That science theorys never get proven is another obscure argument in an obscure discussion, just showing your ignorance. It is simply not true. The concepts gets proven, that's for sure. Whole student generations in all countries becomes exactly that to do. Prove it, try to disprove it, convince me from it or from the opposite.
What you absolutely seem to miss is how science works. How should you, you believe, and don't care about knowledge and facts. A concept is the best as long as there is nothing better. When there is something better, this better concept, this theory, becomes the best.
You're mixing up my words, in what part in the last post did I say "theories never get proven"? Simply because you read this wrong, I need not answer more on the first paragraph, as for the second:
I'm not 100 percent sure what you're trying to say here. I have stated facts on the side of theories, once again, read the post. I never said anything bad about theories.
Every concept is called a theory by the way. That the earth is round (okay, ellypsoid) is still called a theory. Gravity is still called a theory. Don't play with words when you don't understand them.
Big Bang theory has not been disproved since, err, 50 years? I don't know. But it is currently the best. Evolution has not been disproved for 150 years. It is currently the best. Even and especially compared with the concept of creationists. There is noting left when you really start to proof the concept of creationism. All facts are against it. All facts points in direction of Evolution instead.
Forgive me, but....are you serious? You call gravity a theory....you call the earth being an Ellipsoid a theory...
First off, gravity is called, get this:
The *LAW* of Gravity. Gravity is not a concept, it is scientific LAW there is a huge boundary between law and theory, and since I've already posted a long one on this, I'll simply post the scientific process (method) and the definition of scientific law:
1.Ask a question (how did it happen?) [unless you are proving an existing theory, skip to step 3]
2.Research (make sure it hasn't already been disproven)
3.Theorize (make a hypothesis)
4.Test it (make sure the hypothesis is possible)
5.Check the results
If hypothesis is correct (and results can be duplicated):
- see 4 at least one or two times, then:
Report the results, if results are right, the theory is made a law
If hypothesis is incorrect, or at least somewhat true:
- see step 4 and repeat until theory is proven or disproven
A couple of references for the scientific method:
Hereand
HereAs for what a law is:
scientific law - a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law
A couple of references for the scientific (natural) law:
Hereand
Herewait a minute...it says nothing about whether we can understand the law or not...it says that if it occurs every time when certain conditions are met...then it is law. Correct me if I am wrong, but in certain areas of this earth I can drop a ball and it will fall, well, I guess that makes gravity law. The results will always (under the conditions mentioned) be right. That IS LAW.
let's test the earth being round...well it seems that if the earth is round and you go into space and see it, and take pictures, and if we don't fall off "the edge", then that must also be right every time you check it...that must also make it law...hmmm...
I don't mean to be too much of a jerk, and I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings. You guys, to be "scientifically-minded" seem to forget about the BASICS of science.
That the earth is just a few thousand years old has been disproven - the Vatican still denys. Creationists still denys. As long as possible. To keep the dogma of the almightiness.
Tiles...you didn't read one of my previous posts...
he BEGAN to FORM the earth and create life, the earth was already in place at this time, there was already a moon rotating, and nine planets in the solar system.
Another favour trick in such discussions here is to mix half true things with facts and prominent names. Like throwing the word Einstein into the discussion (honestly, did you even understand what you have written here in that context?). Ooh, look, he mentions Einstein, so Einstein must be at their side. Which means he must be right. A cheap trick. Or just to write half of a comment. Ooh, look, that he said. And when you read the full comment you find out that he said the exact opposite. Another cheap trick.
Cheap tricks. That's how religion works since thousands of years.
Umm...what? Apparently you didn't actually read what I wrote...perhaps you should look it over again...
I'm sorry but I don't think you truly understand my point here. I'm talking about the stories, the content itself. A lot of the biblical stories are far far older than when Christ ever existed, older than when Christianity ever existed... even far older than Judaism! We know this because most of the stories were written down by other a couple of different cultures from before the time of Jesus so to speak.
The whole genesis story was copied almost word for word from Sumerian myths, the idea of a half-God with superhuman powers turning water into wine, walking on water, a world wide flood, the Kain and Abel brother fight story, the virgin birth of a child, and many many other stories came from much older myths.
It's really quite impossible to even deny they've been copying and pasting a lot in the early days. Too much details are exactly the same. The Christian religion, like most religions do actually, just took all the interesting stories and made them their own. I don't understand why you think this makes the stories more reliable instead of less reliable to be honest.
