vlad321 said:
Joelcool7 said:
vlad321 said:
Joelcool7 said:
vlad321 said:
Joelcool7 said:
In the end as I said we could drag this on for 3 months like I have with others. Or we can admit you know what I am not smarter then everyone else, I don't know all the answers and the theories I believe in are exactly that "Theories".
When I refered to uneducated Athiests I was refering to those who don't know about any other theories then their own. Their are many uneducated Creationists as well. But no matter how much education you have you can't prove Creationist or Evolutionist Theology as fact.
|
Except that what you are refering to are not theories at all....
|
How are they not theories? I can come up with a theory and it is a theory. A hypothesis is a theory. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it any less of a theory. Now you could try and argue it is not a scientific theory but their is scientific evidence to support the majority of creationist theories.
Its fairly narrow minded to write off everything anyone else believes because you do not. I am Christian yet I think many of the teachings found in Buddhism are very helpful and agree with many of them. You can't write off someone else's theories as not being theories simply because you personally disagree.
What would have happened to galileo if everyone just stuck with their theories. If nobody questioned the Earth being flat what would the world be like today?
You can't just blindly believe one theory and write the rest off as whack jobs. A theory is a theory and creationist theories are no less theories then evolutionist theories.
Heck Richard Dawkins himself mentioned the theory that aliens seeded life on earth. So that is a theory but an intelligent designer isn't a theory? What kind of logic is that? Richard Dawkins called it a scientific theory on national television are you saying he's a nut job? Because if aliens seeding life on earth is a scientific theory then yes intelligent design is also a theory, it holds alot more water then aliens planting life on earth.
|
Eh.... no. You can't jsut come up with something and call it a theory. There is also a very good distinction between a theory and a hypothesis. Given creationism means god, I am going to go off on a limb and say that there are no scientific theory that comes even close to proving existance of god. You know what the best part about a theory is? It doesn't matter WHAT you belive in a theory will remain true, whether you like it or not.
P.S. Aliens seeding life on Earth is not a theory either.....
|
Well thats opinion because Dawkins himself called it a theory and he is one of the most respected Athiest scientists on the earth today.
"What you believe in, a theory will remain true, whether you like it or not" - Thats not a theory thats a scientific fact. Their is a major difference between fact and theory, theories can be proven false or correct. Once they are proven false or correct they stop being theories. Well actually Science 10 text books still called them theories just theories that were proven false and some correct.
You are confusing theories with facts. a Scientific fact is something that can be falsified, repeated, observed and studied. A scientific theory is a theory based on scientific fact.
Just by reading your wording you seem to be confused. Their are many scientific theories that support the existance of God. Their just aren't any scientific facts that can prove the existance of one 100%. Their are many scientific and non-scientific theories that support Darwinism and other athiest idealogies. But no scientific facts that prove Macro Evolution or many other evolution theories to be 100%.
Scientific fact and scientific theory are two different things. But by your writing you believe the two are the same!
|
You seem thoroughly confused, let me help you:
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
Basically, you are wrong.
|
Well then my science text books are wrong and everything I learnt in Science and highschool was wrong as well. Also almost everything Richard Dawkins has said is also wrong, I think the guys an idiot but I guess so do you.
Actually what you say isn't even wrong. Its not much different then what I said." A scientific theory is a theory based on scientific fact." Also if you read my comment you will note I never said that aliens seeding life on earth was a scientific theory I said it was a theory.
Their is also a difference between scientific theory and regular theory. A theory doesn't have to be scientific to be a theory either.
You are still confused. I'd say that Richard Dawkins and my text books are probably right and you are wrong. Infact you are partially right but you are also wrong.
As I said theories aren't all scientific yet they are still theories. Scientific theories have to be based around scientific facts. You do say it differently then me but both our definitions are essentially the same. A scientific fact is something that can be repeated, observed studied and falsified. A scientific theory must be based around scientific fact essentially" A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."
Again Richard Dawkins and my text books have all called aliens seeding life on earth a theory. Whether it was scientific or not it was still a theory. You can argue all you want but that does not change the fact that it is.
I love how some athiest claim to be even smarter then each other. I think Dawkins is nuts but he is definatly highly educated and respected within the scientific community. If he calls aliens seeding life on earth a theory, then yah I'd bet it is!
