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.
There are plenty of non-Christians that are against proposition 8 -- it's not just a Christian "thang". So what if the congressman doesn't believe in global warming, another "theory" -- what's that to you? He has every right as a citizen of the US to do so. As for science curriculums in TX and KS -- evolution is a theory, not fact -- just as creationism is a theory. And Rick Perry's day of prayer was not government sponsored -- he arranged it as a private person. What's your point?
I am sure there are some Christians who are against Proposition 8. Are you sure that you did not mean there are non-Christians who are for it? There may be, but I can guarantee that most atheists and agnostics are not for making marriage *only* between a man and a woman as gay marriage does nothing to hurt heterosexual marriage.
You misunderstand the nature of a scientific theory, first of all. Scientific theory is not a guess.
In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
Global warming is not a theory in your sense. There is ample evidence that global warming is happening. The theory has to do with whether or not man is helping to cause it. Certainly even if man is NOT the main cause, there is evidence that human activity does contribute to climate change.
Many of the GHG’s (greenhouse gases) occur naturally and are useful for keeping our planet sufficiently warm to support life. In the face of this proven statement, the human use of fossil fuels as the main source of excess greenhouse gases and being a contributory factor for global warming stands on equal footing as natural causes. Though by driving cars, generating electricity from coal-fired power plants, using central heating in homes and offices, the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere does occur. Furthermore, the last 150-year records show a steady industrialization resulting in increasing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by 31 percent and in direct proportion to this is the rise in level of atmospheric methane-an alarming 151 percent-mostly from agricultural activities like raising cattle and growing rice. Thus, in the face of this evidence towards human causes for global warming, it is hard to ignore these telling factors.
There are, of course, natural causes for global warming as well
Evolution is also not a theory in the sense you are using the word. Evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory. It fits the observations that scientists have made. The theory part is the *how* life evolves. There is no question at all that it did evolve.
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
I am sure there are some Christians who are against Proposition 8. Are you sure that you did not mean there are non-Christians who are for it? There may be, but I can guarantee that most atheists and agnostics are not for making marriage *only* between a man and a woman as gay marriage does nothing to hurt heterosexual marriage.
You misunderstand the nature of a scientific theory, first of all. Scientific theory is not a guess.
In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
Global warming is not a theory in your sense. There is ample evidence that global warming is happening. The theory has to do with whether or not man is helping to cause it. Certainly even if man is NOT the main cause, there is evidence that human activity does contribute to climate change.
Evolution is also not a theory in the sense you are using the word. Evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory. It fits the observations that scientists have made. The theory part is the *how* life evolves. There is no question at all that it did evolve.
You're absolutely right -- I did mean "there are plenty of non-Christians that are FOR Proposition 8". Thank you for the heads up!
I do appreciate your comments, but evolution, in any sense, has never been proven empirically as fact. It is, in it's entirety, a theory. The article does not refute this assertion. And I don't doubt that God's plan for creation does not include elements of evolution as how animals and plants change. But making the quantum leap from a change in a leaf to man evolving from a fish requires much more faith than most scientists are comfortable with.
As for global warming, I don't think anyone has a handle on whether we're going through global warming or global cooling. That debate has more twists and turns than an O Henry short story, much less whether man influences global warming. The jury is still out on that one, despite the efforts of Al Gore to resurrect it.
But can I commend you on a very considerate, civil, contemplative response to my comment? Although I disagree with your treatise, I truly appreciate not being called an a-hole, an idiot, stupid, etc. like many of your comrades in this forum. It's really refreshing, and I appreciate it tremendously.
You're absolutely right -- I did mean "there are plenty of non-Christians that are FOR Proposition 8". Thank you for the heads up!
I do appreciate your comments, but evolution, in any sense, has never been proven empirically as fact. It is, in it's entirety, a theory. The article does not refute this assertion. And I don't doubt that God's plan for creation does not include elements of evolution as how animals and plants change. But making the quantum leap from a change in a leaf to man evolving from a fish requires much more faith than most scientists are comfortable with.
As for global warming, I don't think anyone has a handle on whether we're going through global warming or global cooling. That debate has more twists and turns than an O Henry short story, much less whether man influences global warming. The jury is still out on that one, despite the efforts of Al Gore to resurrect it.
But can I commend you on a very considerate, civil, contemplative response to my comment? Although I disagree with your treatise, I truly appreciate not being called an a-hole, an idiot, stupid, etc. like many of your comrades in this forum. It's really refreshing, and I appreciate it tremendously.
To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis — that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
As for global warming, we are currently in a warming phase. There is simply no way to dispute that given the temperature change.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2011 was 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the 10th warmest such value since records began in 1880.
For March–May 2011, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above average—also the 10th warmest March–May on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2011 was the 12th warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.48°C (0.86°F) warmer than the 20th century average.
The global land average surface temperature for May 2011 was the seventh warmest May on record, while March–May ranked as the 10th warmest such period.
In the Northern Hemisphere, both the May 2011 and March–May average temperatures for land areas were seventh warmest such periods on record.
The May, March–May, and year-to-date (January–May) worldwide ocean surface temperatures all ranked as the 11th warmest such periods on record.
La Niña ended during May 2011. Sea surface temperature anomalies in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean warmed above the La Niña threshold, signifying a return to ENSO-neutral conditions.
Moderator cut: deleted quote
Darwin said that if the fossil record in the future did not bear out his theory then that would be the proof that he was wrong. The evolutionists know this and they have done everything in their power including many frauds to try to show that this record exists. Well, it just doesn't exist. Can you realize just how many trillions of links there would be in the fossil record if species evolved. There would be so many forms of evolutionary changes, but there are none. This arguement against evolution is just the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to disproving that this theory is correct.
Did you know that back in Darwin's time they thought that a simple single celled organism was just that, simple. They had no idea that this organism contained DNA that was more complex than anything known in the universe. Just the exsistence of DNA sounds a large death knell to the theory of evolution. Even an atheist using scientific method should easily be able to say that based on the evidence this theory is wrong.
It's not necessary to believe in a higher power or a creater to be able to look at the theory and say, "I don't know how things happened but one thing I do know is that this theory is incorrect".
The pride of man prevents them from saying, "I don't know".
Last edited by Miss Blue; 08-09-2011 at 10:59 PM..
I agree that this in not the place for evolution debate. I applaud Kiggy's remarks about keeping religion out of political life, however, that's like trying to keep tax evasion out of taxation.
There are plenty of non-Christians that are against proposition 8 -- it's not just a Christian "thang". So what if the congressman doesn't believe in global warming, another "theory" -- what's that to you? He has every right as a citizen of the US to do so. As for science curriculums in TX and KS -- evolution is a theory, not fact -- just as creationism is a theory. And Rick Perry's day of prayer was not government sponsored -- he arranged it as a private person. What's your point?
Sigh... Where to start? To begin with, yourself and a few other theological trollsters have managed to successfully hijack this thread. The idea or argument expressed in the OP has nothing to do with evolution or creationism, but since you just couldn't help yourself I'll indulge you.
First of all, lets get one laughable absurdity out of the way: creationism is a mythology not a theory, and certainly not a scientific one. Next.
While calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, the idea you're trying to convey is completely false. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage versus scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label that something a fact, even though it may not be 100% certain.
What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must properly understand both the theory and the evidence.
About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools and finding a better alternative would make their careers. In other words, to prove that evolution is demonstrably false would would win them fame and fortune. So far not one of them has been able to do so. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details about the way evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement amongst the scientific community, or in other words, those who actually know what they are talking about.
I have not hijacked this thread. Please look through the post. I'm merely responding to why Darwinism and atheism is every bit as "mythical" assumption as you, the OP, say Christianity is. Your comrades chose to hijack the thread through name calling and insult. Speak with them on the subject. I've been merely responding, as you have. I would be MORE than happy to get back to the original OP subject, if your colleagues would permit me to do so.
I agree that this in not the place for evolution debate. I applaud Kiggy's remarks about keeping religion out of political life, however, that's like trying to keep tax evasion out of taxation.
You may be right, there, Arequipa, unfortunately. To me, it sullies Christ to be put Christianity into a political agenda.
I quite agree with this. I wasn't there during the time of our founding fathers,so I can't really comment on whether they consdered themselves Christian or not, but I do believe that NOW we aren't a Christian nation.
We never were.
As for the Founders, most of them were able to draw a line to separate their personal beliefs from governance. Now, many still fail to do that, and are the vocal ones complaining about loss of "Christian Power" in the political and social system (and trust me, such attitude existed among many back then as well).
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.
