Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are forgetting that creationism was the universally held understanding of how the world worked until evolutionists came along and imposed their faulty belief system on the world, goiing so far as insisting that their nonsense be taught in public schools so that they could further the expansion of atheism.
That's one way of looking at it.
Another is that creationism was the reigning paradigm until a better explanation for the origin and diversity of species came about, and creationism was relegated to the trash heap of discredited scientific ideas along with phlogiston, orgone energy and the luminiferous aether. Creationism lost the debate on its merits. It has not been a serious scientific idea since Luis Agassiz died in 1873.
The universal law of gravitation has been shown to be incorrect in many instances where as general relativity was correct.
This applies to Newton's laws of motion. Most physicists of note have stated that while not correct it is correct enough to use in practical matters.
So while it is called a law it really is not...
Just because we can't deal with gravity in a manner that allows us to truly define it, observations of planetary bodies have essentially disproven Newton on several points.
And even Newton opined on this possibility.
True. Even our "laws" tend to break down at some level, which is why I would call them situational facts or truths. Science should always be open to revising its doctrines through science. This is the exact opposite of religion, which holds onto its beliefs in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.
Oh... it is laughed at in Europe. Because of it, I have friends at CERN who call the United States "Western Tehran."
The thing about religious people is that religion is everything to them.
I understand, the human life time is so short, compared to the time in the universe after death.
...But Religion is not based on the faith of a deity. It's based on the faith of the words of men.
True. Even our "laws" tend to break down at some level, which is why I would call them situational facts or truths. Science should always be open to revising its doctrines through science. This is the exact opposite of religion, which holds onto itself beliefs in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.
Yup... We have to remember it took the church centuries to admit it was wrong over the world being flat AND the sun revolving around the earth.
The Christians will get it eventually. What I wonder about is what nonsense they will latch onto next.
The universal law of gravitation has been shown to be incorrect in many instances where as general relativity was correct.
Almost right... but you missed my point, at least partly because you briefly (like Harrier does consistently) defaulted to the vernacular understanding of the term rather than the scientific.
Newtonian gravitation and Einsteinian gravitation are two theories that attempt to explain the facts of gravitation that we observe. Laws are neither facts nor theories. They are direct empirical statements that describe some aspect of the universe. They possess no explanatory value, and as a result are necessarily subject to refinement as empirical observations collect and improve.
In this way, gravity remains a law even as theories with which to explain it are debated and discarded, and even as observations cause us to fine tune our understanding of its nature.
My point was not that the law of gravity is even necessarily correct. My point was that Harrier has no idea what any of these scientific terms actually means.
The Christians will get it eventually. What I wonder about is what nonsense they will latch onto next.
Most have already got it. While the US is anomalous, the only other place creationism appears to have a significant representative presence is among Muslims.
we dont HAVE to prove that creationism is a myth. YOU have to prove that it is NOT. one cannnot prove a negative and it is upon he who asserts the positive to prove that it is so. We CAN show plenty of reasons to believe in evolution. YOU have nothing but WISHES to show for creationism. there is PLENTY of reason to not handicap our kids in school and later life by having them believe in bs, which is all that creationism IS, of course.
ok, Harrier, you CLAIM to know, so SHOW us, in some way other than some googled quotes, that is.
School is not for politicizing students.... we already have liberals for that...
Only conservatives seem to consider science a political issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
