A group for those interested in science from the vast expanse of the universe or technology.

Report article RSS Feed Pseudoscience

Lets make it clear what will be allowed to be posted as science in this group.

Posted by Cervi_Messias on Aug 4th, 2012

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise
lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

No pseudoscience allowed!!!

If its crap it will disappear, unless it's flat earth stuff, then we will keep it and make fun of you...
otherwise if its not scence it stays away.

If you want to know what qualifies as crap consult one your friendly group administrators.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Post comment Comments
TheTriangulum Aug 4 2012, 10:40am says:

Well done shakespeare, a nice, emotional, butthurt response (round of applause)

-3 votes     reply to comment
Admiral-165 Aug 5 2012, 4:27am replied:

Talk about butthurt? He's not the one who left the group a day ago but perpetually trolls around it looking to comment... Even then, what does that have to do with anything he said in the post? This is a science group and he laid out the rules for uploading images and such. Rules which are based on real, scientific rules/methods. You consider yourself a fan of science but are offended by the rules that every scientist follows?

+6 votes     reply to comment
Predator_828 Sep 8 2012, 4:45am replied:


+2 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias Aug 4 2012, 8:50pm says:

thank you, and I hope your butt feels better, i believe they make ointment that might help it quite huting.

+3 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend Aug 5 2012, 4:39am says:

Great so no more evolution, except for variation within a kind of creature. That's provable and observable, but all the other stuff is crap, unprovable by modern experiments.
But showing proof of something, like the red sea crossing is still allowed? i mean it has hard evidence like the stuff that a court of law uses, even though it cannot be tested with modern experiments.

-2 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Aug 5 2012, 5:23am replied:

Great, so no more creationism. Evolution is tested, proven and observable. Speciation has been documented, so your claim that it only works within a "kind" of creature goes out the window.

Also, define "Kind". It is not a term used by scientists reffering to species or families.

+4 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend Aug 5 2012, 2:46pm replied:

Kind is mentioned in the bible as a kind of creature. So wolves, dogs, coyotes. All probably had a common ancestor, but this is evolution within a kind. Basicly is they can reproduce then they can be considered the same kind. Therefore what you observe is only the variation within a kind of creatures. If I were to ask you what doesn't fit: a cat, a tiger, a lion, or an strawberry. What would you say?

+1 vote     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Aug 5 2012, 5:36pm replied:

I'd say strawberry, because the common ancestor of animals and plants was over 500 million years ago.

+1 vote     reply to comment
ElfFriend Aug 6 2012, 3:52am replied:

Good job, you answered correctly. Slightly conserend by your reasoning though.

-1 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Aug 8 2012, 10:48pm replied:

How so? The only thing that puts it out of the group is its ancestry. I would give the same reasoning if you used "Dog" instead of "Strawberry", only not quite as far back. Cats, Tigers and Lions are Felines -> Mammals -> Vertebrates -> Animals and Dogs are Canines, while Strawberries are Flowers -> Plants.

Did you know the DNA of Humans and Bananas is 40% identical? Bananas are in fact, a good example of Evolution through artificial selection, as are dogs and housecats.

+1 vote     reply to comment
ElfFriend Aug 8 2012, 11:23pm replied:

I'm concerned because you believe in something that is unprovable.

"Did you know the DNA of Humans and Bananas is 40% identical? Bananas are in fact, a good example of Evolution through artificial selection, as are dogs and housecats."
Did you know that Microsoft word and Microsoft excel have similar coding? Wow one must have evolved from the other, or they have a common ansestor! No they have a common designer. They have common coding so that many features can be possible for both. Therefore why do you jump to the conclusion of them evolving, similar DNA proves the same creator made both, not that it evolved.

You should take a look at this, now I know it's about natural selection but you need that before you can get artificial selection is your theory is correct:

-1 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Aug 9 2012, 9:13am replied:

Lol answers in genesis. You just made a perfect fool of yourself, because that page is deceptive.

What you just did is a logical fallacy the name of which I forgot. The only naturalistic (read: scientific) explanation we have for life is abiogenesis followed by evolution.

While the only one we have for programs is a programmer. Machine-code stops working if it has errors, not so with DNA.

+1 vote     reply to comment
ElfFriend Aug 9 2012, 12:44pm replied:

I won't argue back your insults neither will I insult you.

As for DNA still working with quite a bit of errors well sure it works. Sort of. I for example had to suffer an autoimmune disease, which was a result of errors(mutations) in the DNA. Some people die from their DNA errors. So to say that DNA can function with errors is like say you can still read a book with spelling errors on nearly every page. And DNA is much more complex then a book. It would take a ton of books to write what is written in the DNA.

0 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Aug 9 2012, 6:36pm replied:

I didn't insult you. I just stated the truth. Using answers in genesis as source is making a fool of yourself, because their articles are either written by highly missinformed people, or with the full intention of missleading people (=lying).

An autoimmune disease is a detrimental mutation. One of 3 kinds of mutations, the other two being neutral and beneficial mutations. I have naturally higher-than-normal bone density (=they are harder to break) which is a beneficial mutation.

+1 vote     reply to comment
ElfFriend Aug 9 2012, 8:24pm replied:

They have sources, don't they? (I didn't read them but I trust the people that pointed me there)

Also people die from DNA errors, which destroys your theory that a DNA error is not deadly. (call it mutations, but it's still an error)

And your bone density doesn't have to be explained by "mutation" you could have just gotten more calcium and vitamin D.

0 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Aug 10 2012, 9:26am replied:

Yes, people die from *some* mutations, but not from all. I'm living proof that that is not the case, and so is this guy on Youtube, ShaneDK, who has additional coronary arteries (=thanks to a mutation). Every human has on average 100-200 mutations.

My bone density IS however explained by a mutation, because they are denser then they would become just by eating tons of Calcium, Iron or Vitamin D. (I in fact, eat too little Calcium)

+1 vote     reply to comment
ElfFriend Aug 10 2012, 5:24pm replied:

Mutations happen, but they cannot explain an animal and a plant to be of a common ancestor.

-1 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Aug 10 2012, 8:58pm replied:

Yes they can.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Mar 7, 2012
Open to all members
Send Message
Members Only
Join this group
Group Watch
Track this group
Report Abuse
Report article
Related Groups
Science! Educational group with 89 members