Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#74147 Feb 6, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no, no they really aren't...
"So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other."

The Happy Scientist say's different...

thehappyscientist.com

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experime...

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#74148 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact...if evolution was 100% certain, it would be called the "law of evolution", and not the "theory of evolution".
Again, no-one uses that term anymore. perhaps you were thinking of Newton's law of gravity? try that with yoru GPS system...it won't work because the "law" was wrong...totally wrong. it was good math, but the very basic premise of it was totally incorrect.
this ois why no one uses the term laws of science since you were in high school...

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#74149 Feb 6, 2013
neutral observer wrote:
Even if there is a magical hand guiding it evolution is happening. It is a scientific fact. Just like the big bang.
If you wish to argue that your chosen God set it into motion...
Overwhelming evidence is not "proof". There exists a remote possibility that there could be an explanation which defies all evidence and rational understanding. Biblical Delusionists will provide you with that explanation.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#74150 Feb 6, 2013
trekx wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually no its one in the same ....
Read a science book !!!
Your the one who needs to read a science book.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#74151 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Or maybe, what you read or heard were said by men trying to influence others into going certain political ways... so they made up things.
Have you really consider all thing?
Like: Jesus was not found as a name in the gospel but inserted later.

Atheism has not been the same of late.
We used to be way more knowledgable than any christian, safe the ones with a good European theology university education.
That would agree and understand concepts like MYTH, DOGMA and TENETS OF BELIEVE. And since they can't explain it all and feel better with a SOMETHING around, they would say they are believers.
And usually they pick what suits them.

Believe is per definition agnostic. Otherwise you would know and believe would not be needed.

It's extremely rare to meet such types as found here on the forum in Europe*...with thus so little knowledge about the history and theology in general.

Bar some backward eastern countries that picked up where they left of in the middle ages. Throwing stones at orpanages with HIV kids. Excorcisms on the schizophrenic till death, for it must be of the devil. And more of that sort of retarded...uhm good christian behaviour. Even the pantzerpope endorses it! Weird times.

Give'm a finger and they take your right to live away.

And frankly one cannot attack abstractions. Love, holiness, redemption, hate a.s.o.
But literalism ...anytime.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#74152 Feb 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. The term 'law' is often used incorrectly to describe a well tested theory. Newton's Law of Gravity was still a theory. Later proven not to be completely correct.
Curses upon ye of the quicksilver like keyboard.....

or...I agree totally with what you just posted seconds before me...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#74153 Feb 6, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>We have no theories that are 100% certain, do we?
I would think that why they call them theories, and not laws.Duh.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#74154 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other."
The Happy Scientist say's different...
thehappyscientist.com
http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experime...
why doesn't that law work at the sub-atomic level? how can it be a law if it isn't 100% certain?

if you are googling stuff to support claims you already made, you are bound to fail, just as if you write a college research paer by making a statement and then 'researching' the facts that support it. had to "F" a lot of those papers in my day....

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#74155 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other."
The Happy Scientist say's different...
thehappyscientist.com
http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experime...
Still wrong. And you misunderstood him. The LAW describes the mathematical relationship. It is not the same as a theory.

Level 1

Since: Feb 13

Riverside , CA

#74156 Feb 6, 2013
The scientific theory is one of the beautiful things about science. You see science is OK with being wrong in fact it goes out of its way to prove its self wrong all the time. This is the only way to find truth. Many theory's including gravity and evolution can not be dis proven. So dose this mean they are not 100% fact because they carry the title of theory? No it doesn't it just means that science isn't happy with calling anything FACT because nothing is certain and we are always learning new things.

Unlike religion that explains everything with "GOD MAKE THIS" end of story ...

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#74157 Feb 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Biology proves beyond that the shadow of any doubt that all life fiercely resists change, which is why DNA is the backbone of life. It is precisely the LACK of change that makes the evolutionary model impossible.
Life resists change too much to make it work.
If that were true, animal breeders would have no way of developing new breeds.
neutral observer

Lake Worth, FL

#74158 Feb 6, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Overwhelming evidence is not "proof". There exists a remote possibility that there could be an explanation which defies all evidence and rational understanding. Biblical Delusionists will provide you with that explanation.
What is the point in denial? If you wish to say a creator was behind the big bang and guided the evolutionary process...

