Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Creationists, explain to me why humans and dinosaurs....

Home // Evolution Versus Creationism


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dictionaries, encyclopedias, science textbooks, yada yada yada.

Really, this isn't something that's little-known.
Back to top
emceeMC
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
In science, a "theory" is like a "fact". A "law" is a theory. A "hypothesis" is a guess.


Well, you're one for three anyway.

A hypothesis is like a guess.

A Law is something that is proven by experimentation to be true, whereas a theory is arriving at a conclusion based on evidence.

I'm not saying evolution is necessarily totally wrong. However e, since it is unable to be proved by experimentation (or else it would be a Law), and that our only evidence is geological and observational, it is unlikely we understand the full scope of how the human came to be.
Back to top
JesusLopezViejo
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 581
Location: Tri-State

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
emceeMC wrote:
Quote:
In science, a "theory" is like a "fact". A "law" is a theory. A "hypothesis" is a guess.


Well, you're one for three anyway.

A hypothesis is like a guess.

A Law is something that is proven by experimentation to be true, whereas a theory is arriving at a conclusion based on evidence.

I'm not saying evolution is necessarily totally wrong. However e, since it is unable to be proved by experimentation (or else it would be a Law), and that our only evidence is geological and observational, it is unlikely we understand the full scope of how the human came to be.


Ever since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, evolution has been a source of controversy. In general, controversy has centered on the philosophical, social, and religious implications of evolution, not on the science of evolution itself, the proposition that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection is completely uncontested within the scientific community.

The only thing not making it a LAW as you state is all the delusion religious folk in the world who can't handle the truth.
Back to top
emceeMC
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
The only thing not making it a LAW as you state is all the delusion religious folk in the world who can't handle the truth.


The scientific community is made up of scientists, not delusional religious folk. If they could prove it to be a law, they would. Many delusional religious are skeptical of global warming, yet the scientific community seems to defy them anyway and back their own belief.

However, there is something that is preventing it from being a law. That is its' inability to be tested in experiment. In order to be considered a Theory, a hypothesis must only not contradict empirical evidence, and logically flow from empirical evidence.

Again, I'm not saying evolution is totally wrong, its probably has truthful components, however, Im just a little skeptical that protocells are the root of all life since the only empirical evidence we have if from millions of years ago throughout history.

And I wouldnt be so quick to throw around "delusional" as an insult if I were you. You yourself wallowed in the delusion that the Catholic church and mainstream Christianity taught creationism because of your own religious bigotry.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
emceeMC wrote:
Quote:
In science, a "theory" is like a "fact". A "law" is a theory. A "hypothesis" is a guess.


Well, you're one for three anyway.

A hypothesis is like a guess.

A Law is something that is proven by experimentation to be true, whereas a theory is arriving at a conclusion based on evidence.


...not quite, no. Really, just look it up.

Quote:

I'm not saying evolution is necessarily totally wrong. However e, since it is unable to be proved by experimentation (or else it would be a Law), and that our only evidence is geological and observational,


It's not experimental...it's observational. Curious way of thinking.

What do you think the purpose of an experiment is, just out of curiosity?

Quote:
it is unlikely we understand the full scope of how the human came to be.


HAh, of course we don't understand the full scope!

Were you under the impression that anyone believed that we did?

We have a solid general idea, but we absolutely do not have everything solved about the matter.
Back to top
Refused
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 247

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is just a quick observation.


"Science" has a 0-10% credibility rate. Why? It's constantly changing it's opinions. There are few REAL FACTS with science because it's constantly changing, and that's obvious to see.

I am not arguing that religion is any more credible.

I just don't see how you could say one is better and more credible than the other.

Science is bullshit.

Also, there have actually been fossils where there was a dinosaur print AND a human print inside of it. That's pretty strong evidence supporting creationism.

But of course not a lot of people know about it because those "right wingers" only talk bullshit, right?

Fuck that. I am not a Conservative by any means but when there is truth, there is truth. Regardless of political party or opinions.
Back to top
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Refused wrote:
This is just a quick observation. Science is bullshit.

Could you please be more specific. And cite your source.
WELCOME TO LVC RUFUS!
Very Happy
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Refused wrote:

"Science" has a 0-10% credibility rate. Why? It's constantly changing it's opinions. There are few REAL FACTS with science because it's constantly changing, and that's obvious to see.


So...you would say that something that doesn't change it's opinion is more credible?

