It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by truthseeka
Not to slight you at all, but that's one of the biggest problems in this debate. People use "theory" in the wrong sense; a theory has stood up to rigorous testing and, for the time being, is fact.
Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Originally posted by truthseeka
Not to slight you at all, but that's one of the biggest problems in this debate. People use "theory" in the wrong sense; a theory has stood up to rigorous testing and, for the time being, is fact.
Not all theories have stood up to rigorous testing, and all are certainly not facts. There are opposing theories, how do you suppose we accept them both as facts?
Ask any physicist if the string theory is a fact. 9 times out of 10 their answer would be no.
[edit on 1/11/2005 by AkashicWanderer]
Originally posted by truthseeka
I didn't say ALL theories are like this.
Originally posted by truthseeka
People use "theory" in the wrong sense; a theory has stood up to rigorous testing and, for the time being, is fact.
I'm not saying theories are perfect, but most theories are thoroughly tested.
Perhaps with the string theory you mentioned, it's more of an observational thing than experimental.
My point is that a theory is usually taken as a fact.
You know for a "fact" that gravity makes you fall down when you trip.
You know "for a fact" that your body is made up of cells.
I can't say anything on string theory, but I can say this; facts can change in science.
If someone comes up with irrefutable evidence, say nano beings that pull you towards the earth, that totally refutes the theory of gravity, it goes to the scrap pile.
Evolution says the atom is self-existant and not created and that it IT made everything.
Originally posted by resistance
A fact is something that can be duplicated over and over again.
Gravity is a fact, not a theory.
We can predict how it behaves, and it always behaves the same way.
A theory is a hypothesis that has not been proved, cannot be proved in the lab or observed to occur.
It cannot be duplicated in the lab, cannot be observed in nature, and in fact contradiccts all the known laws of nature and of physics.
Creationism however, explains what we see around us in every instance and it can always be demonstrated and proved in every single instance.
According to evolution life arose spontaneously in the soup
While most evolutionary biologists believe that life was formed through natural means, evolutionary theory in and of itself does not necessarily include abiogenesis, the formation of life out of non-living matter. Yet many creationists argue that since scientists cannot fully explain the origin of life, evolution as a whole is flawed. Many vocal Young Earth Creationists, such as Kent Hovind, explain this by recasting "evolution" as a broader statement than the one typically accepted by mainstream science.
The idea that there is a dichotomy between creationism and the broadly termed "evolution" itself has been pointed out by opponents of creationism to be an example of a false dichotomy. Since it is in principle possible for someone to be a creationist while simultaneously accepting the fact of evolution (see evolutionary creationism), there may be no need for any controversy. Even the two alternative points of view, creation and evolution are not black and white options. There is a spectrum of views on these topics ranging from a belief in young earth creationism and disbelief in evolution to a belief in both atheism and evolution.
Theistic evolution, or the less common term, Evolutionary Creationism, is the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution.
Theistic evolution holds that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. In this view, it is held both religiously and scientifically correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution.
This synthesis of religious teachings with science can still be described as creationism in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, but in the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. For this reason, some on both sides prefer to use the term "theistic evolution" to describe this belief.
The term evolutionary creationism is used in particular for beliefs in which God transcends normal time and space, with nature having no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, in which, for example, the events of creation occurred outside time as we know it.
A theory and a hypothesis are very different things. I suggest you look at this thread which should explain to you clearly enough the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
Evolution contradicts gravity?
How is creationism proved in a lab?
Originally posted by Halfofone
Theistic evolution, or the less common term, Evolutionary Creationism, is the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution.
Theistic evolution holds that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. In this view, it is held both religiously and scientifically correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution.
This synthesis of religious teachings with science can still be described as creationism in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, but in the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. For this reason, some on both sides prefer to use the term "theistic evolution" to describe this belief.
The term evolutionary creationism is used in particular for beliefs in which God transcends normal time and space, with nature having no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, in which, for example, the events of creation occurred outside time as we know it.
Originally posted by resistance
Akashik -- You say it's not a fact that gravity exists. Yo are mistaken. It is a fact that gravity exists. There is a theory as to HOW it exists.
The idea that gravity will some day stop being gravity is ludicrous.
Meantime, gravity is a FACT. Please don't waste my time with bickering and stupid stuff.
I suggest I already know what a theory is already.
If you don't like my definition,
then YOU go read the old threads and bring me something you think is better
Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Evolution contradicts gravity?
I didn't say that,
Originally posted by resistance
Therefore evolution as an explanation of origins and creation is a theory. It cannot be duplicated in the lab, cannot be observed in nature, and in fact contradiccts all the known laws of nature and of physics.
but yeah, in a way evolution actually does.
Only a determined, highly inventive and all-knowing Creator could come up with a design that in effect does "contradict gravity."
Evolution has no imagination, no sense of humor, and no intelligence to put together an atom, let alone a creature like a giraffe.
Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
How is creationism proved in a lab?
Take your pick. Anything. You don't even need to go to the lab. Everywhere you look the Creation attests to the Creator. Try the "dead meat doesn't grow maggots experiment" which disproved years ago evolution's brainless-child "theory" of spontaneous generation.
Take some chicken eggs and try to hatch one that's not fertilized. You can sit on it from now to Judgment Day and it won't hatch.
Life comes from life. It takes TWO. Male and female are different, but they need each other to get each other.
Get it?
Did the sexes evolve over billions of years and then finally they were ready to get together and reproduce? Before that they popped new ones out of their ears or something?
Try to create a cell in the labon purpose. You can't.
But you say this happened by accident.
Dump some paint on a canvas and see if it turns into the Mona Lisa.
Do some mathematical calculations of the probability of elements randomly forming to create anything, let alone an eye, a brain, or even a toenail.
Examine in the lab any creature on this earth, bar none, and you will see it is a wonder, an amazing wonder of creation, and that everything in this creature is all done, finished.
There's no paratially formed anything on this creature,
Please don't do the go-through-the-whole-post and bicker routine or I just won't answer your posts. Pick the main point or points you want to discuss and make your case.
I'm not here to bicker with people that just want to argue.
Originally posted by resistance
Akashik -- blah, blah, blah. I don't post with people who like to bicker.