What a maroon.
Dipshiat creationist idiots: we have them in Canada, too.

_{/not subby}

He used the word "evolutionist". That's a huge "I'm a crazy fundie" red flag right there.

If science clashes with religion then religion should reconfigure it's beliefs to match science.... Buddhism is completely compatible with all modern scientific beliefs and the Dalia Lama has said that if new scientific knowledge came forth that disproved any Buddhist belief then that belief would have to be reconsidered. Christians could learn a thing or too from us Buddhists.

Sigh...

Isn't he semantically correct? Isn't that why scientists use the term theory? All the evidence points to this, but still likely to be refined somewhat, and not able to be proven at this point; therefore is not a fact by definition?

Not a very eloquent way of saying what I mean, but hopefully understandable. And just to make sure, I have no religious beliefs and believe 100% in the theory of evolution.

slackin_off: Isn't he semantically correct? Isn't that why scientists use the term theory? All the evidence points to this, but still likely to be refined somewhat, and not able to be proven at this point; therefore is not a fact by definition?

Not a very eloquent way of saying what I mean, but hopefully understandable. And just to make sure, I have no religious beliefs and believe 100% in the theory of evolution.

Evolution isn't about how organism were created but about how they change over time to be better adapt at living in their environments. You know natural selection and all that....

mike965: slackin_off: Isn't he semantically correct? Isn't that why scientists use the term theory? All the evidence points to this, but still likely to be refined somewhat, and not able to be proven at this point; therefore is not a fact by definition?

Not a very eloquent way of saying what I mean, but hopefully understandable. And just to make sure, I have no religious beliefs and believe 100% in the theory of evolution.

Evolution isn't about how organism were created but about how they change over time to be better adapt at living in their environments. You know natural selection and all that....

Good point, but still it's a scientific theory, which I realize is as close to fact as there can be (i.e theory of gravity). So isn't he still semantically correct?

slackin_off: Isn't he semantically correct? Isn't that why scientists use the term theory?

No. A scientific theory is a framework which incorporates the facts. It would be like saying "Any mechanic who claims he can rebuilt a Pinto has already left the realms of auto-repair. For greasemonkeys deal with small interconnected parts, of which a Pinto is most certainly not one."

Not only does it simply not make sense, it demonstrates a complete ignorance of the actual topic. Especially when he follows it up with implied areas of weakness with the theory,

ie: Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.

which are all complex topics that only appear to be problematic to rvolution if you're ignorant, or shilling Creationism. See the links (which I shamelessly stole from P.Z. Meyers) for further info.

ninjakirby: slackin_off: Isn't he semantically correct? Isn't that why scientists use the term theory?

No. A scientific theory is a framework which incorporates the facts. It would be like saying "Any mechanic who claims he can rebuilt a Pinto has already left the realms of auto-repair. For greasemonkeys deal with small interconnected parts, of which a Pinto is most certainly not one."

Not only does it simply not make sense, it demonstrates a complete ignorance of the actual topic. Especially when he follows it up with implied areas of weakness with the theory,

ie: Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.

which are all complex topics that only appear to be problematic to rvolution if you're ignorant, or shilling Creationism. See the links (which I shamelessly stole from P.Z. Meyers) for further info.

I admit I DRTFA, was just talking about the specific quote in the headline. In my head he still seems semantically correct. The theory is based on the facts, but the theory itself is not a fact, just the best explanation that incorporates all known facts.

slackin_off: mike965: slackin_off: Isn't he semantically correct? Isn't that why scientists use the term theory? All the evidence points to this, but still likely to be refined somewhat, and not able to be proven at this point; therefore is not a fact by definition?

Not a very eloquent way of saying what I mean, but hopefully understandable. And just to make sure, I have no religious beliefs and believe 100% in the theory of evolution.

Evolution isn't about how organism were created but about how they change over time to be better adapt at living in their environments. You know natural selection and all that....

Good point, but still it's a scientific theory, which I realize is as close to fact as there can be (i.e theory of gravity). So isn't he still semantically correct?

Maybe semantically he has a point but he isn't really making a case for semantics, he's trying to make evolution sound like the dream of some schizophrenic instead of the almost universally excepted theory that it is.

mike965: slackin_off: mike965: slackin_off: Isn't he semantically correct? Isn't that why scientists use the term theory? All the evidence points to this, but still likely to be refined somewhat, and not able to be proven at this point; therefore is not a fact by definition?

Not a very eloquent way of saying what I mean, but hopefully understandable. And just to make sure, I have no religious beliefs and believe 100% in the theory of evolution.

Evolution isn't about how organism were created but about how they change over time to be better adapt at living in their environments. You know natural selection and all that....

Good point, but still it's a scientific theory, which I realize is as close to fact as there can be (i.e theory of gravity). So isn't he still semantically correct?

Maybe semantically he has a point but he isn't really making a case for semantics, he's trying to make evolution sound like the dream of some schizophrenic instead of the almost universally excepted theory that it is.

Oh I realize he's a nut-job. I'm not defending him in the least, just observing that, even if by chance, he seems to be technically correct in the one assertion in the headline.

Fark: He's a chiropractor

Is there a list of professions which should or should discuss evolution?

(If that was about the MP part not the evolution part, I agree -- there should be no doctors in legislative posts.)

ZAZ: Fark: He's a chiropractor

Is there a list of professions which should or should discuss evolution?

It was probably meant to be some sort of dig at his credentials, as many 'Bro-Skeptics'* think being a Chiropractor automatically means you go for pseudo-science techniques and claim your bone cracking will cure diabetes or some shiat. ie; "Look at this idiot, not only is he a Creationist, he's a pseudo-science peddling physician".

*Bro-Skeptics being the stereotypical pasty teenager who bears the Skeptic title, but really just listens to prominent speakers as an authority source without using their own mental capabilities.

ninjakirby: ZAZ: Fark: He's a chiropractor

Is there a list of professions which should or should discuss evolution?

It was probably meant to be some sort of dig at his credentials, as many 'Bro-Skeptics'* think being a Chiropractor automatically means you go for pseudo-science techniques and claim your bone cracking will cure diabetes or some shiat. ie; "Look at this idiot, not only is he a Creationist, he's a pseudo-science peddling physician".

*Bro-Skeptics being the stereotypical pasty teenager who bears the Skeptic title, but really just listens to prominent speakers as an authority source without using their own mental capabilities.

So Bro-Skeptics are kinda like Fox News viewers only slightly more intelligent ?

slackin_off: Oh I realize he's a nut-job. I'm not defending him in the least, just observing that, even if by chance, he seems to be technically correct in the one assertion in the headline.

No, it's muddled syntax that doesn't represent any real world examples. There are scientists who point to the observed fact of evolution (alleles change over time) and then put forward various theories to explain the fact of evolution. Much as various theories of gravity have been put forward to explain the fact of gravity.

This does not amount to a declaration that "the theory of evolution is a fact." That comment alone is either meaningless (because theories are not facts, they're theories) or is hardly something which has any bearing on the foundations of science ("it is a fact that theories of evolution exist").

Possibly, his meaning is something closer to "Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a complete and infallible picture of the history and future of biological change on this planet has already abandoned the foundations of science." Which would be correct, but good luck finding any scientist willing to make such a claim.

Yes, he's correct.

There are facts of evolution. And there is also a theory which has been greatly supported by the facts.

There is a theory of how OJ killed Nicole and Goodman. There are also facts which support it.

So OJ sits in jail now, saying it's only a THEORY that he did the crime. Doesn't change the facts.

Control_this: So OJ sits in jail now, saying it's only a THEORY that he did the crime. Doesn't change the facts.

OJ being in jail has nothing legally to do with the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson. He was acquitted of those charges, remember?

He's in jail for a numerous amount of charges linked to him using a gun, threatening, and kidnapping a guy who was selling some of his stolen memorabilia in Vegas.

ZAZ: Fark: He's a chiropractor

Is there a list of professions which should or should discuss evolution?

(If that was about the MP part not the evolution part, I agree -- there should be no doctors in legislative posts.)

Except chiropractors aren't real doctors. Granted, there might be some chiropractors out there who aren't quacks, but looking at its history and much of its current teachings...it's not based on science but pseudo-scientific beliefs.

slackin_off: Isn't he semantically correct? Isn't that why scientists use the term theory?

The fact of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are two different things. It's scientific illiteracy to think that something is either a theory or a fact.

Evolution is the observable change of genetic information over generations. The Theory of Evolution states that evolution (the fact) is sufficient to explain the variety of species on Earth.

Except chiropractors aren't real doctors.

Are Canadian chiropractors considered MDs, physical therapists, or something else under the law?

ninjakirby: being a Chiropractor automatically means you go for pseudo-science techniques

It tends to imply that you go for the techniques of chiropractic medicine, yes.

shivashakti: looking at its history and much of its current teachings...it's not based on science but pseudo-scientific beliefs.

Even if you look at the elements of it which have been investigated for their efficacy, and ignore the errant nonsense, the best that can be said is that it's no worse than any other treatment for lower back pain (basically, as I know to my cost, nothing works apart from remaining mobile and that's a standard recommendation from everyone from orthopaedic surgeons to reiki practitioners) and that it's reasonably effective for tension headaches.

i think he means scientific law.

either way, it's a strawman because no real scientist would ever claim that a scientific theory was an immutable law. that's why it's a theory based on empirical data.

It's already been proven.

Any scientist who declares that the theory of global warming is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science.

What a farking embarrassment

Procedural Texture: Dipshiat creationist idiots: we have them in Canada, too.

**cries** Canada is my hope...

slackin_off: Isn't he semantically correct? Isn't that why scientists use the term theory?

Nope. "Theory" is the term scientists use when they mean "you can literally bet your life on this being true". Germ theory, Theory of Relativity, Gravitational Theory. All of those are theories, yet people all over the world bet their lives on a daily basis on those theories being correct. Evolutionary theory is what you bet your life on whenever you get antibiotic treatments, flu shots, vaccines, etc.

And why should I give a shiat about what some non-scientist thinks about the foundations of science?

LouDobbsAwaaaay: And why should I give a shiat about what some non-scientist thinks about the foundations of science?

because non-scientists are trying to teach "science" to our children.

mike965: Buddhism is completely compatible with all modern scientific beliefs and the Dalia Lama has said that if new scientific knowledge came forth that disproved any Buddhist belief then that belief would have to be reconsidered. Christians could learn a thing or too from us Buddhists.

Catholics are cool with evolution and science, too. May not always have been that way, but it is now.

James Lunney. Does he pronounce his name "looney"?

LouDobbsAwaaaay:
And why should I give a shiat about what some non-scientist thinks about the foundations of science?

As much as I hate xkcd, this is obligatory:



Fortunately, one can't get very far in Canadian politics by being an overt young-earth evangelical religious nutbag. Unfortunately, I think there are a number of covert religious nutbags in the House right now... possibly including the Prime Minister. Fortunately, he knows that appealing to the religious fanatics will lose more votes than it wins.

Unfortunately, the toppings contain sodium benzoate.

mike965: If science clashes with religion then religion should reconfigure it's beliefs to match science.... Buddhism is completely compatible with all modern scientific beliefs and the Dalia Lama has said that if new scientific knowledge came forth that disproved any Buddhist belief then that belief would have to be reconsidered. Christians could learn a thing or too from us Buddhists.

If you have to change your beliefs every 30 years you might as well just worship the Pizza Hut logo.

Woah, I don't think I've ever seen so many logicall fallacies packed into three paragraphs.

Claiming that Charles Darwin would be a creationist if he were alive today? epic douchebaggery.

The evolutionists may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point.

I think Pope John Paul II would worship Satan if he were alive today. The Catholics may disagree, but neither of us can produce the Pope as a witness to prove his point.

flannelled fool
mike965: Buddhism is completely compatible with all modern scientific beliefs and the Dalia Lama has said that if new scientific knowledge came forth that disproved any Buddhist belief then that belief would have to be reconsidered. Christians could learn a thing or too from us Buddhists.

Catholics are cool with evolution and science, too. May not always have been that way, but it is now.

As an atheist I have found Buddhism rather charming, at least the secular philosophy that can pulled out of it. After investigating it further though, there's some crazy folk beliefs, societal oppression and cult-like groups associated with Buddhism, as with any other mainstream religion.

I'm just sayin, try reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Karma is as much a device for justifying the mistreatment of outcastes as it is a system of punishment and reward. If you were born into a family of butchers and kill animals for a living (not being able to move into any other line of work), that is considered far worse than a man of better caste who murders a person. The butcher will be reborn as an animal or into hell while the murderer might get another reincarnation as a human.

Tibetan monks apparently used to believe that death could be detected and staved off by the kind of ridiculous mummery that would be called witchcraft in medieval Europe. (I.e. Go to a lake on such a day and look in the sky and foretell your death based on the image you see there. If you foretell such a death, you must bark like a dog and eat feces to stay alive. No I'm not making this up.).

I do think meditation and mindfulness, and the compassionate approach to living beings, and trying to mitigate suffering, are all nice things.

Mighty Horse: If you have to change your beliefs every 30 years you might as well just worship the Pizza Hut logo.


religious belief = anti-progress

ZAZ: Except chiropractors aren't real doctors.

Are Canadian chiropractors considered MDs, physical therapists, or something else under the law?

I have a really hot chiropractor, and I'm getting a kick out of this discussion.

He's right.

