U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2012, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Front Range of Colorado
1,635 posts, read 2,087,826 times
Reputation: 654

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
Some people find comfort by embracing and enveloping themselves in ignorance -- much like a treasured baby "blankie" kept them safe from the bogey man.
I don't think it is so much comfort as it is necessity. What would happen if a creationist actually learned what scientific theories were and actually educated themselves about evolutionary theory? The only way they can debate the subject is to take the tactics they take, lies, deceit, straw men, misrepresentation, did I say lies? Otherwise, they would have nothing to say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2012, 03:23 PM
 
707 posts, read 537,311 times
Reputation: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmicstargoat View Post
I don't think it is so much comfort as it is necessity. What would happen if a creationist actually learned what scientific theories were and actually educated themselves about evolutionary theory? The only way they can debate the subject is to take the tactics they take, lies, deceit, straw men, misrepresentation, did I say lies? Otherwise, they would have nothing to say.
As for the theory of evolution I will admit I believe certain aspects of it. I do believe we as a human race has evolved but not from a monkey or ameba but as a human. Once Neanderthal with large jaws to a version with a smaller jaw because we discovered fire and started to cook our meat. Which then lead to being able to speak. But survival of the fittest is only in the animal kingdom. We as humans have the compassion to take of people with challenges. So this does not apply to us. But even with evolution it does not explain how we came into existence which is the real question. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that life can come into being from nonliving materials, which is an entirely different subject. And can still be said that it was the hand of God at work, so it does not solve anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Front Range of Colorado
1,635 posts, read 2,087,826 times
Reputation: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
The theory of gravity refers to how it works. No one knows. And similarly same as the other theory you mentioned. Now add the big bang and it's strike 3
The only strikeout here is you, with your abysmal ignorance of science. I'm sure that Newton, Einstein and Hawking would be most interested in some of your declarations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 03:27 PM
 
51 posts, read 29,170 times
Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
The theory of gravity refers to how it works. No one knows. And similarly same as the other theory you mentioned. Now add the big bang and it's strike 3
Yes, how gravity works is very precisely known. This is why we can launch spacecraft across vast distances, for example slinging them around Jupiter to arrive at Saturn. We are using nothing but simple Newtonian physics there. Given masses and distances and forces (all known) we are able to predict precisely how the spacecraft will behave, and that is how we are able to negotiate such vast distances so accurately. To say that no one knows hot gravity works is laughable.

But, perhaps you meant to say that we don't know why? Beats me, but "God did it!" is no more satisfying to any thinking person than explaining that the sun was hot because "God did it!" before we understood nuclear fusion. It's just intellectually lazy.

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon. Yes, the Theory of Gravity refers to how it works, including explanations of why it works as it does, though not why it exists. Similarly, evolution (ie, the change of frequency of alleles within a gene pool) is a natural phenomenon. And the Theory of Evolution describes how this works, including explanations of why (ex., genetic drift, allopatric speciation, etc.).

With both terms -- gravity and evolution -- the observed phenomena and the theories are distinct and separate. You clearly are failing to understand the difference between the aspects of the terms. It is like you're not familiar with the concept in the English language of words, to say nothing of phrases, having multiple distinct meanings. Have you never opened a dictionary to a word and noticed numerous definitions, some of them varying considerably from others? It seems not.

With evolution, we do know the 'why'. But I suspect, as I mentioned before in this thread, that you are confusing evolution for abiogenesis. That's your problem -- you need to understand the difference. And, again, the "God did it!" dodge is as lazy and nonsensical as it was before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Dallas, Texas
1,806 posts, read 2,061,525 times
Reputation: 964
Vansdad, did you read Noz's post in this thread?

I really wish you'd read Noz's excellent post in this thread. It is post number 27. Here, I'll quote it for you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
It seems that despite it being explained to you on many occasions the difference between Fact and Theory (as opposed to the vernacular definitions you cling to so desperately) continues to escape you.

I am happy to try again both to educate anyone else reading and also to keep you talking as every time you post you highlight the scientific ignorance that permeates the theist camp and there is utility in keeping you folk talking so you hang yourselves.

Evolution and Gravity are observed Facts.

The explanation for those facts is what science is about. The scientist will create a hypothesis to unite all the facts available at any one time.

The scientist then evidences and tests (proves) that hypothesis rigorously. The scientist then makes predictions based on the hypothesis and tests them to see if they are correct too. The scientist then tries to falsify their own hypothesis any way s(he) can.

The scientist then publishes papers on the hypothesis in peer review journals whereupon other scientists repeat the attempts to falsify and they test the scientists work for error, bias and more.

If and when a hypothesis gets through ALL that without being found to be wrong THEN it is considered a "Theory". "Theory" in science is the highest accolade we can bestow on a body of work. It is the science way of saying "This body of work has passed every test we can throw at it and come out alive and so it is considered to be as true as it is possible to be".

There is no amount of evidence that could ever be found that will change the name of "Gravitational Theory" to "Gravitational Fact". Or "Atomic Theory" to "Atomic Fact". It simply does... not... work... that.... way... in... the... language... used.... in... Science.

The error you keep making... willfully given the number of times you have been corrected on it... is to act like "Theory" in science means the same as the vernacular definition of "theory" which is actually closer to the word "hypothesis".

You might think you are being clever pretending not to know the difference but in fact it does little more than show you up as someone who talks about science while knowing literally nothing about it. It shows you to be ignorant of science in the same way as me saying "I love american football and David Beckham is my favorite player" would show I am an ignorant pretender wannabe when it comes to american football.
Please respond to this before continuing on in this thread, as I think it'll make it much simpler going forward if we all know what words mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 10,895,183 times
Reputation: 3712
Default Ah yes; it all comes together now. Now I see how you kids think!

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
The theory of gravity refers to how it works. No one knows. And similarly same as the other theory you mentioned. Now add the big bang and it's strike 3
special dull-back star for VansDad,waaaaaayyyyy back in the last row. Yeah; that's him!

You're talking a out an hypothesis, "ewlde chep", not an established THEORY. Only after the evidence is overwhelming does an hypothesis (essentally a very well based and probably true high-tech guess) gain status as a Theory.

It's OK: you just had it 3X wrong, like so many before you. But now, you don't EVER have to make such a silly illiterate wild-a$$'d guess again! Do you? Right? Never Again! OK then?

Well OK! You can move up two rows towards the quick learners up at the front. You know, where the Future Scientists of America hang out? Yeah. There.

So far, we have 1) pretty good circumstantial, and 2) a lo of far newer and, oh BTW, very comprehensive empirical, evidence, and finally, 3) a lot of "It's the ONLY possible logical explanation" types of results now that we have the Magellan & Hubble probes, and a few other far-ranging and very specialized satellite probes out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellan_(spacecraft)

HubbleSite - NewsCenter

NASA - Current Missions

...and so on, versus...

"Hovind and the Big Bang

Hovind disagrees with the Big Bang theory. He says that it could not possibly be true because of the principle of conservation of angular momentum. According to Hovind, the Big Bang theory states that the universe originated when a small, spinning dot of matter exploded and the matter contained therein "flew off."

He claims that, if this were the case, all planets and galaxies would spin in the same direction due to conservation of angular momentum and the fact that they do not proves that the Big Bang theory must be false. http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php, download #1 [link]

Unfortunately, Hovind's argument relies on a mischaracterization of the theory, which describes a sudden expansion of the universe (i.e., space and time), not an explosion of a spinning dot."

(All this in spite of known and mathematically demonstrable equations. Seems Kent, blogging from his jail cell, loves to mis-quote, quote-mine and straight-out prevaricate (also known, in Websters, as LYING!. After all, what are they going to do? Throw his worthless lying hide into jail? )

Now along comes you, and you just take this stuff...

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/u...yawn/001-1.jpg

or this...

http://www.demotivationalposters.org...1225223132.jpg

and run with it, instead of outright dismissing it all? Because The Center for ScrewBall Science and Christian Nut-Ballery tells you so? (aka: "The Institute for Creationist Studies" or "The Hovindian Tribal Council? And so on?

Wwow! Good on yah! Perhaps you could honor us with providing the links you do trust, OK?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 10,895,183 times
Reputation: 3712
Default Unlikely you'll get any answer! I could be wrong: we'll see.

Or alternately, as Fillmont so eruditely & plainly states, again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fillmont View Post
Vansdad, did you read Noz's post in this thread?

I really wish you'd read Noz's excellent post in this thread. It is post number 27. Here, I'll quote it for you.

Please respond to this [post] before continuing on in this thread, as I think it'll make it much simpler going forward if we all know what words mean.
Nope. You aren't going to expect them up actually & truthfully answer such a straightforward question, are you, Fillmont? I didn't think so: that would begin to very quickly erode their entire foundation! What'd be next? A challenge to: "Prove God actually exists with just one strong bit of unambiguous evidence!"

(But Do Please Note: do not use any of Mickiel's "because we have sunsets and dirt on twigs, and so on!" proofs of God's existence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2012, 01:47 AM
 
32,590 posts, read 7,914,138 times
Reputation: 4596
You people are so Werry Nasty to Vansdad who has risked his immortal soul in grudgingly accepting that evolution is a fact, while still hiving off abiogenesis and human consciousness as gaps for God. That is like me mumbling that '...well, ok Jesus did come out of the tomb alive but there could be natural reasons why..'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2012, 03:38 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 11,468,574 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
When they are proved, they become Scientific Laws. When they are disproved, they become Scientific Curiosities of antiquarian times. In either case, they stop being Theories.

Boyle's Theory and Ohm's Theory became Boyle's Law and Ohm's Law -- when they were proved.

Notwithstanding the above, they are still disproved by science, not by faith.
That's incorrect.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them.

There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
Try here:

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2012, 06:11 AM
 
4,476 posts, read 4,132,803 times
Reputation: 3978
I'm going to discuss evolution with my dog it's much more intellectually rewarding. He has no silly preconceived religious notions. (as far as I know) (If he does they can't be any worse than what I've read here)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top