It's quite clear that a lot of stories, having even the same names for many of the characters involved, can not have taken place twice in history. The reappearance of these stories in different cultures are proof for their popularity through time, but when it comes to historic value in terms of when, where and íf it all took place the way it was written down... it couldn't be more questionable.
I'm gonna have to ask for proof
Before you continue down this road.. keep in mind that in our view your religion hasn't been proven 'absolutely' either. The same is true... there shouldn't be put too much faith in it, as it's also a 'theory'. No offense, but I don't agree with the assumption that science is a religion though, it's based on evidence, reproduction of results and rationality, not mountains of faith, hope and wishful thinking.
I didn't say this to be a bad thing, as I said in that same post:
a theory cannot be said to be false upright (depending on evidence that supports the theory and how valid the evidence is) it can't be totally discounted, however, it can't be totally proven either.
This is what a theory is...I never said that it can't and won't be proven, I also said that it can't be discounted either.
[PHeMoX]Historic documents often give a very one-sided view of things. I never claimed all our history books in school are correct, quite the contrary.
The written documents aren't the only clue to what happened through time though. As said before archeology, geology and many other disciplines of science simply do not support the biblical stories.
When a king exaggerates it's power and influence in a text and brags about having erected 4000 pilars in his honor and name after a successful battle and we only find about 150 pilars scattered through the area.. then that certainly says a LOT about the validity / accuracy of the king's story. This is only one of many examples, in the case of the pilars it was unrelated to the Bible, but the story of the hundreds or even thousands of chariots that supposed to have crossed the dead sea is basically exactly the same...[/quote]
I was using history as an example as why biblical things should be taught as history, they don't have to say if it's true or not, I just think that the bible is a history book that should have the same right as "old questionable history" (
lol ) in school.
Actually evolution doesn't rely on chance. But there's no need to apologize, but I do think it's flawed reasoning. Something doesn't become 'scientifically impossible' just because people think it's incredibly complex and therefore must be designed. Complexity itself is certainly no evidence for design.
Usually the more we think a certain system is complex, the less we really understand of it. A lack of knowledge or simply a vast amount of knowledge needed to comprehend the system makes it so that we consider such a system to be almost too complex.
In reality we might know a lot of said systems, but struggle with the entire picture. That's exactly the case for our existence, the theory of evolution and all the other questions around this all.
It's also more or less just a matter of opinion whether you think the entire system is 'perfect'. After all many beings have to die before a species arrives at it's next evolutionary phase so to speak. It's a very aggressive way of progress.
If an event does not have a catalyst that is "someone" or "something" then it is chance. The thing is, we could even say that aliens caused life on this planet, but it would lead to the same old question; how did they get here? My point is, there is alot of chance involved when talking about the subject, there is also alot of questionable theories about how life sprouted and evolved. Alot of the theories are scientifically impossible.
It ís open-minded actually. It's how science works. It's erroneous to think scientists rush to conclusions considering their theories as facts too soon. Yes there are things that can't easily be proven, but there are also many things that have been proven to be correct and factual. (Of course, as in 'extremely likely to be correct'. But never forget science deals with theories that are either 'valid', 'invalid' or 'pending research'. It's a bit more complex than just saying 'okey, I give up, my theory must be right'.)
I was referring to the fact that we aren't still trying to disprove our own hypotheses in evolution. That is the point of testing, to try your best to disprove the hypothesis that you started, whilst keeping an open mind about the hypothesis, if it doesn't agree with other science then there is something wrong with either the hypothesis, or the science that it is comparing to.
Why exactly did you mention the atom bomb here? It's quite likely that Einstein knew more or less exactly what could happen with his theories. Some argue he was out for revenge having lost family in the 2nd world war, but he probably hoped the atom bomb wouldn't be used for real. Even many things concerning the hazardous nature of radiation might have been known also, but you can only know for sure when you test in practice. That's what science is all about.
You could also have mentioned the atom power plants that were made possible because of all this
I was mentioning it as an example for the equation, I was simply stating that even though it has research that works, the ENTIRE theory cannot all be proven at this moment with modern day science.
Well, I'm backing out PHeMoX. I'm repeating myself to alot of users pointlessly (excluding you, you seem to be the only open-minded guy on the side of Evolution :P ) and it's annoying. This post as will also be done the same way. Either way, my conclusion for whether creationism and biblical history should be taught has already been stated multiple times. Most of this is off-topic anyway
. Well, enjoy the debate!
