Big Bang vs Creationism

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
The following is just my opinion, but I think the point of the OP is that they should all have equal merit when being discussed by armchair scientists on the internet.
*ding ding ding* We have a winner. Few things are more ridiculous to me than retards on the intertubes claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is some sort of ignorant hillbilly who hates science, all the while failing to realize that they have made an equally insane choice to believe in what they think is a perfectly rational explanation. And the real kicker is that people on both sides of the aisle see their opposition in the exact same way, but neither of them realizes it. It's easy for me to see since I'm the one standing in the aisle, slowly making my way towards the exit.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,943
541
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Ridiculous. (2) does NOT make predictions -- it makes baseless assertions. If we discovered that the universe wasn't expanding, for example, that wouldn't let us conclude that your supposition that the universe is 6000 years old is now false. The claim that the universe is 6000 years old wasn't based on the evidence that indicated a Big Bang in the first place, so falsification of that evidence doesn't falsify the claim.
#2 in and of itself makes no assertions other than that the initial state of the universe was a solution of #1. Thus, it necessarily leads to the same predictions.
You apparently do not understand what predictions are. Predictions say "X is true iff Y." Your #2 says "X is true, despite Y."

I'm sorry if you can't see that, but I have already shown in this thread multiple times exactly how this can be achieved using a very simple case.
You haven't "shown" anything. You have made a number of claims about the alleged "predictions" of #2, all of which are based on glaring errors of fact.


 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You apparently do not understand what predictions are. Predictions say "X is true iff Y." Your #2 says "X is true, despite Y."
I'm not sure if you're thick headed, illiterate, or just really having a hard time reading my broken English here. I'll give a more concise mathematical example again, and if you still can't get it, I'll give up.

If I have some quantity u (could be temperature, mass fraction, or velocity, whichever you like), then the 1-D transient diffusion equation is simply
du/dt=d^2u/dx^2,
where t is time and x is the spatial coordinate. If I supply boundary conditions u(x=0)=1 and u(x=1)=0 and the initial condition u(t=0)=u_0, I can solve the governing equation and get some infinite series solution very easily (though it's nasty to type out or read in plain text :p). The steady state solution is simply
u(x)=1-x.
This is exactly equivalent to hypothesis #1 if I set u_0=0. This is exactly equivalent to #2 if I set u_0=any solution of the general case with u_0=0. Most obviously, they are identical if I let u_0=1-x, in which case the solution for case #2 is simply the steady state case. So, for any arbitrary initial condition u_0, the predicted profile for u(x) is absolutely identical at all times as long as the selected u_0 is a solution to the problem with u_0=0.

This is exactly true for any transient system. If the governing equations and the boundary conditions are identical and the initial condition is a solution of the most general case, then the predicted behavior of the two systems will always be identical. I'm not sure how to make that any more clear.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Essentially is NOT good enough, i can say essentially what you are saying and yet you would get a completely different impression from what i wrote, as proven in this thread.

What you do not realise is that regardless of the statements, most people see these arguments and acknowledge the statements for what they are, statements in another debate (Big Bang theory vs young earth creationism), this is due to familiarity of arguments, you knew that would happen and wanted it to happen so you could sit on your high horse and tell people how they have failed.

The only one that has really failed is you.
You have assumed an argument for me, then proceeded to personally attack me based on your assumed argument. That is some sort of strange hybrid logical fallacy, where you constructed a strawman then beat it to death. Being a military man, I would have thought you would apply your vicious nature more efficiently and come after me directly. Instead, you're still on the practice range shooting up dummies. Let me know when you want to address my arguments instead of what you wish my arguments were.

No dipshit, you knew what the argument would come down to when you made the thread, don't lie and say you didn't.

You make up arguments about me using a strawman and then beating it? What straw man?

You try to make up NEW fallacies "strange hybrid locical fallacy" since you can't just accept the fact.

