Calling all Creationists!

[c4a]

Ummm, I thought that was "Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation".

How fast did those of us "needing to be educated" pick that up?

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Somehow, I had it in me to answer honestly, without mocking anyone.

I am not mocking. I am serious.

 

[Master Mason]

It's not my idea that evolution is a scientific fact, but as much as you might wish to think it isn't, you're wrong. The theory of evolution, as I said, describes how evolution works, it doesn't postulate whether evolution exists.

You might want to read this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q01

As I stated above to another poster, "If you want to have a scientifically-based argument against the theory of evolution, you need to understand two things: 1) what the theory of evolution states and 2) the basic terms used in science, such as a theory. So far, you've only demonstrated your ignorance in both."

I am not ignorent about anything, not matter how much you would like to call me names for disagreeing with you.

From the defintition above which you applauded " In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections" This means that they are not facts, but neither tenative or suject to correction. Facts are facts are Facts, in any time an in any way, they are not tenative nor are they subject to correction.

So again, do not tell me that a scientific theory is a fact, because it simply is not so.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Things that are proven, become laws, until that time they are theories, which means that they are best guesses. Best guesses are not facts.

That is simply false.

Theories don't become law. Scientific laws and scientific theories are two different things:

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

While the concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory, it is important to realize that a scientific law does not grow from or supersede a related scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

 

[smartestnumber5]

How fast did those of us "needing to be educated" pick that up?

Gravity is both a theory and a law, because a theory and a law are two different things.

Perhaps you should work on that education.

 

[Master Mason]

That is simply false.

Theories don't become law. Scientific laws and scientific theories are two different things:


http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Accepted as true, does not make it a fact. It makes it a scientific theory.

Facts are always Facts and are not subject to change.

Einstiens theory is not proven hence why it is still a theory.

Look I am not saying the theories are wrong, simply that they are not facts, is that really too difficult of a concept?

 

[Mikelly1221]

I did read the PBS FAQ on evolution, and read over the timeline showing how the theory of evolution came to be. On the flip side, I would like to suggest the book Total Truth, by Nancy Pearcy to anyone seeking an analysis of Intellegent Design worldview. She eloquently rebuts Darwin's and others findings that initiated the whole evolution theory. She also gives a wonderful defense of Intelligent Design.

Conservatives are often told that we are too "close-minded"-Christians also often receive that nametag. I'm sure that the evolution proponents would not be too closeminded to read an intellegent defense of Intellegent Design.

 

[Mikelly1221]

Gravity is both a theory and a law, because a theory and a law are two different things.

Perhaps you should work on that education.

Definition of theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

Definition of law: a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.

Definition of proposition: A plan suggested for acceptance; a proposal. Also, A subject for discussion or analysis.

Feel better now?

 

[smartestnumber5]

Accepted as true, does not make it a fact. It makes it a scientific theory.

Facts are always Facts and are not subject to change.

Einstiens theory is not proven hence why it is still a theory.

What is your source that is saying this?

Theories are not theories because they are unproven. There is nothing else for a theory to be but a theory.

I'll repeat:

While the concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory, it is important to realize that a scientific law does not grow from or supersede a related scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

A theory can't become a law because they do two different things. There is nothing better for a scientific theory to be than a theory. There is no such scientific concept as "a fact" which contrasts with "a scientific theory."

 

[Lintasare]

I believe in science and what science has proven.

I am Catholic and was educated in parochial schools. We were taught not to take the first chapters of Genesis literally. They are allegory, stories meant to explain something that at the time they were written...unexplainable. Also remember that before the Bible was written down for the first time it was a series of oral tales and lessons. Who knows what got changed when it was committed to paper for the first time.

Here is what I believe, I believe in the Big Bang, I believe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, I believe in evolution and I believe in all the wonders that science has shown us and proven to us.

Does that mean I am a bad Catholic and Christian? I don't think so.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Definition of theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

Definition of law: a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.

Definition of proposition: A plan suggested for acceptance; a proposal. Also, A subject for discussion or analysis.

Feel better now?

