridge.
If you want to delve deeper, John Polkinghorne books are a good starting point, He was Professor of Theoretical Physics at Cambridge.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
LordShadowfire · 100+, M
@jshm2 According to whom? You? Or your little mythbook
Dshhh · M
yup
DUMBASSes
it's science baby
but some call THAT a relgion too
DUMBASSes
it's science baby
but some call THAT a relgion too
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
That is quite bizarre 🤔
Convivial · 26-30, F
Creeping Gilead ;)
LordShadowfire · 100+, M
Like I've been saying for like a year now. What the actual fuck? Evolution isn't a religion. It's a fact. Even my Christian mother understands that.
@LordShadowfire
Yeah why isn't it under the science section? It's not a religious belief and has no spiritual connotation.
Yeah why isn't it under the science section? It's not a religious belief and has no spiritual connotation.
Straylight · 31-35, F
@LordShadowfire I looked up the flat earth group to see if they put it under science and technology, which would have cause unfathomable rage in me. But it’s in the nature category.