Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones Debate

April 3, 2009 -

A reported audience of 200 Bridgewater College students attended last night's video game debate between Jack Thompson and author Gerard Jones. 

So far we have found two local news reports of the showdown.

WHSV-3 offers this account:

Thompson believes that content should be regulated more efficiently, especially toward kids, pointing out the violent aspects of the popular game series "Grand Theft Auto." He says, "The problem is mature and adult video games that are very violent, increasingly pornographic, that are still being sold aggressively to young people. Kids literally process these games in the part of the brain that leads to copy-cat violence."

Jones, however, urged people to view video games in the same ways as movies and television, and hoped gamers would be more open to explain why they love to play. He says, "We hear a lot about the fear of what they might do, what might go wrong, but we hear so little about how these games are obviously fitting in to a sane, healthy life for a lot of normal people."

Meanwhile, Rocktown Weekly has this:

Jack Thompson... says that unlike other media, video games have been shown to affect neurological development in adolescents.

Thompson... says violent games desensitize youths and can train them to carry out massacres in real life, particularly if they have violent or sociopathic tendencies...

 

Thompson pointed out that the military uses video games to train new troops and desensitize them, making them more likely to shoot when it counts. [GP: According to John Stossel of ABC News, this is a self-perpetuating myth*]...

But Jones counters that violence existed in society long before video games came along.

For example, Jones said the gunman in a 1970s school shooting told authorities he was inspired by "Patton," a biographical movie about World War II Gen. George Patton.

"I cannot see our culture, our laws, our entertainment industry trying to adjust to" what mentally ill people might do, Jones said.

Thompson... advocates greater government control over the video game industry, especially in legislation that makes it a crime to sell video games rated "mature" to minors.
 

* Stossel tracked down the origin of the military's supposed use of violent games to desensitize recruits in his 2006 book Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity.


Comments

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

There he goes again, making up more lies.  *sighs* He's not going to learn from his mistakes. Jack Thompson is a lost cause.

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Why the hell was this guy even giving Thompson time of day?

I believe the phrase goes something like "you shouldn't wrestle a pig in sh** because even if you 'win' you're still coated."

We'll eventually be rid of people like Thompson, and finally be able to have productive talks about how much violence is 'too much' to have availible on store shelves - and there is a 'too much' there - but until then, we should ignore bad behavior and reward good behavior, just like training a dog.

 

I will not buy securom games. http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message1.jpg and http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message2.jpg

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones Debate

In response to Jack's post on that site, I would take a looke at his toilet paper stack, but I can not find it for sale anywhere.

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones Debate

"Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity." I have that book! I haven't read it but it is on my stack, this is funny because it reminds me that it is getting very near the top stack. 

Is there a transcript of the debate?

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

I think that Jack is never going to change his old slanted views based on how stubborn he is.

Even a Federal Judge telling him everything that we have been trying to tell him over these past 10 years is not going to change him one bit.

In any case, he would just say that the judge is unqualified or say that the judge is a Communist just to get the majority of the people who don't know better on his side.

 

That is all Jack is trying to do, he is trying to influence all he can from those who know nothing about videogames or his own track record.

 

Thank god we are not one of those people.

 

TBoneTony

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

I shot WHSV 3 an email last night shortly after the article was posted, pointing out that Thompson was no longer an attorney and providing a link to his profile on the Florida Bar website.  I don't know if they listened to me or someone else with a similar message, but they definately listened to someone.  The article now reads:

"Thompson, who was disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court in 2008, believes that content should be regulated more efficiently, especially when advertising seems to be aimed at kids. He pointed out the violent aspects of the popular game series "Grand Theft Auto."

 

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

PWNED!

The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Well done, Torven!! And well done, WHSV 3!! "Attorney" . . . my ass.

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones Debate

Ew, the news station called Jack Thompson a "lawyer."

"HEY! LISTEN!"

"HEY! LISTEN!"

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones Debate

As somebody pointed out earlier, even when he isn't a member of a Bar, Thompson still holds a degree from some law school or another.  "Jack Thompson, a lawyer" likely sounds better than "Jack Thompson, J.D.".