Why? That doesn't make sense. The only way you can never change your opinion, without being patently delusional, is by knowing everything.

Quote:

Science is bullshit.


Yeah, no kidding. Your computer is running on magic and pixie dust, after all.

Quote:

Also, there have actually been fossils where there was a dinosaur print AND a human print inside of it. That's pretty strong evidence supporting creationism.


That's actually not true.
Back to top
emceeMC
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
HAh, of course we don't understand the full scope!

Were you under the impression that anyone believed that we did?


The author of this thread seems like he's pretty certain.

Quote:
...not quite, no. Really, just look it up.


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

I know Wikipedia's not exactly a textbook but since you directed me there in another thread to inform me about science it should suffice.

"A scientific law concerns the physical or social world, it therefore must have empirical content and therefore be capable of testing and potentially falsifiable. Analytic statements that are true or false by logic alone are not scientific laws, though may feature as part of scientific theories."

"A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena."

Theories describe something using logic and evidence, Laws are the actual math/scientific mechanism behind the theory.
There is no law of evolution because evolution is untestable. We cannot perform an experiment to note the development of a protocell into a human. Therefore, we can not research the actual science behind the theory.

But even theories have to be testable, since they are supported by laws. Evolution is untestable, it only happened once, and we cant replicate it, thats why the theory cannot be supported by a law
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
emceeMC wrote:

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

I know Wikipedia's not exactly a textbook but since you directed me there in another thread to inform me about science it should suffice.


In this instance, it's not the best resource to use.
It's not strictly wrong, but it doesn't explain it well.

Here's a good description of the subject:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/.....theory.htm

This one's okay too:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

In particular, note the example at the bottom of that page:
Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
Theory: All swans are white.


(yes i know, not all swans are white. it's just an example to illustrate the point)

Quote:

There is no law of evolution because evolution is untestable. We cannot perform an experiment to note the development of a protocell into a human. Therefore, we can not research the actual science behind the theory.


Why do you believe that we must see evolution from protocell to human in order to validate evolution?

Quote:

But even theories have to be testable, since they are supported by laws. Evolution is untestable, it only happened once, and we cant replicate it, thats why the theory cannot be supported by a law


What do you believe evolution is?
Back to top
emceeMC
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Why do you believe that we must see evolution from protocell to human in order to validate evolution?


Umm, because evolution says that humans evolved from protocells. Call me kooky, but I'd like to see experimental evidence of something before I declare it the be all and end all of scientific theory.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, i ask because you don't actually have to see a protocell evolve into a human to verify that it happens. It's much like you don't actually have to see an electron to verify that they exist.
Back to top
emceeMC
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
It's much like you don't actually have to see an electron to verify that they exist.


No, you don't. However, you do have to perform experimental analysis to verify that it exists. When J.J. Thompson discovered the electron, he did so in a repeatable experiment that confirmed its existence. He didn't look millions of years into the past for "Electricity Through the Ages", and assume one existed because of the past existence of electricity.

Similar life forms existed in different periods in history. Survival of the fittest is not an untrue theory. Observations from millions of years ago that don't contradict the theory of evolution don't nessesarily prove it to be true to the extent of protocellular evolution into humans...and dolphins, and sponges, and ficuses.
Back to top
Anym
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 2562
Location: Jersey

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
emceeMC wrote:
Rofl! Some of those things were ridiculous!

Humans and dinosaurs obviously did not occupy the same time period, as you support with geological evidence. However, that does not mean evolution is the be all and end all of scientific theory.

How did one group of cells evolve into a human, and other group into a daffodil?


Are you trying to say a daffodil evolved from a dinosaur?
Back to top
emceeMC
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anym wrote:
emceeMC wrote:
Rofl! Some of those things were ridiculous!

Humans and dinosaurs obviously did not occupy the same time period, as you support with geological evidence. However, that does not mean evolution is the be all and end all of scientific theory.

How did one group of cells evolve into a human, and other group into a daffodil?



Are you trying to say a daffodil evolved from a dinosaur?


No, I'm trying to say that...

Quote:
How did one group of cells evolve into a human, and other group into a daffodil?


As in one group of cells involved into a human, and another group of cells evolved into a daffodil, exactly as I said in my original post.

I cannot help you if you are unable to grasp the perplexing intricacies of the English language.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Evolution Versus Creationism All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 2 of 10

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites