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 misunderstood what I was saying. There is no evidence for or against anything. All evidence is interpreted. The question is who's interpretation is more correct? Each interpretaion is driven by the investigators presuppositions (axioms). So, depending upon your core beliefs you will interpret the evidence differently then another.
I understand exactly what you are saying. You're spewing the same canned nonsense that all your creationist ilk spew - lies and misinformation.
And I am afraid ALL evidence supports evolution. And that's not a matter of interpretation.
Quote:
No, Gilgamesh is just a poor rewrite of the biblical account.
Not bloody likely considering the Gilgamesh story predates the plagiarized Biblical account by almost a millenia.
Quote:
The fossil reccord is the total account of the flood of Noah's day. Yes floods create layers look to the explosion at mount St. Hellen, the lake bed below has layers formed from the catastophic erruption and mudslide. Noah's flood was on a global scale, but mimics the childs experiment of putting mudd and sand in a soda bottle with water and shaking it up. After settling, layers a formed. (what website and museum are you refering too? I am not affiliated with any such place).
No sparky, a global flood wouldn't "shake up" anything. According to your own myth it happened gradually over many months.
Using the mount St. Helens eruption is a common creationist tactic that has been debunked many times over and show you know nothing of the geologic column and how layers are formed. Please get some new material or better yet get a decent education from a legitimate and accredited institution of higher learning without an obvious creationist agenda.
Its a sham, I mean shame that evolution is not really science, but rather a story that is supported when convenient by science.
You are correct that is evolution can be lowered down, then it can be considered just another hypothesis. However, it should never have been lifted up to the statust that it is at, because of the lack of evidence for it.
In fact, if Mendels hereditary work was expressed in public during the time that Darwin was writting his story, then we would not even be having this discussion now and Evolution would be a footnote in the science textbooks along with the rasin-bun model of the atom.
And there you are, I couldn't have planned this response any better. I profiled you to a tee. Thank you for speaking up. However, if you read that again, you will see that I was not expressing my view, but rather yours, as wrong as it is, so as to illustrate it's baselessness. It's as if I PM'ed you to respond to my post to validate my take on your views. (I really didn't, folks.) How convenient you make it. Thank you.
I think he's clumsily trying to trap us into saying something he thinks will be a useful argument for his position, which is why I asked him to clarify what he meant in the first place.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
But what does it matter? Your so committed to the notion that theory is the same as fact that, for instance, if a scientist were to put forth a purely scientific case for the theoretical existence of invisible pink elephants, you would pronounce it a done deal - proven - end of story.
But what does it matter? Your so committed to the notion that theory is the same as fact that, for instance, if a scientist were to put forth a purely scientific case for the theoretical existence of invisible pink elephants, you would pronounce it a done deal - proven - end of story.
Which is much worse than reading something in an incoherent, pieced together, non conglomerate work that destroys the historical context of Jewish works and just throws them in with angry Pauline rants dating back about 1800 years and believing that word for word.
But what does it matter? Your so committed to the notion that theory is the same as fact that, for instance, if a scientist were to put forth a purely scientific case for the theoretical existence of invisible pink elephants, you would pronounce it a done deal - proven - end of story.
That's leads to another point. Theories are just useful models - they let us take what we see as starting conditions and let us predict things in the future. A theory about a problem with a car motor doesn't have to explain the weather in Topeka next June to be useful to a mechanic today. Now if a theory gives an answer which is wrong that's one thing, but not giving an answer about something that it's not even trying to model isn't a failing.
All science is a simplified model of the real world. As a practical matter you use the simplest model that you can get away with and still get useful results (and "simple" in that sense is relative - it depends on the level of detail you need in the results so the most simple model might still be very complex). But you can't fault a theory for not explaining stuff it doesn't try to explain.
That's why "we can't know everything with 100% certainty" isn't a useful objection to science because quite simply it never claims to. Even if we had a grand unified theory of everything it would be so complex that it would only be used for a very small set of complicated problems. We'd still use 16th century physics to launch rockets to other planets.
I agree, but a grand unifying theory of everything, may not be all that complex.
But what does it matter? Your so committed to the notion that theory is the same as fact that, for instance, if a scientist were to put forth a purely scientific case for the theoretical existence of invisible pink elephants, you would pronounce it a done deal - proven - end of story.
We have a winner!
As I pointed out earlier, "But it's just a theory!" is in the same class as a dreadfully clueless understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. When someone broaches either, you know you're dealing with someone who has got the basic talking points down to slogans, but invariably can't begin to actually discuss them.
Maybe you'll explain to us how a law pertaining to closed systems has anything to do with the open systems we're discussing? (ie, evolving biological entities of various sorts)
But what does it matter? Your so committed to the notion that theory is the same as fact that, for instance, if a scientist were to put forth a purely scientific case for the theoretical existence of invisible pink elephants, you would pronounce it a done deal - proven - end of story.
Fail. The second law of thermodynamics does not 'prove' creation or disprove evolutionary theory.
Failure to understand that in thermodynamics probabilities are not fixed entities has led to a misinterpretation that is responsible for the wide-spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder.
In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution.
So sorry, you fail on an epic level because the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove anything. And that's not the topic of the OP anyway. The topic is why so many religious people don't understand the term 'theory' as applied to scientific subjects.
Leave it to IDers to divert the thread topic onto their preponderous ignorance of evolution. The OP didn't say anything about evolution or ID. They were talking about people whom misuse the word theory in science. This applies to any scientific theory, not just evolution. The scientifically illiterate always claim that something is 'just a theory.' They're right, it is a theory, but not in the way they mean it. They make the presumption that a theory in science is just opinion and speculation. This is nonsense though. A theory in science isn't a load of twaddle that someone pulled out of their rear end then claimed is true. A theory in science is a modal that explains a natural phenomena. To be considered a theory, the modal has to have undergone rigorous scrutiny and have been verified multiple times by various independent sources. The only twaddle here is the nonsense of people whom misuse scientific terms. An example of a theory seperate from evolution would be the heliocentric theory. This wasn't something that someone just concocted when they were taking a magic carpet ride. It's something that was verified by multiple tests by multiple sources. Another thing is that theories in science can be tested by anyone. Someone can look through a telescope and verify that the earth revolves around the sun just like someone can go into nature and observe evolution taking place. A theory in science is the same as what a layman would consider a fact. A fact in science is just an observation. It's interesting that such people act as if what they're saying is true, yet they don't even know what the terms actually mean.
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.
Need to show that first, don't you?