You are wrong.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Essentially is NOT good enough, i can say essentially what you are saying and yet you would get a completely different impression from what i wrote, as proven in this thread.

What you do not realise is that regardless of the statements, most people see these arguments and acknowledge the statements for what they are, statements in another debate (Big Bang theory vs young earth creationism), this is due to familiarity of arguments, you knew that would happen and wanted it to happen so you could sit on your high horse and tell people how they have failed.

The only one that has really failed is you.
You have assumed an argument for me, then proceeded to personally attack me based on your assumed argument. That is some sort of strange hybrid logical fallacy, where you constructed a strawman then beat it to death. Being a military man, I would have thought you would apply your vicious nature more efficiently and come after me directly. Instead, you're still on the practice range shooting up dummies. Let me know when you want to address my arguments instead of what you wish my arguments were.

He does that all the time. Get used to it. Right now in another thread, he's come to this magical conclusion out of nowhere that I support Huckabee when I've never said a single word of support for him ever, and I actually despise the guy almost as much as I do Romney.

I never said you did support anything, i didn't even adress you, you adressed me and stated "but Brown", you're such a fucking comedian passing himself of as some kind of intellectual... fucking please.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Vic
The following is just my opinion, but I think the point of the OP is that they should all have equal merit when being discussed by armchair scientists on the internet.
*ding ding ding* We have a winner. Few things are more ridiculous to me than retards on the intertubes claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is some sort of ignorant hillbilly who hates science, all the while failing to realize that they have made an equally insane choice to believe in what they think is a perfectly rational explanation. And the real kicker is that people on both sides of the aisle see their opposition in the exact same way, but neither of them realizes it. It's easy for me to see since I'm the one standing in the aisle, slowly making my way towards the exit.
It's a dangerously elitist attitude IMO, but not one I can blame you for.

I gave up some time ago trying to educate people on the internet about the differences between science, philosophy, and ideology, and the dangerous gray areas in-between. I came to the conclusion that most of humanity has not evolved beyond the shamanist stage and that, to them, science is just the new priesthood, with whose strange and magical gods they are seeking to curry favor for their own worldly agendas.

 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I actually find big bang a bit stupid. Creationism generally coincides with religions that don't base everything on reason or evidence, so the suspension of reason and adherence to faith is part of the thing. Big bang claims to be scientific but really isn't because it never answers what happened BEFORE the big bang. Where did this mass come from? Science understands nothing at all besides cause and effect. What caused the big bang? What triggered it? Where did the mass come from? Simply, the human mind has no concept in the context of science to comprehend something that simply came out of nothing, which is why in this way it makes more sense to believe that something simply "always has been", and from that creationism is perfectly reasonable. The big bang is really just science's answer to God and creationism without realizing that it's doing the same thing--putting faith ahead of reason. Except religiou makes no apologies for such a thing and science pretends to eschew that.

I don't think the job of science is necessarily to explain what happened before the big bang. Isn't the point of science to propose a hypothesis, test it using the scientific method, and then present your results? I think that astronomy or some other discipline measured speeds and trajectories and distances of various celestial bodies and calculations resulted in a singular source or event for all of the matter they can observe. At given speeds and so on, that event was determined to be approximately 15 billion years ago.

That particular study has nothing to do with what happened before the BB. Wouldn't that be quantum physics or string theory or something? Totally different set of data, calculations, and theory.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Vic
The following is just my opinion, but I think the point of the OP is that they should all have equal merit when being discussed by armchair scientists on the internet.
*ding ding ding* We have a winner. Few things are more ridiculous to me than retards on the intertubes claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is some sort of ignorant hillbilly who hates science, all the while failing to realize that they have made an equally insane choice to believe in what they think is a perfectly rational explanation. And the real kicker is that people on both sides of the aisle see their opposition in the exact same way, but neither of them realizes it. It's easy for me to see since I'm the one standing in the aisle, slowly making my way towards the exit.

My very point in this is that Cyclo is the biggest armchair scientist on the internets.

He's even intentionally dishonest when it suits his needs, neme one real scientist that would do that, he betrays himself, not unusual for his sort.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
No dipshit, you knew what the argument would come down to when you made the thread, don't lie and say you didn't.

You make up arguments about me using a strawman and then beating it? What straw man?

You try to make up NEW fallacies "strange hybrid locical fallacy" since you can't just accept the fact.

You are wrong.
I'll chalk up your belligerent ignorance to being British. Your football team is not doing so well, so you're probably drunk at a bar somewhere. I'll see if I can help you along a little.
:beer: :cookie:
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
No dipshit, you knew what the argument would come down to when you made the thread, don't lie and say you didn't.

You make up arguments about me using a strawman and then beating it? What straw man?

You try to make up NEW fallacies "strange hybrid locical fallacy" since you can't just accept the fact.

You are wrong.
I'll chalk up your belligerent ignorance to being British. Your football team is not doing so well, so you're probably drunk at a bar somewhere. I'll see if I can help you along a little.
:beer: :cookie:

Yup, i'm ignorant because i'm British, and i am drunk so what would i know.

That is how this is, exactly, the high horse, the arrogance, the extreme ignorance that comes from a believer that tries to make science fit his agenda.

But of course, it's me, i'm ignorant because i am British and i'm drunk because i like real football. (I'm not a football fan, i don't really give a fuck about footie.)

That is the best argument you got.

I'd pity you if you weren't so fucking pathetic.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Yup, i'm ignorant because i'm British, and i am drunk so what would i know.

That is how this is, exactly, the high horse, the arrogance, the extreme ignorance that comes from a believer that tries to make science fit his agenda.

But of course, it's me, i'm ignorant because i am British and i'm drunk because i like real football. (I'm not a football fan, i don't really give a fuck about footie.)

That is the best argument you got.

I'd pity you if you weren't so fucking pathetic.
Finally, we have agreed on something. You don't like it when I apply all sorts of stereotypes based on nothing to you, and I don't like it when you do it to me.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Rainsford
You have your terminology wrong, ideas aren't "demonized", they are dismissed because they don't provide any new answers to open question. In fact, in many cases the new theory tries to re-answer some already answered questions, and does so poorly. The phrase "marketplace of ideas" is actually quite appropriate, the ideas (all the ideas) exist in a free market, where people can choose (or not choose) them based on a number of factors.
I was trying to say that the people subscribing to those ideas are demonized. The amount of hatred directed in their direction on this forum is amazing. The hatred is what I'm trying to rail against here. If we could only understand where the other is coming from, we could leave it at apathy at worst and achieve some appreciation for the other at best. I read in the St. Louis news today that some guys ran up and started shooting at a family leaving the funeral of their kid today, killing another member of the kid's family. I personally cannot comprehend that kind of hatred - a blatant disregard for common decency, respect for any form of decency. I'm not saying that this shooting was related to the discussion at hand, but the amount of hatred going around based on absolutely ridiculous things like this just blows my mind, so I am trying simply to show that we are all a lot more similar than we think. The details don't matter to me, but the idea of a common ground is of the utmost importance so that we can have at least some basic respect for each other. If we cannot achieve that basic respect, then all is lost and debate becomes absolutely meaningless.
I think most of us are in agreement here, the problem seems to be when we discuss those factors. Religious folks think the factor should be the NUMBER of questions answered and how complete those answers are, while the real science folks are more concerned with how WELL the theory answers any questions. I will be the first to admit that the Big Bang theory leave some unanswered questions, but it does a great (and verifiable) job answering many others...and no theory is set in stone, I'm confident that as our understanding grows, the Big Bang theory will change to incorporate new answers and fill in the blanks in our knowledge. I see no reason to adopt an "alternative" theory that fills those blanks with "God did it" simply to have an answer.

