I know

He's a mathematics/CS professor, too :/

She's sooo independent that she's pleading with all the other BITCHes to pleeeease validate her terrible personality by reposting that stupid message.

The theory sentence is much worse. Religion is a very personal thing. The theory sentence makes it sound like he has no idea what the word "theory" means. Ask if he believes in the Cell Theory.

"am always ok, made of granite me, heartbroken I am but fixable x"

Interestingly, "Juliet" does bear a striking physical resemblance to Yoda.

I'd imagine he has religion in a tiny corner of his mind and it doesn't really affect his work at all. Probably a guy who doesn't want to ask the "what's it all about?" type questions, or worry about death, and religion gives him nice neat answers to the things he doesn't want to think about. So you can discuss math/computer science with him just fine and he'll be rational within those limits. But shallow and dogmatic anytime the conversation enters what he considers to be religious territory (or what you might regard as philosophy).

I go very much out of my way to not get into conversations where someone wants to assert their summary opinion without data. So this is basically every conversation about religion and philosophy. Or sports.

The people I know I will like talking to generally start their opinionated comments with: "Well, I can't be sure, but I think..."

Yeah I recently made the mistake of making a status update complaining about the volume of invites I was receiving to "like" a right-wing extremist group. My main objection was that 99% of the political opinions I read on facebook are quite ******ed so I'd much rather people didn't share them with me. Of course I logged back in later that day to dozens of demented comments from both sides of the "argument", so I just deleted the whole thing and berated myself for even mentioning anything.

Yeah, in a lot of ways complaining about that kind of stuff is worse than the original ******s going off about Obamer being a communazi. I made the mistake of insulting vegans which caused a ****storm on my wall. Whatever. Now I just post things about Neil DeGrasse Tyson remaking Cosmos and stuff about Trevor Bauer and no one pays attention.

This has become my philosophy with Doctors now as well.

Youngest of three girls.

I'm OK with the first sentence. If someone wants to believe that some deity created the universe, which proceeded to unfold according to the natural orderly laws that we observe, then whatevs.

The rest of the post starts to wander into ****** territory, though. I feel like he's only a step away from "I believe that God totally created the universe in 6 days, and was nice enough to leave all this physics and chemistry stuff for us to figure out and keep busy when we aren't praising Him."

God this is the most tilting sentence that I hear from people who challenge evolution and other theories.

I thought so..

Wow, just wow.
You seriously don't understand the obvious cultural differences? We were brought up in a culture that has a different amount of personal space, has different accepted public behavior such as "first come-first serve," etc etc etc etc etc.

If you were raised in India and you came to America you would get annoyed by small cultural differences that are contrasted to the ones you were conditioned to accept. You see where I'm going with this?

The rest of the world "hates" America because they believe our culture is greedy, materialistic, and rude. But they are just on the outside looking in, as you are when judging them.

Do you apply this shallow-minded logic to the poker table, too? If so PM me for HU4ROLLZ.

FYP please sir.

Bad customs can be shared by multiple ethnicities. There's nothing wrong with hating people who cut in line or stand an inch away from you like you're in line to get your last meal. Some bad customs are just more noticeable in certain cultures. Doesn't mean you are racist or hate that culture entirely. Euros hate Americans when we go to France and wear baseball hats and talk loud and bragadocious (sp) or whatever. While that behavior is seen as "normal" (and probably even rewarded) in America, it certainly is not in other parts of the world. And that's fine.

This sentence is fine on it's own. There have been plenty of great scientists who had a belief in God.

This sentence makes me question how much science he has studied. Scientific theory is very different than a layman's definition of theory. It's not some spectrum of hypothesis->theory->law like most people seem to think. Ironically, some scientific laws have exceptions. For example Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies for weak gravitational fields, and Bernoulli's principle doesn't apply at supersonic speeds.

i've been trying to stay out of this science/religion/theory/law thing but you guys are still on it and you're tilting me so:

the history of science is littered with the carcasses of theories that everyone (including leading scientists) "knew" were "definitely true": the Four Humors as explanation for disease, spontaneous generation, light propagates through a medium called ether, etc.

so do you really think that evolution is infallible, that we've got that one 100% nailed? that doesn't strike anyone as arrogant and foolish? are all of you supafrey gimmick accounts?

You have very obviously never studied a natural science. Nobody says anything like this. Academia is inherently competitive and rewards as a meritocracy - millions and millions of scientists would love to prove any significant aspect of evolutionary theory wrong. It hasn't happened. Stop listening to your pastor.

1. O RLY?
2. "very" "obviously"? see #1.

whereas there was no reward for disproving any of the other "laws" or "facts" i mentioned?

also, please evaluate the Truth of this sentence:

"Theories are our best guesses, based on the evidence available at the time."

You really don't understand how globalization, the internet and industrialization have hyper-evolved the scientific peer-review process? Hint: getting something in major journals these days is a bit tougher than it was in 19th century France. Scientific knowledge does not grow in a straight line, it grows in a curve.

And your "sentence" is meaningless. Nobody in science talks with absolute mathematical certainty about anything. This is no way supports or gives credence to any of the millions of stupid opinions people hold without evidence. You think you're open-minded but in reality you're earning points in an argument over semantics that nobody with any scientific understanding is having with you. You should probably avoid doing this is public because you are embarrassing yourself and people are going to think you are really dumb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...cientific_laws

you can thank me later.

i agree with all this. the theory of evolution is on much stronger footing than humors or the ether. so yes, scientific knowledge grows geometrically or exponentially or whatever.

so, in 100 years, you're telling me that you think, with everything humanity will learn at this ever-increasing rate, that our understanding of evolution is not going to change? we're at the apex, this is how it works, no room for further discussion? that sounds pretty scientific.

why did you put sentence in quotes? do you dispute that what i posted was a sentence?

i'm not talking to scientists (aren't you, for instance, a glorified political science major?). i'm talking to the people in this thread who are taking exception with kyle's fbfriend's claim that evolution is a "theory", a "best guess", and not something harder/purer/Truthier.

thanks!