It is silly to pretend they are not real.

Anyone too dumb to know the Bible was not written to be taken literally... a bunch of parables strung together to form a morality tale... even the ancient Hebrews understood that much.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#74159 Feb 6, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Like: Jesus was not found as a name in the gospel but inserted later.
Atheism has not been the same of late.
We used to be way more knowledgable than any christian, safe the ones with a good European theology university education.
That would agree and understand concepts like MYTH, DOGMA and TENETS OF BELIEVE. And since they can't explain it all and feel better with a SOMETHING around, they would say they are believers.
And usually they pick what suits them.
Believe is per definition agnostic. Otherwise you would know and believe would not be needed.
It's extremely rare to meet such types as found here on the forum in Europe*...with thus so little knowledge about the history and theology in general.
Bar some backward eastern countries that picked up where they left of in the middle ages. Throwing stones at orpanages with HIV kids. Excorcisms on the schizophrenic till death, for it must be of the devil. And more of that sort of retarded...uhm good christian behaviour. Even the pantzerpope endorses it! Weird times.
Give'm a finger and they take your right to live away.
And frankly one cannot attack abstractions. Love, holiness, redemption, hate a.s.o.
But literalism ...anytime.
One of the biggest fallacy ever propagated by atheists, is that to be a Christian one must know the letter of biblical law, which was directly addressed by the Christ.(Faith)

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#74160 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other."
The Happy Scientist say's different...
thehappyscientist.com
http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experime...
yeah, see the happy scientist is trying to eplain complex ideas to people that are dumber than a bos of rocks. his statement that we can use newtons formulae for the attraction of bodies holds true for crude calculations. as stated previously, if we used those formulae, or laws as you would call them, to launch missiles or orbiters or moon rockets, they would not work. If yout Tom Tom or Google maps Gps system used them, they would not work.

is that really a law if it doesn't work in all situations? this is why real scientists don't really use that term any more.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#74161 Feb 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Still wrong. And you misunderstood him. The LAW describes the mathematical relationship. It is not the same as a theory.
nope.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#74162 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I would think that why they call them theories, and not laws.Duh.
But...but...but...you said we had scientific laws?

why do you fools keep contradicting yourselves when trying to debunk things you don't even have the slightest clue about? oh yeah..you don't have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about....that's why.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#74163 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I would think that why they call them theories, and not laws.Duh.
Is this the same old rehashing you spoke of earlier, where you say incorrect stuff and everyone corrects you?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#74164 Feb 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Still wrong. And you misunderstood him. The LAW describes the mathematical relationship. It is not the same as a theory.
Wait a minute...your science buddy just told me they were the very same thing...which is it?

You guys really need to share your index cards more.lol

Level 1

Since: Feb 13

Riverside , CA

#74165 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Your the one who needs to read a science book.
Oh i have read many, OK, try this, pick an object Hold it out in front of you and release it. What happens? It falls, of course. The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the object pulls it towards the ground. But, when we do this experiment, should we be talking about the Law of Gravity or the Theory of Gravity?

Actually, we should be talking about both. To understand why, we need to understand the scientific meaning of the words "law" and "theory."

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other.
neutral observer

Lake Worth, FL

#74166 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the biggest fallacy ever propagated by atheists, is that to be a Christian one must know the letter of biblical law, which was directly addressed by the Christ.(Faith)
Athiests somehow care about Christian theological discussions? That one is funny.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 9 min -Lea- 28,841
last word - first (Jun '12) 9 min Ysmay_Wyldcharm 7,377
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 11 min Red_Forman 7,129
I Haven't Had____? In ages (Sep '12) 11 min Ysmay_Wyldcharm 1,014
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 13 min Ysmay_Wyldcharm 41,021
Why do YOU get on Topix? 16 min modhippie1 69
What is your favorite DOLLAR STORE purchase? (Jun '09) 19 min Ysmay_Wyldcharm 451
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 27 min Chuckles Hooverdamn 38,645
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Wolftracks 155,551
did tally have a stroke 2 hr Chilli J 34
Lets Discuss Men (Dec '13) 3 hr modhippie1 848
More from around the web