Send a Message
to SCOUSE71UK

Comments

14

Joined

Sep 29, 2013

SCOUSE71UK Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

US News

Evolution vs. Creation

Pasted from google:- "Can a Scientific Theory Ever Become a Law? Answer Scientific theory can become a law if it has been proved to be true since theories are based on assumptions. For instance the law of gravity by Isaac Newton started out as a theory."  (Oct 11, 2013 | post #100940)

US News

Evolution vs. Creation

No I don't feel like slapping myself because I always check my facts on google before posting. So I would advise you to do as I did and type in the difference between scientific theory and law.  (Oct 11, 2013 | post #100938)

US News

Evolution vs. Creation

"Nope. You have masterfully demonstrated that you quite simply do not have the slightest clue what you're talking about." I assume dude that when typing the above comments you were talking about yourself as you obviously don't. The fact is if it had been accepted as a law then it would not still be referred to as a theory by the scientific community. Which is why I think it is the most likely way life as evolved, but refuse to claim it as truth and so treat it with some scepticism. "Scientific theories contain facts. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws". " So Newtons theory on gravity never became Newtons Law on gravity? The fact is it started out as a theory and only when he had proven it beyond all doubt did it become Newton's law on gravity. Nobody as been able to do that with Darwin's theories on evolution which is why it remains a theory and not a law. You can throw all the insults you want at me, but it is clear you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about as you are contradicting yourself. "Scientific theories contain facts. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws". " "Like Newton's LAW of gravity." Or are you still suffering under the delusion that Newton's theory on gravity started out as his law of gravity. The fact is anything in science starts out as a theory and only when it is proven beyond all doubt is it confirmed as a scientific law. It is clear that you do not understand what a theory is. The fact is Darwin's theory of evolution as plenty of facts to support it, but not enough to prove it beyond doubt and so not enough facts to make it a law. If someone says they can drop a watch off the top of a block of flats with a parachute on, run to the bottom and catch it that is a theory. They catch it 1000 or even 1000000 times it remains a theory, because there is no way to prove that when they get to 100 or even 70 or 80 that they will still be able to catch it and so it never becomes a law. The fact is a theory does not need to be supported by any facts, it is just that the more facts there are to support a theory the more people there are who will consider it a working theory. The less facts there are to support a theory the more chance there is people will consider it as things such as a myth or a fairy story. I'm an atheist and so Darwin had more belief in the bible than I ever have as he referred to himself as an Agnostic.  (Oct 10, 2013 | post #100751)

US News

Evolution vs. Creation

Scientific law- something that has been proven correct and true numerous times Scientific theory- a guess/belief that something is true, not necessarily correct, some people may support it, others not. Need I say more?  (Oct 9, 2013 | post #100705)

US News

Evolution vs. Creation

continued:- On another post I used the term "bigot" because the definition is :- "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race." I used the word because to completely dismiss someone else's theory on how life might have started is bigoted unless you were there when it all started. I don't dismiss anyone's theory as that to me infers knowledge that I don't have which to me is what ignorance is. I have knowledge of creationism, Darwin's theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but what I don't have is irrefutable proof that either one is true. I lean more towards Darwin's theory being the most possible but only an uneducated fool would claim it to be true and completely dismiss all other theories or a bigot. I have used the word "clueless " in response to someone else calling me clueless in their post for the same reason, because to me there is nothing more clueless than blindly following a theory and dismissing those of others.  (Oct 8, 2013 | post #100682)

