quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Prove that to be true. Any proof that a condom, when worn properly, is 100% effective?

Easily using your logic.
A broken piece of latex is not a condom. Ergo wearing a broken piece of latex doesn't count as wearing a condom. Thus wearing a condom is 100% effective.
Condom use is effective 100% of the time that it's effective just like your argument for abstinence.

quote:

Condoms are about 85% effective for birth control. With careful use, they are even more effective. Keep in mind that the best way to avoid getting pregnant is to not have sex (abstinence).

quote:

During a year of typical condom use, between 10 and 15 out of 100 sexually active women will become pregnant. During a year of perfect condom use, that number drops to between 2 and 3 out of 100 sexually active women becoming pregnant. Just for the record, 21 percent (typical use) and 5 percent (perfect use) of women who use the female condom experience an unintended pregnancy within the first year of use.

Here's the difference between perfect use and typical use. Perfect use means using a condom during intercourse consistently and correctly every single time, and reflects the effectiveness of condoms themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, here, you are wrong. I didn't say the Theory of Evolution was wrong, just that it hasn't been proven completely. There is evidence, but there are holes and gaps.
Teaching Evolution as "this is what science thinks happened" and Creation/ID as "here is another theory that others think explains it," doesn't demean either, but it also doesn't teach something as settled science when it isn't settled science.
What is really interesting, is that there are people who cling to Evolution as tightly as some cling to the Bible; it's almost like it's their religion. There are gaps in our understanding, but people accept it as Gospel, applying faith where science hasn't shown the proof.

There's nothing in science that's "proven completely", and we're never going to know everything about anything. That's not how it works. That you said this makes it clear that you don't have a solid understanding of what science is and how it works.
The scientific method works like this: You have a hypothesis (a guess or idea), and you design an experiment to try and disprove it. You test and test to see if you can disprove your idea. If you can't, then that's basically what you might call a fact or datum, but it's still always open to someone coming along and doing another test and overturning it. Then, if you get a whole bunch of "facts", you can try to find a model that best fits them. You test that model over and over again, using it to make predictions and seeing if it fits future data that is discovered. If the model is the one that fits the data best, and is supported over and over again by the tests and can't be disproven, then it becomes accepted - "proven" - science and is called a theory.
Even this, like everything else in science, is open to being modified somewhat when someone has new data and a better fit model. But that's really hard to do, especially when there's such a massive amount of data supporting one conclusion like with evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Every step is known, then?

Everything about gravity isn't known, should we teach intelligent pushing as an alternative to the law of gravity?
Everything about reproduction isn't known, should we toss out all the facts we do have by bringing the stork model into science class?
[image]local://upfiles/566126/9E6519F075104CB48DBB10E2FF9083BC.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, here, you are wrong. I didn't say the Theory of Evolution was wrong, just that it hasn't been proven completely. There is evidence, but there are holes and gaps.
Teaching Evolution as "this is what science thinks happened" and Creation/ID as "here is another theory that others think explains it," doesn't demean either, but it also doesn't teach something as settled science when it isn't settled science.

1. creation/ID isn't a theory.
2. Evolution is a fact. That is settled science.

Every step is known, then?

we don't know if our universe is made of strings or loops but this doesn't invalidate quantic physics, Galileo's trasformation are the limit of lorentz's one as speed approaches 0, the fact we knew a function just in one point doesn't meant there is no function or that point we knew is not valid, it's perfectly valid in the neighbourhood of 0 now we know also other things.
So what we know is known what we don't know is to be discovered but what we know to be false is false. Creatinism is proven to be false so teaching it is fraud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
Gravity is accepted as fact, even though it is a 'theory'. Gravity, like evolution, has gaps in understanding, as there is with all the fields that make up the forces in the universe, but the idea of gravity is accepted fact, no one is saying that gravity is caused by an intelligent designer or anything like that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I think gravity and reproduction are much more "settled" science than evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Apparently, WebMD needs to update themselves on the "truth" of birth control success rates. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Gravity has been proven to a much higher degree than the Theory of Evolution (which is an explanation of how Man evolved from lower forms).

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, here, you are wrong. I didn't say the Theory of Evolution was wrong, just that it hasn't been proven completely. There is evidence, but there are holes and gaps.
Teaching Evolution as "this is what science thinks happened" and Creation/ID as "here is another theory that others think explains it," doesn't demean either, but it also doesn't teach something as settled science when it isn't settled science.

1. creation/ID isn't a theory.
2. Evolution is a fact. That is settled science.

Every step is known, then?

we don't know if our universe is made of strings or loops but this doesn't invalidate quantic physics, Galileo's trasformation are the limit of lorentz's one as speed approaches 0, the fact we knew a function just in one point doesn't meant there is no function or that point we knew is not valid, it's perfectly valid in the neighbourhood of 0 now we know also other things.
So what we know is known what we don't know is to be discovered but what we know to be false is false. Creatinism is proven to be false so teaching it is fraud.

Creationism has been proven false? Please cite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Apparently, WebMD needs to update themselves on the "truth" of birth control success rates. [8|]

No no webMD is talking about reality, you know that place where abstinence is the least effective form of birth control.
We're talking about your no true scotsman fallacy where we define the failure rate out of counting. This makes all forms of birth control 100% effective.

quote:

Keep in mind that the best way to avoid getting pregnant is to not have sex (abstinence).

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
actually this should be enough to disprove it: conservation of mass

quote:

The law of conservation of mass, or principle of mass conservation, states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy (both of which have mass), the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Prove that to be true. Any proof that a condom, when worn properly, is 100% effective?

Easily using your logic.

A broken piece of latex is not a condom. Ergo wearing a broken piece of latex doesn't count as wearing a condom. Thus wearing a condom is 100% effective.

Condom use is effective 100% of the time that it's effective just like your argument for abstinence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Keep in mind that the best way to avoid getting pregnant is to not have sex (abstinence).

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Keep in mind that the best way to avoid getting pregnant is to not have sex (abstinence).

I want to congratulate you on having done research related to your position.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Keep in mind that the best way to avoid getting pregnant is to not have sex (abstinence).

I want to congratulate you on having done research related to your position.

I am not sure how much research was needed to come to that conclusion. You get pregnant by having sex, if you don't have sex you will not get pregnant. Pretty simple stuff there. Now if DS was saying that teaching abstinence only would help prevent teen pregnancy I would say he was being stupid, but he has already said many time in this thread alone that he does not believe that. So I have to wonder why you keep harping on this.

quote:

Here's the thing, though: we have experiments that demonstrate that gravity works, and we can even demonstrate how to counter gravity. Gravity has been proven to a much higher degree than the Theory of Evolution (which is an explanation of how Man evolved from lower forms). We have yet to prove the Theory of Evolution. We have proven that things can and do evolve, but we have not yet even come close to proving, by experimentation, how Man evolved. We don't have a complete timeline of skeletal records, either. We have some steps along the way, but there are so many gaps in that evolution that makes the Theory of how Man evolved suspect.