2012: The End?

[Bartleby]

That's a bit pedantic.  I meant human history.

[Dark Star]

Only a few hundred years ago people thought the earth was flat. Everyday something new and exciting happens (maybe only to some of us) saying nothing interesting has happened in Humanity is a very ignorant statement.

[Puks]

Meh, my official polivy on the Science board is that pseudoscience is allowed for interest's sake. Stuff like this generally leads to interesting debates on scientific merit and whatnot. Not to mention, not everyone agrees on what is pseudoscience and what isn't. It's pretty obvious that this 2012 thing is pseudoscience, but creationism and extraterrestrial life (specifically UFO's) are more controversial.

What's controversial about creationism? Every non-brainwashed human being accepts evolution as a fact. Creationism has no scientific merit AT ALL.

[Dutch90]

What's controversial about creationism? Every non-brainwashed human being accepts evolution as a fact. Creationism has no scientific merit AT ALL.

Sorry, should've been more clear. I was referring to ID. Which is of course just restyled creationism in my view, but as much as I hate to admit it there are intelligent and educated people out there, even among the academic elite, who advocate ID as "theistic evolution". Which isn't to say their claims fail on the impossible premise of an unproven supreme being directing evolution from another dimension, but these claims are articulate enough to make for interesting scientific debate.

Hency why I allow it on the Science Board. Which isn't to say that I'm not a hardline atheist-bordering-on-antitheism myself, by the way.

[Hubbs]

The earth isn't flat!!?

[maledoro]

Only a few hundred years ago people thought the earth was flat. Everyday something new and exciting happens (maybe only to some of us) saying nothing interesting has happened in Humanity is a very ignorant statement.

Actually, we've been aware of the Earth's roundness for millennia.

Sorry, should've been more clear. I was referring to ID. Which is of course just restyled creationism in my view

...and the view of the scientific community.

but as much as I hate to admit it there are intelligent and educated people out there, even among the academic elite, who advocate ID as "theistic evolution".

They're not "elite", but they are separate.

Which isn't to say their claims fail on the impossible premise of an unproven supreme being directing evolution from another dimension, but these claims are articulate enough to make for interesting scientific debate.

Not when they have to falsify data in order to support their arguments. Not to mention that their "theory" is based on something that can't be tested.

[Pandorag]

The earth is already splitting!

[Neltharion]

Wait, the Continents move? Oceans are formed and destroyed by these movements? Continents split in half and then reform when they collide again millions of years later?

What sort of Madness is this?

Next people are going to say that the Mantle of the earth is not liquid but in fact solid. Poppy cock! All of it!

If anyone thinks I am being serious, screw you I do Geology

[Pandorag]

Wait, the Continents move? Oceans are formed and destroyed by these movements? Continents split in half and then reform when they collide again millions of years later?

What sort of Madness is this?

Next people are going to say that the Mantle of the earth is not liquid but in fact solid. Poppy cock! All of it!

If anyone thinks I am being serious, screw you I do Geology

And here I thought, YOU were responsible, Deathwing.

[maledoro]

And here I thought, YOU were responsible, Deathwing.

He's responsible for a lot of things...

*ducks*

[Neltharion]

Orogenesis is one of them!

*takes a swing*

[maledoro]

I prefer oreogenesis, myself.

[SiL]

I meant human history.

Which is equally asinine, especially since you're saying it through a fucking computer.

[Dutch90]

Actually, we've been aware of the Earth's roundness for millennia.
...and the view of the scientific community.
They're not "elite", but they are separate.
Not when they have to falsify data in order to support their arguments. Not to mention that their "theory" is based on something that can't be tested.

See, that's exactly what I mean - this stuff leads to interesting debate. Hence why I tolerate it on the Science Board.

[maledoro]

See, that's exactly what I mean - this stuff leads to interesting debate. Hence why I tolerate it on the Science Board.

It'd be more interesting on a philosophy forum.