[quote]harris447 wrote:
So, now we’re being educated about the scientific mthod by someone who cant spell ‘theory’ correctly.
For the 19 billionth time: a theory is not a guess. It’s not something some guy just pulled out of his ass.
A theory is a large schema MADE UP of facts.
Where the fuck did you guys go to college?
[/quote]
Bob Jones University.
Websters Dictionary:
Theory: “A judgment, guess, conjecture or opinion.”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Websters Dictionary:
Theory: “A judgment, guess, conjecture or opinion.”[/quote]
Aww, Websters. surely not.
Best go and look it up in the original, The Oxford English Dictionary first! Not in that abridged version:)
I guess one would also have to place the word scientific beforehand, which changes its context.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Scream it. Shout it. Do whatever you want, it still does not make Darwinism science. It is simply a form of faith. Faith in the ability of the things that are made to create themselves in the absence of a Divine Creator.
Darwinism = Atheistic Relgion and nothing more. So, Pookie, you should look into that…
Very well put Steveo. When people talk about the evolutionary theroy, the all too often forget about the THEROY part. It is not fact, it is a theroy - hence the name.
I am not the least bit surprised. As a child in school, the teacher would say “now we will learn about the evolutionay theroy”, and then start refering to it as evolution. So, the confusion is natural because people forget to associate it with theroy - They mistakenly associate it with fact.
This whole line of thought could lead to a discussion on the lack of proper education in our schools, but I don’t want to throw this thread off track…
So, now we’re being educated about the scientific mthod by someone who cant spell ‘theory’ correctly.
For the 19 billionth time: a theory is not a guess. It’s not something some guy just pulled out of his ass.
A theory is a large schema MADE UP of facts.
Where the fuck did you guys go to college?
[/quote]
Harris, it would appear you have been beaten with the stupid stick yet again.
Theories are not facts - theories are assumptions designed to support facts. If you are going to profess evolution with such vigor, you should probably understand that. Theories use facts to support facts, but they are not, in and of themselves facts. Please ponder this point - THEORIES ARE NOT FACTS!
As far as sounding ignorant with your argument, you are at more fault than anyone else I have seen on this thread. You focus so much effort on personal attacks that your entire point is overshadowed. Perhaps you could use a little college education - it would do you some good.
PS. My appologies to all - I have better things to do than spell check my posts. I don’t have the time luxury that harris has.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Websters Dictionary:
Theory: “A judgment, guess, conjecture or opinion.”[/quote]
Thanks for providing the definition. The important thing to take away from this is that harris is an idiot and a fool (j/k harris - you are my favorite online personality)!
Science
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together (See also hypothetico-deductive method).
Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, often, but not always, after their occurrence is no longer in scientific dispute. For example, “global warming” refers to the observation that worldwide temperatures seem to be increasing. The “theory of global warming” refers instead to scientific work that attempts to explain how and why this could be happening.
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.
And here’s what Webster’s ACTUALLY says:
Theory
Noun
A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”.
A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”; “he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices”.
A belief that can guide behavior; “the architect has a theory that more is less”; “they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales”.
Ben, you’re a fucking liar.
Ivan, you remain stupider than dirt.
Yes, how often have we seen these half-wits cling to a half-truth instead of facing reality.
It’s simply sad.
Im truly concerned for the US, since it is the only civilized country where almost a majority of the people prefer their religious fanatism over scientific truths. Everyone whos got a brain cell left can see how those people have their opionions fixed, an then try to find an explantion for them, no matter how ridiculous they are.
Thats exactly the same reason why the muslim world degenerated from what it was in the early middle age to what it is today.
Europe doesnt have this problem, neither does China. That in China something like 99% of the people are atheists doesnt change the fact that they will be the worlds superpower a few decades from now.
[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
Im truly concerned for the US, since it is the only civilized country where almost a majority of the people prefer their religious fanatism over scientific truths. Everyone whos got a brain cell left can see how those people have their opionions fixed, an then try to find an explantion for them, no matter how ridiculous they are.
[/quote]
Sounds a lot like the Evolutionists!
Yes, Christianity degenerated the muslim world. Christians are out here in force blowing up busses, restaurants, etc. all in the name of “faith.” What a crock of …
Perhaps if you really knew what you were talking about, you would sound a bit more intelligent.
Europe doesn’t have the terrible problem of caring Christians trying to help others headed for eternal damnation to turn from their ways and follow God. That would be a terrible problem.
No, Europe has no such problems, except for Muslims that will eventually make up a majority of their citizens and one day take over these countries. Remember France a couple of weeks ago?
China? You’ve got to be kidding! No China doesn’t have the problem of allowing people of faith freely expressing the Bible. I hear preaching on the street can get you 10-15 nowadays.
Would you like the U.S. to take care of the “Christian problem” by jailing us, perhaps? What are you saying?
…and you call us fanatics…c’mon!
Now I am off to church to worship the One True God! What do you people worship? Money? Your possessions?
[b][i] “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where theives break through and steal: But lay up for yourslves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and theives do not break through and steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Matthew 6:19-21
[quote]Yes, Christianity degenerated the muslim world. Christians are out here in force blowing up busses, restaurants, etc. all in the name of “faith.” What a crock of …
Perhaps if you really knew what you were talking about, you would sound a bit more intelligent. [/quote]
Nice twist Steveo.
Anybody with a brain knows that he meant fundamental religious viewpoints, not Christianity.
The muslim world is very intolerant and is basically run as a muslim theocracy. It is a plausible theory as to why the culture and scientific progress of what was once an enlightened region has become worthless.
Any other brilliant insights to share?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Science
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together (See also hypothetico-deductive method).
Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, often, but not always, after their occurrence is no longer in scientific dispute. For example, “global warming” refers to the observation that worldwide temperatures seem to be increasing. The “theory of global warming” refers instead to scientific work that attempts to explain how and why this could be happening.
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.
And here’s what Webster’s ACTUALLY says:
Theory
Noun
A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”.
A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”; “he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices”.
A belief that can guide behavior; “the architect has a theory that more is less”; “they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales”.
Ben, you’re a fucking liar.
Ivan, you remain stupider than dirt.
[/quote]
You still don’t see it do you harris? Theories are not facts - they use facts but are not in and of themselves facts. I don’t know how anyone takes you seriously. You are a waste of time and space on this thread.
I don’t even know why I respond. I guess I am compeled to remind the other readers that you lack logic, reason, and tact. You might want to go back and get that high school dipolma after all!
I have a theory.
If I go to the gym, lift heavy weights, and also eat lots of food, I may build some muscles.
However, unfortunately for me, this is only a theory and not a fact.
I guess I should wait until it is considered a fact before I waste my time?
At least science offers theories…
I can’t fucking believe that we are still doing the fact-theory dance. Its deja-vu all over again…
I think steveo and his friends should just write a standart post that says: “Macroevolution is just a theory, not a fact. Jesus hates queers and Catholics. Atheists are bitter and hateful. Jesus cries whenever you watch Brokeback Mountain. The bible is to be literally interpreted, except for when it doesn’t fit into our narrow world view. God is loving and all-powerful, as long as you do what he says and tell him how much you like him.” and post it over and over again.
Oh, wait. That’s basically what they do.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
“Macroevolution is just a theory, not a fact. Jesus hates queers and Catholics. Atheists are bitter and hateful. Jesus cries whenever you watch Brokeback Mountain. The bible is to be literally interpreted, except for when it doesn’t fit into our narrow world view. God is loving and all-powerful, as long as you do what he says and tell him how much you like him.”[/quote]
that’s a pretty good encapsulation of christian fundamentalists…
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Book of Tall Tales = Origin of Species[/quote]
Ah. Here’s the reply I’d missed. Note that I’m replying to this after my lengthy reply in the “Goat” thread.
It also seems we where veering away from civil discourse, I’ll try to rein in the sarcasm…
Quite understandable. With the family and the job, I also have less time available to read than I’d like. Can’t really complain about having a full life, can we?
Yes, time allowing.
That’s not a trivial detail, that’s an extremely interesting question. The best current scientific answer is “we don’t know.” I know it’s not really satisfying, but if you respect the scientific method, you can’t simply make up answers and put faith in them.
There are quite a few hypothesis on the origin of the Big Bang, but none of them are currently (and might never be) testable.
You should stop mixing evolution with cosmology and abiogenesis, as they are all separate areas of study. I understand they eventually relate, but “The Origin of Species” said nothing about life from non-life; nor about the creation of the universe itself. Similarly, Cosmology does not really address whether macroevolution is well supported or not.
When you mix all those things up, it makes us skeptical of your claims of being well acquainted with the scientific theories you’re dismissing.
It’s a bit like if I was dismissing the Bible by saying “well Adam didn’t believe in Jesus, so there!”
From what we know now, matter can not be created or destroyed. But we don’t know if the universe itself is subject to the same physical laws that apply within. We don’t know if the universe is “all of creation” or if universes (plural) are a common occurrence in a larger “all of creation.”
The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system, being bombarded by the Sun’s energy. When a plant grows from a seed in the ground and creates order from carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, it doesn’t violate any laws. The energy expended to complete the ordering process means that overall, the entropy of the universe (which can be taken as a closed system) has increased.
Here to, the second law is oft cited by creationists, but always misapplied. The closed system part is important; and the gain in entropy is for the closed system.
Are all Christians who believe in both God and evolution atheists? I think evolution is true only because of the evidence in support of it. Should a better theory come along, I’ll have no problem with adopting the newer theory as “the best current explanation.”
Would you change religion if a better one came along?
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
atheists, homosexuals, Buddists, Muslims, secular philosophy
I can’t wait to get to hell to hang out with all my friends…
I think you forgot Jews. They’re all doomed too right? Poor bastards never hopped on the Jesus bandwagon and now they have to pay…[/quote]
This is so out of context of what Steveo really intended, I’d have to conclude that you work for the Washington press corps!
[quote]harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Scream it. Shout it. Do whatever you want, it still does not make Darwinism science. It is simply a form of faith. Faith in the ability of the things that are made to create themselves in the absence of a Divine Creator.
Darwinism = Atheistic Relgion and nothing more. So, Pookie, you should look into that…
Very well put Steveo. When people talk about the evolutionary theroy, the all too often forget about the THEROY part. It is not fact, it is a theroy - hence the name.
I am not the least bit surprised. As a child in school, the teacher would say “now we will learn about the evolutionay theroy”, and then start refering to it as evolution. So, the confusion is natural because people forget to associate it with theroy - They mistakenly associate it with fact.
This whole line of thought could lead to a discussion on the lack of proper education in our schools, but I don’t want to throw this thread off track…
So, now we’re being educated about the scientific mthod by someone who cant spell ‘theory’ correctly.
For the 19 billionth time: a theory is not a guess. It’s not something some guy just pulled out of his ass.
A theory is a large schema MADE UP of facts.
Where the fuck did you guys go to college?
[/quote]
Harris,
I can imagine you teaching a bunch of teenagers. Didn’t you say you are a teacher? It really is too bad we can’t speak this bluntly to students, maybe stir up their brain matter a little bit!
Good post!
HH
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Newton’s First Law is supported by the Creation account. God created in a literal six day time frame and then the Bible says He ended the creation. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form of energy into another. This is one strong fact Pookie.
Newton’s Second Law (Entropy) – Systems “wind down” i.e. increase in chaos – not “evolve” into more complex and ordered forms. Look around you – society itself has degenerated over time, not to mention all of the natural disasters going on lately…
[/quote]
Wow. Thank you for giving us indisputable evidence of your ingnorance of basic science.
Newtons 1st Law: In an inertial reference frame, an object moving at a constant velocity will remain remain moving at that velocity unless acted on by a force. What does that have to do with matter being created or destroyed? Anyway, we know through quantum mechanics, that matter can spontaneously appear and then disappear (the time-energy uncertainty principle allows this).
Newtons 2nd Law: The magnitude of the force exerted on an object is the time derivative of its momentum (the famous F=ma equation). You are thinking of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of a closed system must increase with time. That means that the fact that you are breathing is violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics locally, but because your body is not a closed system, the overall entropy is increasing. Please don’t jump on the 2nd law bandwagon, because its for anyone to take you seriously.
Also, using society as an example of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is ridiculous and shows you have no grasp on the concept. Are you honestly suggesting that the complexity of society has decreased? Thousands of years ago humans were wandering around in loincloths throwing spears, and now we have organized governments, economies, etc. Please spare us the childish misuse of science next time.
And natural disasters? Please Jesus, tell me he is not serious. Does a hurricane seem like a good example of disorder? A spiraling system which rotates around a clearly defined central point? That’s disorder? If a hurricane doesn’t violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics locally, then I don’t know what does…
Steveo, I would suggest you pray for a good science education (didn’t you say you studied math???).
And last time I checked, I was still waiting for:
Examples of Biblical prophecies which have come true (and thereby proving that it is truly God’s word).
Examples of scientific evidence for a literal interpretation of Creation (and a 6000 year old Earth and universe).
Any literalist who has a high-school level grasp of thermodynamics and cosmology.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
atheists, homosexuals, Buddists, Muslims, secular philosophy
I can’t wait to get to hell to hang out with all my friends…
I think you forgot Jews. They’re all doomed too right? Poor bastards never hopped on the Jesus bandwagon and now they have to pay…
This is so out of context of what Steveo really intended, I’d have to conclude that you work for the Washington press corps!
[/quote]
And your sense of humor is so lacking, that I’d have to conclude that you’ve got some type of long wooden object up your ass. Should we really take this stuff seriously?
I like to have fun here, not just argue.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Newton’s First Law is supported by the Creation account. God created in a literal six day time frame and then the Bible says He ended the creation. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form of energy into another. This is one strong fact Pookie.
Newton’s Second Law (Entropy) – Systems “wind down” i.e. increase in chaos – not “evolve” into more complex and ordered forms. Look around you – society itself has degenerated over time, not to mention all of the natural disasters going on lately…
[\quote]
Wow. Thank you for giving us indisputable evidence of your ignorance of basic science.
Newtons 1st Law: In an inertial reference frame, an object moving at a constant velocity will remain remain moving at that velocity unless acted on by a force. What does that have to do with matter being created or destroyed? Anyway, we know through quantum mechanics, that matter can spontaneously appear and then disappear (the time-energy uncertainty principle allows this).
Newtons 2nd Law: The magnitude of the force exerted on an object is the time derivative of its momentum (the famous F=ma equation). You are thinking of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of a closed system must increase with time. That means that the fact that you are breathing is violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics locally, but because your body is not a closed system, the overall entropy is increasing. Please don’t jump on the 2nd law bandwagon, because its hard for anyone to take you seriously.
Also, using society as an example of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is ridiculous and shows you have no grasp on the concept. Are you honestly suggesting that the complexity of society has decreased? Thousands of years ago humans were wandering around in loincloths throwing spears, and now we have organized governments, economies, etc. Please spare us the childish misuse of science next time.
And natural disasters? Please Jesus, tell me he is not serious. Does a hurricane seem like a good example of disorder? A spiraling system which rotates around a clearly defined central point? That’s disorder? If a hurricane doesn’t violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics locally, then I don’t know what does…
Steveo, I would suggest you pray for a good science education (didn’t you say you studied math???).
[/quote]
And last time I checked, I was still waiting for:
Examples of Biblical prophecies which have come true (and thereby proving that it is truly God’s word).
Examples of scientific evidence for a literal interpretation of Creation (and a 6000 year old Earth and universe).
Any literalist who has a high-school level grasp of thermodynamics and cosmology.[/quote]