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Maybe they misread or mispronounced "liar."

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, since Thompson no longer has the funds to bribe the news stations.

"HEY! LISTEN!"

"HEY! LISTEN!"

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

His wife might...

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

-glances at Dennis and EZK-

...what, no edit?  Meh, okay.

Anyway, yeah, I don't care where his funding comes from so much as that he has funding at all.

"HEY! LISTEN!"

"HEY! LISTEN!"

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones Debate

Really curious why jackieboy needed (ie used) a public forum to spout the same tired old lines that have not helped him in the past.  'Murder simulators, porn, violence, de-sensitizing us to said violence and programming us'.   I mean if you are going into a new format try to convey a new message, something with more teeth (aka facts). 

Was this really a debate?  Who won?

Wait one.  Why would anyone debate john bruce when he is never wrong?  Seriously though if jackie cannot conceed that he is not always correct and/or justified in whatever actions he takes then debating (or even talking to) him is rather pointless. 

Ah well at least the crowd was apparently better behaved this time.

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones Debate

The goal of a debate shouldn't be to "win", it should be to come away with a greater understanding of opposing viewpoints.

However, since Thompson is obsessed with winning and cannot admit he is wrong, it is again pointless to debate with him

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Although two individuals of opposing sentiments may debate in a friendly manner, either side hardly ever changes their minds on the subject. 

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Good point. 

Thing is jackie is not known for having a friendly manner.  Also debating requires a more mature mindset and respect for the other person (otherwise it all to often tends to devolve into an arguement with name-calling and threats).  I have lost track of how many times John Bruce has shown that he lacks in both of those and is all to comfortable with name-calling and making threats.   

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Not to open a can of worms, but I still find it facinating how religious extremists like Jack Thompson will try to utilize science only when they think it supports their "cause".  These same zealots are the ones who then fight tooth and nail to get schools to teach kids that the universe is 6000 years old and evolution never happened.  So hypocritical...

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

First Jack Thompson, then abstinence, then creationism/science... how the Hell do you get there in the commentary?

@Zero: Since you started it, if you don't expect to open a can of worms with that comment, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

HELL! Who doesn't know JT's nuts? I don't think we have to restate what we know of people who think like Jack Thompson... just never go into anything that will probably start a off-topic debate for about 30 or so comments.

______________________________ Because I have NO Life... :P I introduce the following. PSN User ID: FirebirdXR (Yes, I use that moniker often) Xbox Live ID: FirebirdLR (Don't bother, It's a Silver Membership) *Limited Time Only* I put both because I

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Actually in a Scientific community, you experience a similair situation.  It's frowned upon if you believe in creationlism (design in nature) and are a scientist instead of theory of evolution.  No, it still hasn't been proven yet, but then again neither has creationlism.  I guess there can be only one answer:  42.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

I don't want to go into to too much detail, but for your comment regarding the theory of evolution: you are making a misconception about the nature of scientific facts and theories.

A fact in laymans terms means something that is true.

In scientific, it means an observable phenomenon.  Not too much of a difference there.

In laymans terms, the word theory is used to describe an idea of how something might be/work, or an educated guess.  That definition is reall closer to the scientific hypothesis, so its wrong.

In scientific terms, the word actually describes a model that explains a facts nature/mechanism/workings.  it should be noted that theories are in constatn flux as new information is discovered.  the theory of evolution from 20 years ago is not the same as it is now.

In science, a theory is never proven, as all it does is contain all the current knowledge that explains a fact, in this case evolution.  That is why you might hear that evolution is both fact and theory.

Gravity is a fact.  But then, the theory of gravity is still "just" a theory, and therefore should be disregarded just the same if you still stand by your statement.

Oh also, don't forget about germ theory, cell theory, theory of general relativity, and theory of special relativity, just to name a few.  Without germ and cell theories in particular, which really wouldn't work without evolution anymore anyway, modern medicine would not exist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html - I highly recommend this site, it contains a wealth of information from credible individuals and sources.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm - explains very nicely the differences between the different aspects of the scientific method involving theories.