Really, that is THE fundamental debate here, and if you wonder why sometimes tempers flare a little, it's because the "alternative" viewpoint is so unscientific. At every point in human history, we've had the group of things we understood (let's call it 'A') and the group of things we do not understand (let's call it '?') Over time, what's in those groups has change...but the one constant has ALWAYS been that mystics are forever trying to "explain" ? with "God did it", while the scientists are trying to move stuff from ? into A. And you know what? Looking back through time, the mystics always end up looking like idiots...because "God did it" never really ends up being the explanation, the fact that we don't understand something NOW doesn't mean it's unknowable and we have to surrender to ignorance.

The discussion here seems largely based on a major misunderstanding, that we have to explain everything right this very second, that unknowns or uncertainty is unacceptable and if no ready scientific explanation can be found, well then we need to consult the voodoo priests. That solution isn't an alternative idea, it's an alternative TO ideas...a statement that we think real science has gone as far as it can go and we just need to construct a friend in the sky to explain the rest. And honestly, if you have any respect for the scientific method at all, how can that idea not be completely offensive?
The problem is that you (and many others) somehow see the religious and scientific answers as answering questions differently. I tried to demonstrate in the OP how they are not necessarily different at all. In fact, they can be very much consistent and in harmony.

Well first off, I'd say my problem is not so much that people subscribe to extra-scientific theories about the origin of things as much as my problem is their insistence on trying to force everyone to treat their beliefs AS science. I for one have no problem with people expressing a belief in a creator who made the universe, I have a problem with them trying to pass that off as science, or worse, trying to force kids to learn it in a science classroom. As H.L. Mencken, we should respect the other fellows beliefs, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect the theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. If you want to take the step from belief to science, that's a whole difference story. This isn't "science camp", just showing up with your own personal theory doesn't guarantee you stage time with the folks who make a convincing argument.

I have no problem with religion and science being in harmony, in fact I think I've said as much several times on this forum, and I've certainly believed it for a long time. The issue isn't that I believe religion and science answer questions DIFFERENTLY, it's that I believe they don't even remotely answer the same questions. Science is about answering "what?", it's about facts and data and the ability to express your ideas in equation form and showing your work. Religion is about answering "why?", and it relies quite a bit on philosophy and belief. Which is great, each certainly has their place in a civilized society. The extent to which an individual prefers the pursuit of one over the other is a personal choice, and I certainly have interest in interfering with that.

The problem is that religion is NOT content to answer religious questions, or rather, many religious PEOPLE are not content to let religion answer religious questions and science answer science questions. And while I want to be fair here, I do not believe the opposite problem exists. Nobody is barging into churches, demanding that they preach the Big Bang theory alongside Genesis. But in alarming numbers, religious folks are demanding that religion play a huge and undeserved role in the science classroom...using religion to answer science questions. THAT is what I have the problem with.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,943
541
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You apparently do not understand what predictions are. Predictions say "X is true iff Y." Your #2 says "X is true, despite Y."
I'm not sure if you're thick headed, illiterate, or just really having a hard time reading my broken English here. I'll give a more concise mathematical example again, and if you still can't get it, I'll give up.

If I have some quantity u (could be temperature, mass fraction, or velocity, whichever you like), then the 1-D transient diffusion equation is simply
du/dt=d^2u/dx^2,
where t is time and x is the spatial coordinate. If I supply boundary conditions u(x=0)=1 and u(x=1)=0 and the initial condition u(t=0)=u_0, I can solve the governing equation and get some infinite series solution very easily (though it's nasty to type out or read in plain text :p). The steady state solution is simply
u(x)=1-x.
This is exactly equivalent to hypothesis #1 if I set u_0=0. This is exactly equivalent to #2 if I set u_0=any solution of the general case with u_0=0. Most obviously, they are identical if I let u_0=1-x, in which case the solution for case #2 is simply the steady state case. So, for any arbitrary initial condition u_0, the predicted profile for u(x) is absolutely identical at all times as long as the selected u_0 is a solution to the problem with u_0=0.
All of this is one big red herring. Why should reality resemble an ancient universe and a Big Bang if it is instead only 6000 years old? That question is one that you cannot answer, and the very one which renders #2 unscientific. Why couldn't the universe resemble one with an infinite past? Why couldn't the universe resemble one only 3 billion years old instead of 14? When a theory makes predictions, it not only predicts what should be, but also what should not be. If any of these cases appeared to be true, it still would not falsify the claim made by #2 that the universe is 6000 years old despite its appearance.

This is exactly true for any transient system. If the governing equations and the boundary conditions are identical and the initial condition is a solution of the most general case, then the predicted behavior of the two systems will always be identical. I'm not sure how to make that any more clear.
You have made very clear that you don't understand the basics of scientific epistemology.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Vic
The following is just my opinion, but I think the point of the OP is that they should all have equal merit when being discussed by armchair scientists on the internet.
*ding ding ding* We have a winner. Few things are more ridiculous to me than retards on the intertubes claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is some sort of ignorant hillbilly who hates science, all the while failing to realize that they have made an equally insane choice to believe in what they think is a perfectly rational explanation. And the real kicker is that people on both sides of the aisle see their opposition in the exact same way, but neither of them realizes it. It's easy for me to see since I'm the one standing in the aisle, slowly making my way towards the exit.
It's a dangerously elitist attitude IMO, but not one I can blame you for.

I gave up some time ago trying to educate people on the internet about the differences between science, philosophy, and ideology, and the dangerous gray areas in-between. I came to the conclusion that most of humanity has not evolved beyond the shamanist stage and that, to them, science is just the new priesthood, with whose strange and magical gods they are seeking to curry favor for their own worldly agendas.
swell... now it's an Elitist circle-jerk! yay!

/thread
 

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: hscorpio
No, but I think Occam's razor favors number 1.
I knew this would be the first thing brought up, which is why I specifically said "disprove either hypothesis." Occam's Razor tells us nothing of either hypothesis.

Your point is that the described 2 hypotheses are both disprovable and equivalent. So where does that leave us? How do we choose the "best" hypothesis? I think Occam's razor is very useful in such an example.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
All of this is one big red herring. Why should reality resemble an ancient universe and a Big Bang if it is instead only 6000 years old? That question is one that you cannot answer, and the very one which renders #2 unscientific. Why couldn't the universe resemble one with an infinite past? Why couldn't the universe resemble one only 3 billion years old instead of 14? When a theory makes predictions, it not only predicts what should be, but also what should not be. If any of these cases appeared to be true, it still would not falsify the claim made by #2 that the universe is 6000 years old despite its appearance.
This is not a red herring. This is why I made the thread. Asking "why" in this context immediately makes everything thereafter unscientific. I'm sorry you don't understand the mathematical principle that I described in the previous post, but that's not my fault. It's a consequence of mathematics and, therefore, the natural way of things, not of my hand waving. If I give you a stable steady state solution to a problem, you cannot look back and tell me what the initial condition was. If I give you a transient system, you can tell me what all of the previous states may have been, but you cannot tell me the exact initial state because there are infinitely many possibilities, namely every state that the system has passed through between here and there. If you disagree with this, then you're arguing with some fundamentals of math, as well as energy, mass, and momentum conservation, in which case I have no desire to talk to you anymore.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: hscorpio
Your point is that the described 2 hypotheses are both disprovable and equivalent. So where does that leave us? How do we choose the "best" hypothesis? I think Occam's razor is very useful in such an example.
I agree, but Occam's Razor is not a tool of science - it is a tool of philosophy. It is a heuristic method for choosing which model is preferable. If it were deterministic (i.e. it always predicted the right model), then it would be scientific. Instead, it can only help us choose one, but the one that we choose may not actually be the right model.

For example, if I have observed two points y(0)=0 and y(1)=1, then I can easily propose infinitely many models that will fit them. For simplicity, I will choose polynomials of first and second order (a line and a parabola). The line has the form y=c_0+c_1*x, while the parabola has the form y=c_0+c_1*x+c_2*x^2. The various c's are simply fitting parameters. Since both models will give regression coefficients of 1 (that is, they will perfectly fit two data points), Occam's Razor suggests that we choose the line. However, what if we then find more data that suggests y(1/2)=-10? This obviously is not predicted by the first model but is perfectly predicted by the second model, so Occam's Razor has told us to use the wrong model. So, while it may be useful in giving us selection heuristics, it does not tell us whether a model is actually correct and, therefore, tells us nothing scientific.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91

The problem with the Creationism "theory" is that it fails to answer the problem it purports to solve. By positing a supreme being that creates the universe, it begs the question, "Who created the Supreme Being?" "Who created the creator of the Supreme being?" This leads to an infinite regression of previous creators. Also, if it's invalid for reality to exist on its own as an absolute and for life to have simply evolved, then why is it any more valid for a Supreme Being to be able to just exist on its own or for it to magically pop into existence?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
haha werd

and for the record my opinion on the matter is as follows:

creationism = faith /= science

diet coke > diet pepsi

UFC = teh win
We must expand...

Beer > Coke > Pepsi > Diet Coke > Diet Pepsi...

but you're right, UFC is tha shite!

I've got to get me a TV to see this sheit?

I looked it up, and i bet that both you and me prepared for work could take them and 10 like them prepared for work.

;)
I don't know bro... I've studied Jiu-Jitsu for years, and most of the UFC guys still make me look like a giant labia. We'd need some live ammunition... ;)
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski

#2 is easy, there's plenty of Older than 6000 years objects.

And how was this determined? There is a wealth of information that documents that flaws and errors made by the carbon dating system.


I'm not a creationist advocate, but one can't help but notice the zealotry being expressed by the secular masses. Gotta love state-sponsored indoctrination! It's like brainwashing only educational. :D
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Originally posted by: sandorski

#2 is easy, there's plenty of Older than 6000 years objects.

And how was this determined? There is a wealth of information that documents that flaws and errors made by the carbon dating system.


I'm not a creationist advocate, but one can't help but notice the zealotry being expressed by the secular masses. Gotta love state-sponsored indoctrination! It's like brainwashing only educational. :D

Can you point me to some of these documents that point out flaws that would completely negate the process of carbon dating?

There are also other methods of radio-isotopic dating, not to mention the amount of time it takes star light to get here. We've know for quite a while how fast light travels and starlight from places even our own galaxy takes longer than 6000 years to get here.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Can you point me to some of these documents that point out flaws that would completely negate the process of carbon dating?

Google?

There are also other methods of radio-isotopic dating, not to mention the amount of time it takes star light to get here.

So?

We've know for quite a while how fast light travels and starlight from places even our own galaxy takes longer than 6000 years to get here.


Says you. The whole concept of a supreme being (the Christian one at least) is the notion that all our assumptions and estimations are incapable of solving the acts of God. We (Humans) are basically ignorant, and will never never fully understand how/what God supposedly created the universe aside from the short description in Genesis.

Science is about perfection, but what people fail to appreciate is that science is VERY political. Politics+anything=bulls**t. I get natural selection. I get survival of the fittest. I get the whole masturbating-to-Darwin jerk circle. But seriously, half the scientific facts pumped out a hundred years ago have been debunked. I'm sure 100 years from now, half of the current scientific facts will be debunked.

It's a never ending cycle of debunkage that's labeled as progress. Those who oppose are immediately deemed loony creationist wackos who worship a dude in the sky.

Don't think I'm oblivious to my generalizations, I'm just not that motivated in gracing you all with my superior scientific knowledge. XD

Investing anything above the bare minimum in internet discussions is stupid.

Heh.