Exactly:

Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity. Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation for most calculations.

If scientific theories are unproven, then gravity is unproven.

 

[Master Mason]

What is your source that is saying this?

Theories are not theories because they are unproven. There is nothing else for a theory to be but a theory.

When theories are proven they become laws.

I'll repeat:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

A theory can't become a law because they do two different things. There is nothing better for a scientific theory to be than a theory. There is no such scientific concept as "a fact" which contrasts with "a scientific theory."

You can repeat it till your blue in the face, a Theory is still nothing but a best guess and subject to change when more data or better guesses come along. Once it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt then it becomes a Law.

 

[Master Mason]

Exactly:



If scientific theories are unproven, then gravity is unproven.

Where the law is in effect, then it is infact proven and not debatable, where it extends into the realm of theory, then it is debatable and unproven.

As an example, we and prove what effects gravity have on the earth. We can only guess what effects it would have on the sun. They use the law to approximate the theroy....

Approximate means guess, educated guess maybe, but still just a guess.

 

[c4a]

Gravity is both a theory and a law, because a theory and a law are two different things.

Perhaps you should work on that education.

Scientifically speaking:

A hypothise is: a GUESS based on observation. It can be unproven...but not proven.

A theory: a summary of a hypothesis (or a group of hypothesis) that has support from routine testing. (A generally accepted hypothesis). It is valid as long as no evidence can prove it wrong.

A Law: explains the action (usually using a equation) but it does not answer the question as to "why" it happens.

And as a Chemistry major, my hypothesis is that this entire debate could be termed as usage of the Scientific Method.

 

[c4a]

Clarification-college graduate with a Master's Degree that majored in Chemistry. Does that qualify as "educate" myself?:lmao:

 

[smartestnumber5]

When theories are proven they become laws.



You can repeat it till your blue in the face, a Theory is still nothing but a best guess and subject to change when more data or better guesses come along. Once it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt then it becomes a Law.

Where are the sources you are getting this from?

What gives you the authority to simply say things and act as if they are true with no back up from sources of any kind? Are you God? Or Webster's dictionary?


This is not how scientists use the words. How you use them is completely irrelevant.

 

[JimB.]

I think creation and evolution are completely compatible concepts.

ITA.................

 

[Master Mason]

Where are the sources you are getting this from?

What gives you the authority to simply say things and act as if they are true with no back up from sources of any kind? Are you God? Or Webster's dictionary?


This is not how scientists use the words. How you use them is completely irrelevant.

Since you want webster

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis

Funny I read this and never once does it mention the word fact, but yet uses words such as conjuncture, hypothetical, plausible..... nope no where does it mention FACT.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Scientifically speaking:

A hypothise is: a GUESS based on observation. It can be unproven...but not proven.

A theory: a summary of a hypothesis (or a group of hypothesis) that has support from routine testing. (A generally accepted hypothesis). It is valid as long as no evidence can prove it wrong.

A Law: explains the action (usually using a equation) but it does not answer the question as to "why" it happens.

And as a Chemistry major, my hypothesis is that this entire debate could be termed as usage of the Scientific Method.

Hence what we refer to as "gravity" in common language is both a law and theory which was my only point.

If someone is going to act as if scientific theories needn't be believed, then it seems gravity (at least the explanation of gravity if not the mathematical equations) is out the door as well.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Since you want webster



Funny I read this and never once does it mention the word fact, but yet uses words such as conjuncture, hypothetical, plausible..... nope no where does it mention FACT.

You do realize that the term "scientific theory" is different than the word "theory" no?

The word is used completely differently in the humanities as it is in the sciences. Hence "critical theory" means something completely different than "scientific theory."

Can you find me a legitimate source (meaning one that is not a creationist website) that explains the term "scientific theory" and says that a theory is merely a hypothesis.

I've already given you numerous sources that rebut any such assertion but apparently you are unable to read or comprehend them.

In any case, if we were to accept Webster's definition, we would have to conclude that gravitation (which involves both theory and law) is just a guess. Is that what you are saying--that gravity is merely a guess?