US News

Evolution vs. Creation

I couldn't help but laugh at those who knock me on here because it is they who show their ignorance. "You rejected evolution without even understanding we know it could be succeeded by a better explanation. This statement is not the hallmark of skepticism, but it is the trait of the average topix religious fundie. You spell scepticism with two C's and not a K and C. I am an Atheist and calling me or trying to assign me the traits of a religious fundamentalist is ridiculous to say the least. The fact is I do not reject or disbelieve Darwin's theory of evolution, but unlike the Darwin fanatics I recognise it for what it is. It is Darwin's "THEORY" of evolution and not Darwin's "FACTS" of evolution which is where the ignorance of the Darwin fanatics originates. There is no doubt that there is plenty of evidence and facts to support it, but you lose site of what Charles Darwin was trying to do. He was not for want of a better word trying to write a bible to be followed religiously on evolution. What he tried to do is put forward from his observations his theory on how life might have evolved on planet earth. If he was trying to do otherwise he would have called it Darwin's facts of evolution. I don't reject Darwin's theory of evolution, but I do reject the way some people on here view it and it is they who are ignorant of what Darwin's theory of evolution is and it seems what a theory is. A theory is a set of rules based on facts or evidence in most cases to try and predict what MIGHT happen or what might have happened and not as a lot seem to think on here what will happen or did happen. So the big bang theory, Darwin's theory of evolution or the creationist's theory while they might all have varying degrees of evidence and fact to support them are all like it or not simply theories. The problem is you all have more in common than you wish to admit. Darwin, the big bang and creationism all have followers that take them too literally. People on here clearly don't understand the English language and then label me uneducated and ignorant. They use the term "certain " when you cannot be certain based upon a theory and their are no degrees of certainty. "certain " means you are sure beyond doubt that something as or will happen in the way you say and there is no chance of there being any other result or it having happened in any other way. Those on here who accuse me of being ignorant of Darwin's theory of evolution are by, what they say, clearly the ones ignorant of Darwin's theory of evolution. They are also clearly the ones who are ignorant of science. The whole idea of science and Darwin's theory of evolution is that you look at the results and reach your own conclusions and not that you treat it as some sort of bible. The theory is the conclusions of that scientist based upon the results of his observations or the results of the experiments he carried out. As an Atheist I don't believe in god, I don't believe in religion but unlike some on here I'm not a fanatic about any of them. The fact is like it or not whether it is Darwin, the big bang or even creationism we could find that there is some sort of truth in them all. To dismiss such an idea is to show your ignorance, because unless present, which is impossible, when life began we can't be certain of anything and so must consider the possibility that their might be a grain of truth in any theory put forward. "Simply boasting skepticism is hardly the same as being knowledgeable. " I don't boast scepticism in regard to the theories but with regard to the significance some people on this site attach to them. A theory as I have said is about what might or could happen and yet some people on here continue to carry on as though they are "certain " to use their words that it did or will happen, but that is not what a theory is. to be continued:-  (Oct 8, 2013 | post #100679)

US News

Evolution vs. Creation

You show your ignorance and narrow mindedness by what you write and your ignorance of science as well. It seems you are on the wrong forum, but if you look I'm sure you will find one solely for bigots. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that we must consider all possibilities and yet with one sweeping statement you refuse to consider that there is any other possible theory other than your own, which is exactly what a bigot does. If scientists and inventors did that then no we would not be able to type anything. The reason we have progressed is because scientists have treated the theories of other scientists with scepticism and done their own experiments so they can reach their own conclusions. If the world of science was populated only by people like you, then we would be in serious trouble. It needs to be populated by people like myself who don't rule out any theory and treats them all with scepticism, because then and only then can we make any advances. The evolution theory may well be the prevailing theory at the moment but their is nothing to say that somewhere down the line it will not be found to be a load of rubbish and completely wrong. Science is littered with such instances. Such as the world being flat and anyone who dared to say anything else or espouse any other theory was considered an heretic. A bit like yourself and the idea there could be any theory other than the evolution theory. The idea of science is that you take the results and reach your own conclusions and not that you parrot the conclusions of the scientist who carried out the experiments.  (Oct 6, 2013 | post #100573)

US News

Evolution vs. Creation

The Dude:- "I see. Therefore if you personally cannot verify something yourself then they are not true. For instance if I were to tell you I was human then that is not true. If I was to tell you that I was a denizen of planet Earth then that is not true. But if I was to tell you that I was an alien then that also isn't true. It seems your brand of nihilism leads you to contradictions. It also means that evidence does not matter. <quoted text> And science never makes that claim. That is because science makes use of the concept of falsifiability, which is then used to make successful predictions. And that is why science makes use of evidence. Whichever position has more evidence that is more likely to be correct. Those positions may change later as and when more evidence is discovered. For instance plate tectonics was not taken very seriously at first but eventually the evidence won out. That may or may not change again later, pending future discoveries." I would first of all like to thank you for your comments, because they show better than I ever could the sort of person I am talking about. I am talking about the sort of person who takes the evidence or facts and then use it to support their argument or what they wish to believe. I know what I posted but before responding to your comments I read it again to make sure of my facts before responding to your comments. "I see. Therefore if you personally cannot verify something yourself then they are not true. For instance if I were to tell you I was human then that is not true. If I was to tell you that I was a denizen of planet Earth then that is not true. But if I was to tell you that I was an alien then that also isn't true. It seems your brand of nihilism leads you to contradictions. It also means that evidence does not matter." It is clear from the above comments that evidence and truth do not matter to you. Creationism, Darwinism and the big bang theory. Can you point out to me where in my post and which theory I claim is untrue? The fact is I don't! What I state is that I am not prepared to claim either is true! It is what is called reserving judgement and if a piece of evidence arises that proves beyond doubt that one of the theories is true then and only then would I be prepared to claim either theory is true. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" It is a statement used to describe exactly what I am saying mostly used to describe the use of numbers, but not solely numbers, to support an argument and make it seem like there is more evidence to support an argument than there is. It is your way of thinking therefore that leads to contradictions and not mine. My argument is the only one that is true and beyond doubt, because I have simply stated that "nobody can be certain that their theory is true." I mentioned experts in court and it has been proven that they have ignored evidence that disproves their theory in order to strengthen their argument. Which is why I treat all evidence with scepticism unless I can prove it myself. You refer to aliens which once again proves my point. I can go to another country and tell them I can prove that I am an alien. All I need to do then is show them my birth certificate which states I was born in Liverpool. After all I didn't say I was an extra terrestrial alien. Misleading but after all not untrue. Some people from Birkenhead sound like Scousers, but they aren't Scouse, yet some people believe they are. A Scouser is someone born and bred, like me, in Liverpool. The fact is with any argument we can only take the evidence put in front of us and decide how much weight we attach to it. I hear a Scouse accent I dont automatically assume they are from Liverpool and yet others do. I am never wrong because I don't claim they are or aren't Scouse, but those who make claims that they are have a 50/50 chance of being wrong because they have attached to much weight to the evidence.  (Oct 5, 2013 | post #100565)

US News

Evolution vs. Creation

Aura Mytha:- "You either know something by the evidence at least to being somewhat confident in it because there is tangible, empirical or physical evidence showing the fact. Or you're a clueless believer in some story you like. The Big bang has considerable physical evidence showing it happened. Creationist have a story and a clueless belief based on faith. There is this physical evidence, and we are debating it because you are clueless believer who rejects the evidence to the fact. So there really isn't a debate , there is your denial and our telling you the truth." You are not telling me the truth, you are simply telling me what you believe and as there is no irrefutable evidence, you are the clueless believer acting on faith. I don't believe in creationism, Darwinism or the big bang theory because unlike yourself I am not a clueless believer. All three are theories based on facts or whatever you want to call them gathered by others and ,unless I can substantiate them myself which I can't, so I treat them with scepticism and refuse to claim any of them are true. Creationism, Darwinism and the big bang theory all have the same thing in common. The person who put them forward spent the time gathering and putting forward the evidence they needed to prove their theory. Innocent people have been sent to prison based on the theories of such people. No doubt those experts were as confident as you that they were right such as the chances of more than one cot death happening in a family. The fact is nobody can say with 100% certainty that their theory on how life began or progressed is true. They can claim there is more chance of their theory being correct and present an argument to claim it is, but someone can then present an argument to say there is more chance of their theory being true.  (Oct 4, 2013 | post #100517)

US News

Evolution vs. Creation

"Aura Mytha wrote:- From the first two sentences you reveal yourself to be clueless . It is the defining line that is quite effective at eliminating all future correspondence, in the matter . It would suffice that your information that ,you to pronounce your intentions simply by saying , that YOU DO NOT KNOW. I have all the power in this world over this this concept. You do not know..... But I do." You reveal yourself to be the clueless one as you even neglect to close the quotation marks. You also reveal yourself to be the clueless one as in a question such as "How did life begin with creationism or the big bang theory?" a person can only believe. In order to state that they know they would have to be able to present evidence that proves beyond doubt that what they claim is true and at this moment in time nobody as within their possession such evidence. If they did then we would not be having this debate.  (Oct 3, 2013 | post #100432)

US News

Evolution vs. Creation

Some people on here keep linking Atheism on here with a belief in Darwinism or the big bang theory when atheism can exist without the need to believe in either theory. I'm an atheist and I don't believe in creationism,Darwin ism the big bang theory or any religion or religious book. I believe we will never know if any of the above theories are true and all have been used to defend the bigotry of various people. The bible as been used to promote child abuse and racism by various people. There have been scandals from just about every religion of the leaders of those faiths committing crimes against children and it being covered up. Religion as been used by some to defend wars such as the crusades. So what does that say about religion? If you have any sense you will realise it does not say anything about religion. It speaks only of the twisted mind of the individual who uses religion but would also use anything available to defend them perpetrating their twisted desires and forcing them on others. In the same way it is wrong to believe that all atheists use these examples as a way of attacking religion or that all atheists have the need to attack religion or force their ideas of their being no god onto others. By the same token not all people of a faith have the desire to convert others to their faith. I believe that we can debate things and put our opinions across and the problems arise when we personally attack others for their views or try to brain wash others to our way of thinking. Bigotry is when we try to assign values to a group of people because no group of people no matter how small will ever have all the same values. It is not religion or atheism at fault but the individual using them to promote their own prejudices.  (Oct 1, 2013 | post #100384)

US News

Evolution vs. Creation

Mike we have sink holes in England. We put plugs in them when we don't want the water to run out. I'm not sure why it says I'm from London on here I'm Scouse.  (Sep 29, 2013 | post #100312)

US News

Evolution vs. Creation

Why do people insist on this thread of labelling people racist as though that means anything. I say that it does not mean anything because Darwinism as been used to espouse racist views but also so as the bible. I'm an atheist and one of the best friends I have is a christian yet he does not try to convince me of gods existance and I don't try to convince him he doesn't exist. We simply respect each others views. Debate is healthy but the insults prove nothing other than the lack of intelligence of those making them.  (Sep 29, 2013 | post #100289)