It's just that you can't say abstract qualified shiat like that to the public masses because most are semi-retarded and have no clue how science works. Most don't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific sense.

Mighty Horse: If you have to change your beliefs every 30 years you might as well just worship the Pizza Hut logo.

I guess you prescribe to Glenn Beck's "Believe in something even if it is wrong philosophy".

Do you still believe the Earth is the center of the universe like earlier Christians?

You have to understand, this is a Creationist "code word" -- as was demonstrated and discredited at the Dover trial:

Creationist: Evolution is a theory, in the scientific sense?
Scientist: *sigh* Yes, in the formal scientific sense it's a theory.
Creationist: AHA! So it's just a theory!!#%!
Judge: You do know what scientists mean by the word theory, don't you?
Creationist: Um... yeah...
Judge: So you were deliberately misleading the court when you said that?
Creationist: Um... yeah...

Their game, quite consciously, is to insist that scientists play by the formal definition of the words, then deliberately exploit the general public's completely different interpretation of the words. Scientists have realized this and are refusing to play the game by the Creationists' rules.

Personally, I'm still looking for the part of the New Testament that condones lying for Jesus' sake.

ZAZ
Chiropractic is connected with quackery in skeptical circles.

Quackwatch: Chiropractic's Elusive Subluxation

Apparently not all chiropractors buy into the subluxation crap.

The freaking Science Minister, Gary Goodman, didn't want to say if he believes in evolution. And now this. Dear Lord, The West should separate from Canada. We don't need no farkin' religious a-holes in position of power.

It's not an absolute fact. Revision keeps happening.

Generally, though, it does about a billion times better at explaining things than any major alternative presented.

Creationism can explain everything, of course ("God put the bones there to distract us"), but isn't usefully predictive. No Creation Scientist is allowed to say "the sun will rise in the east tomorrow". God might choose otherwise.

Evolution is an Atheist religion and OJ is an innocent man.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a body of evidence that explains the way evolution works.

He's telling the truth actually.

Evolution is not a fact. Neither is gravity. Nor is atomic science. Nor is cellular biology. Nor is light and the electromagnetic spectrum.

These are all theories and any scientist worth his salt will say so.

There are very few facts in science.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: And why should I give a shiat about what some non-scientist thinks about the foundations of science?

Because he's a MEMBER OF THE GOVERNMENT non-scientist. Fark, he's on the health committee!

He's in a position to do a lot of damage with his asshatery.

heinekenftw: He's telling the truth actually.

Evolution is not a fact. Neither is gravity. Nor is atomic science. Nor is cellular biology. Nor is light and the electromagnetic spectrum.

These are all theories

No. Evolution is an observed fact, the theory of evolution explains the process.

Gravity is an observed fact, the theory explains it.

Living cells are observed facts, the theory... etc.

I wonder why more "evolutionists" aren't elected officials. Evolution is a theory that biologists have supported by fact. There is no fact that disproves it, just like there is no fact that can disprove the existence of God. Therefore, STFU.

heinekenftw: He's telling the truth actually.

Evolution is not a fact. Neither is gravity. Nor is atomic science. Nor is cellular biology. Nor is light and the electromagnetic spectrum.

These are all theories and any scientist worth his salt will say so.

There are very few facts in science.

Technically, one could go so far as to claim there are no facts in science, as it is quite possibly impossible to empirically prove that any information received via any bodily sense has any basis in reality at all, if in fact reality even exists.

mike965: All the evidence points to this, but still likely to be refined somewhat, and not able to be proven at this point; therefore is not a fact by definition?

how...many... times... must we say this?

SCIENCE CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING and has never claimed to! All science does is present an argument that seems to describe a situation and allow it to be scrutinized methodically. Nothing can ever be "proven" true, because there is always one thing that breaks the rule. That being said, it is a THEORY that gravity on earth pulls objects toward the center of the planet at 9.8 m/s². But... all observation DOES SEEM TO BACK THIS UP.

honestly, this is 5th grade science class stuff. If you utter the phrase " scientists proved..." and you're not talking about mathematicians, you just fail.

studleystudstutterson: heinekenftw: He's telling the truth actually.

Evolution is not a fact. Neither is gravity. Nor is atomic science. Nor is cellular biology. Nor is light and the electromagnetic spectrum.

These are all theories and any scientist worth his salt will say so.

There are very few facts in science.

Technically, one could go so far as to claim there are no facts in science, as it is quite possibly impossible to empirically prove that any information received via any bodily sense has any basis in reality at all, if in fact reality even exists.

Philosophy 101 rears its ugly head

/over alaska