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

First off let me reinterate that I am not arguing against nor for either one, I'm just saying that persecution of one's beliefs exists on both sides of the coin.  Now that that's said, I want to point out something.
 

Once we knew the world was flat, those who said otherwise were idiots.  Once we knew that the sun revolved around the Earth, anyone who said otherwise was punished.  We know better now, but the fact still remains that there were those that were persecuted for their scientific stuides that differed from what was believed to be the truth.  Same thing happens today, but its less of a problem.

 

Moving on to whether or not creationlism is non scientific or not, there is no way you can say that it isn't.  Although you can say there is no way to prove or disprove creationlism, I can say there is no known way to prove or disprove evolution.  You may say that it contains facts and theory, but if it contains both, then the facts can't be solid enough to be used as proof.  There are many things that we don't know, and many different ways of thinking.  To just decree that one is unscientific because it does not fit a certain view point is rather ridiculous in my mind, but meh...I'm weird.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

"Once we knew the world was flat, those who said otherwise were idiots."

 

Actually, the greeks knew the world was round LONG before the christians ever figured it out.  They proved it mathematically.

 

 "Once we knew that the sun revolved around the Earth, anyone who said otherwise was punished."

 

Usually they were punished by the church because such thoughts were heretical.  :)

 

"Moving on to whether or not creationlism is non scientific or not, there is no way you can say that it isn't. "

 

Actually, yes, we can.  Creationism is a pre-concieved notion that creationists cherry-pick evidence to support.  Evolution was the conclusion when scientists looked at all the available evidnece.  That's how science works - you look at all the evidence and draw your conclusions from it.  That's why Creationism isn't science - because it is working backwards.

"I can say there is no known way to prove or disprove evolution.

You can disprove evolution - find me a fossilized bunny from Cambrian-era strata in the geological column.  That would disprove evolution quite nicely.  Evolution is falsifiable - Creationism is not.

 

"...but if it contains both, then the facts can't be solid enough to be used as proof."

 

The only science in which there exists "proof" is mathematics.  Everything else is evidence based.

"To just decree that one is unscientific because it does not fit a certain view point is rather ridiculous in my mind, but meh...I'm weird."

 

It is unscientific because it doesn't follow the scientific method.

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

I've no doubt that people with different beliefs have it rough.  Even in science, if a scientist has a new theory, that will eventually turn out to be true, he will still have a hell of a time getting it to that point.  Science is rigorous like that. 

However, that still has nothing to do with the validity of a statement, which was what my entire post before was about.  people thought (and some people still do think) that the earth was flat, and persecuted those who thought otherwise.  The difference to this situation, is that the ones who thought otherwise and were being persecuted, actually had testable phenomenon to support their side.  Thats why it eventually became accepted, same with the earth revolving around the sun.  It wasn't merely a clash of different beliefs with one side becoming more popular than the other, one side crushed the other with observable, testable facts and theories that then withstood the test of time.

You're still saying that there is no way to prove or disprove, thereby showing you either didn't understand what I was trying to tell you or the articles I linked, or perhaps simply didn't read them thoroughly enough.

So I wil reiterate: nothing in science is "proven".  Evolution, along with gravity, is a "fact" in that it is observable, and happens regardless of whether you agree with the theories behind them or not.  Newtons theories of gravitation were replaced by Einsteins, but gravity still happened regardless of the process of changing theories.

You can argue against evolutionary theory all you want, or claim it cannot be proven (which is a statement that shows ignorance of scientific method, which I've already tried to explain) but that still wouldn't change the fact that is evolution.  Lets say you were able to find a major flaw in the theory, and it is invalidated.  Evolution would still be a fact, because it happens, is observable, testable, and verifiable by anyone with the appropriate tools and resources.  All invalidating the theory would do is show that we don't understand enough of how the mechanisms that explain evolution work.  Scientists would then begin testing new ideas and theories, and continue to do so until one was created that withstood all criticisms and experiments, was testable and falsifiable, and made accurate predictions (much like the one we have now, funnilly enough).

There are actually quite a number of things that can be construed to "prove" that evolution is in fact a "fact".  Heres a few (read: 29+) of them: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I'm not sure if its mentioned in there, but theres also an interesting finding by a one Ken Miller: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Here's the full version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&feature=related

Right here, evolutionary theory makes a prediction, and it is verified by genome sequencing.  If it turned out to be wrong, evolutionary theory would have been falsified right then and there.

So basically, you, nor anyone can say that evolution is not "proven" to be true.  The best you can do is find a flaw in the theory, which would be a good thing because it would make it change and become more correct than it already is.

Creationism has no testable measures that have stood up to scientific scrutiny.  Flood geology is wrong, everything that comes out of Kent Hovind's mouth is wrong, a young earth is wrong.

However, despite all of this science itself makes no comment on the existence or nonexistence of a god.  Same with ghosts, aliens, or other paranormal phenomenon.  That is simply because it isn't testable, therefore not scientific.  It is not saying that it doesn't exist because it cannot verify it, it simply says nothing.  Its the people themselves that try to use science as evidence against it, when in fact there is none.  the best people can do in that regard, is take a chalkboard and make a mark on either the science or creationism side of things for each time one side has been right, then make their decision.

And, so that this whole spiel isn't entirely off topic, I also wish that someone would call JT out on his bullshit.  He has been proven wrong numerous times, yet still continues to believe what he wants to believe, for whatever reason.  I hate such irrational thought.  Ignorance is fine, stupidity (defined as ignoring evdience to suit his purpose) is not.

 

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Sorry, didn't mean to get this whole thing so off topic.  I do understand (somewhat) what you mean, and see that you got my point.  As to the rest of the argument, well, we've gone to off topic with a simple discussion that seems to have gotten out of hand.  So on that note I agree with your point of JT's stupidity.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Creationism is not scientific because it doesn't use experimentation and observation to create a hypothesis, which is then tested by others into becoming theory.

Darwin didn't just write the Origin of the Species and BAM everyone accepted it. People debated and argued about it for years. Same with Einstein's and Hawking's theories, they were proposed and probably due to their reputation their work would've been even more carefully studied. Being able to say you proved Einstein wrong would've been a big feather in the cap.

For a hypothesis to become theory, is it not necessary that it is 'proven', just that the predicted outcomes can be matched in other independent experiments, and that the scientific community can't disprove it.

 

Here's your disproof for Creationism - Dinosaur bones. And the response 'oh god was a prankster god, that's a trick' is not a scientific retort.

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Um...someone already stated this, but how does dinosaur bones disprove creationlism...

 

For a hypothesis to become theory, is it not necessary that it is 'proven', just that the predicted outcomes can be matched in other independent experiments, and that the scientific community can't disprove it.

 

Couldn't independent study on different lives and past events prove creation by design?  Couldn't a theory be drawn up from facts about various things that have happened and the coiencedences?

 

Just saying.  Although it was an interesting arguement, I think I'm going to stop since my head hurts.  Like I said, I'm not argueing for or against either one, just trying to understand the different view points.  Thanks for discussing this with me, it was very enjoyable. 

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

If there's design, the designer needs to be fired and never allowed to create anything again, he's a hack.

Why is the human eye designed backwards? (There are other animals where it's not)

Why is the human back not designed for upright walking?

Why is the human female pelvis not designed for the size of the baby? Other animals have much less of a problem in childbirth.

 

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

 Not sure what's wrong with the eyes and back... people see and walk upright just fine as it is

As for the pelvis thing, if we want to get biblical, I think the pain of child birth was a punishment for the whole eating the forbidden fruit thing... though i could be getting my stories mixed up

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

In the beginning God created life.  This has made a lot of people angry and is seen as a bad move all around.  - Douglas Adams

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

I'll admit this is not my subject but how are dinosaur bones a disproof for creationism?  Wouldn't dinosaurs have also been created by a god or whatever?

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

It's disproof for Young Earth Creationism.

It's impossible to disprove creationism in it's simplest form. "God did it" is a non-falsifible proposition.

 

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Huh.  I wasn't aware there was more than one version of creationism.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

If you want to get picky, there's a pile of them.

Young Earth Creationism is basically a strict reading of the Bible; Earth was created 6000 years ago or so, etc. There's plenty of proof against that.

Just about every religion has it's own creation myth. Which of these is right? Why should only one be taught in science class? What distinguishes one from another?

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Uh, I don't have the link to the picture, but the phrase will suffice anyway...

*ahem* SUCCESSFUL TROLL IS SUCCESSFUL!

This article is about gaming, not philosophy.  C'mon, guys.

"HEY! LISTEN!"

"HEY! LISTEN!"

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Creationism isn't a theory.

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

No?  What is it?  A belief?

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Yes.

That's the reason Creationism shouldn't be taught in a science class. It's in no way shape or form scientific. Go ahead and teach it in philosophy or comparitive religion, but not science.

 

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

How isn't it scientific?  What makes another thing scientific?  ...Um...I'm really asking, trying to understand your point of view. 

 

Creationilism may be a belief, but the same could be said for the theory of evolution.  Neither is proven or disproven, both are theories on how life came to be on this planet.  So looking into the world for such a thing as some omnipotent being (creation by design) should not be considered scientific, while looking for evidence of evolution throughout history is considered scientific?

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

 "both are theories on how life came to be on this planet"

 

Actually, no.  Creationism posits that life was made by a God or Gods.  Evolution only explains the diversity of life.  If you want a scientific hyothesis for the creation of life, you want Abiogenesis.

 

"So looking into the world for such a thing as some omnipotent being (creation by design) should not be considered scientific, while looking for evidence of evolution throughout history is considered scientific?"

 

If you ever find objective, empirical evidence for any form of the supernatural, nevermind your specific God, you'll be the first.  Until such evidence exists, science doesn't give the supernatural any more time than any other unevidenced idea, because that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  That's just the way it works!  :)

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

^^^^^

What they said

There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can't do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can't do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

 "How isn't it scientific? What makes another thing scientific? ...Um...I'm really asking, trying to understand your point of view. "

 

Creationism isn't based on evidence, Evolutionary Theory is.  Creationism is a foregone conclusion that creationists try to find (read:  cherry pick) evidence to support.  Evolution is the conclusion when scientists look at all the evidence.

 

"Creationilism may be a belief, but the same could be said for the theory of evolution"

The difference is that the Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory (not a layman's theory), built on a mountain of evidence and used to explain an observation - the extant diversity of life.  Scientific theories are built upon evidence and facts and make predictions that must hold true for the theory to be valid.  So far, every prediction made by Evolution that we've been able to test has proven true.  Creationism can't make any predictions.

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Oh boy, where do I start...

99.99999+% of Science is a theory (or below). Science doesn't prove, it disproves. A theory has predictive power, you then look for or make data that supports or disproves it. Rinse, repeat. Data that disproves it says you need to rework. Data that supports just says you need to keep looking. The more data there is, the more confident you become it's right. Even large amounts of data don't mean you're right, just that you may not be looking in the right place or in the right manner. See how long it took Newtonian physics to fall. And even though it did, it's still productive to use it as an approximation, it's good enough most of the time.

Evolution DOES NOT make any claims about the origin of life and never has; it's completely outside its purview, life is one of its assumptions.

One of the things you do as you're doing science is to throw away parts of your hypothesis that don't impact the outcome - Occam's razor. Science is completely consistent without any god, he's not needed. Does that mean there isn't any god? No, it doesn't, but it sure as hell makes it less likely. If it's not needed, and it doesn't add predictive value, why look for it?

And as for "Evolution is just a theory" - Nuclear Physics is a theory, are you going to tell the residents of Hiroshima that theories mean nothing? Electricity is a theory, are you willing to hold a bare live high voltage wire in your bare hands?

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Theory - a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Creationism - the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

(All definitions from dictionary.com)

 

Creationism can't be termed a scientific theory because there is no experimentation to back up the 'theory', it's just an explanation based on the viewpoint created by - what is essentially - a storybook.

Nothing in science is ever 'proven', but the 'accepted' facts ie. what is taught in schools, has rigourously stood up to prodding and attempts to disprove them so is held to model reality as much as we are able to determine with our current understanding. If tomorrow something was found (that wasn't a hoax) that disproved the current theory of evolution, then after debate it'd no longer be taught.

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

Simply put, it isn't scientific because it is impossible to test the existence or nonexistence of a god.  As for the rest of it, refer to my post below.

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

42...

Of course!!! We shouldn't be reading the Bible or the Science books to learn the meaning of life , we should be reading The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy!

That makes perfect since!

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

I hope you don't think that ALL Christians are like Mr. Thompson and his zealot friends.

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

DOn't they also fight tooth and nail for absitnance only education despite that abstinance in most cases does NOT work?

Re: Coverage of Last Night's Jack Thompson - Gerard Jones ...

No, people just fail to practice abstinence.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenYikes. http://boingboing.net/2014/10/20/vultures-circle-gamergate.html10/20/2014 - 6:25pm
Neo_DrKefkaDestructoid Editor in Chief stepping down after allegations surface about blacklisting will he be next? http://allmannerofnerdery.tumblr.com/post/100526443850/im-leaving-destructoid10/20/2014 - 6:05pm
james_fudgethere's some inside baseball stuff going on in this Andrew - likely some stuff we don't know10/20/2014 - 3:30pm
E. Zachary KnightGreat musical video about online trolling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nS-QeM2ne810/20/2014 - 2:46pm
Andrew EisenBut again, this whole thing is just too damn vague to form an opinion on.10/20/2014 - 2:40pm
Andrew EisenWithout the original communication, it's impossible to say if it could honestly be misconstrued as a friendly suggestion rather than an employer directive. However, it appears that subsequent emails should have cleared up any doubt.10/20/2014 - 2:40pm
Andrew EisenThose aren't the owner's words, they're Chris Dahlen's. For what it's worth, we do see an email from Gonzalez stating "you've already broken the only rule we set for you!!!!!!!"10/20/2014 - 2:38pm
Michael ChandraSo really the guy's own words strike me as "wah! How dare you disagree with me!" behaviour, which is the sort of childish attitude I am unfortunately not surprised by.10/20/2014 - 2:17pm
Michael ChandraCorrect AE, but then again the owner's own words are about "wishes", not about an order. No "we told him not to", but going against his wishes.10/20/2014 - 2:16pm
Matthew Wilsonyup. sadly that has been true for awhile.10/20/2014 - 2:10pm
james_fudgewelcome to 2014 politics. Increasingly fought online10/20/2014 - 1:54pm
E. Zachary KnightIt is honestly a shame that anyone has to publicly state they are against such vile behavior, but that is the sad life we live.10/20/2014 - 1:46pm
E. Zachary KnightDecided to publicly reiterate my opposition to harassment campaigns. http://randomtower.com/2014/10/just-stop-with-the-harassment-and-bullying-campaigns-already/10/20/2014 - 1:45pm
Andrew EisenMichael Chandra - Unless I overlooked it, we haven't seen how the directive to not talk about whatever he wasn't supposed to talk about was phrased so it’s hard to say if it could have been misconstrued as a suggestion or not.10/20/2014 - 12:35pm
Andrew EisenHey, the second to last link is the relevant one! He actually did say "let them suffer." Although, he didn't say it to the other person he was bickering with.10/20/2014 - 12:29pm
Neo_DrKefkahttps://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/SxFas https://archive.today/1upoI https://archive.today/0hu7i https://archive.today/NsPUC https://archive.today/fLTQv https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenNeo_DrKefka - "Attacking"? Interesting choice of words. Also interesting that you quoted something that wasn't actually said. Leaving out a relevant link, are you?10/20/2014 - 11:04am
quiknkoldugh. I want to know why the hell Mozerella Sticks are 4 dollars at my works cafeteria...are they cooked in Truffle Oil?10/20/2014 - 10:41am
Neo_DrKefkaAnti-Gamergate supporter Robert Caruso attacks female GamerGate supporter by also attacking another cause she support which is the situation happening in Syia “LET SYRIANS SUFFER” https://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 10:18am
Neo_DrKefkaThat is correct in an At-Will state you or the employer can part ways at any time. However Florida also has laws on the books about "Wrongful combinations against workers" http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/448.04510/20/2014 - 10:07am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician