Hawkins Posted December 11, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/25/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2009 First, truth is evidence independent. Truth exists by itself, evidence is just for a human brain identify or to belief it is a truth or not. Faith is thus required in order to recognise a truth. Science is about discovery of natural rules which can predict. It is because scientific rules which predict precisely that our brains reckon them as the truth. History can hardly be proven in a scientific way, the so-called 'evidence' is waiting for a human brain or human brains to interpret, which is faith based. Because humans are of a variety that each one has a unique belief system, what appears to be evident to someone, will be the lack-of to another. Science as for the discovery of natural rules deals with factors directly impacting the objects under research, and what relations these factors connected to the objects under research. Temperature and humidity and so forth are of such a kind of factors directly impacting the process of 'evolution', yet they are exclusively excluded in the 'theory of evolution'. This is because ToE is nothing scientific but rather a verbal explanation of what those 'evidence' could mean. Evolution is thus a faith. It is a religion when this faith is shared amongst the evolutionists. As for human theories, they are divided into for categories. Category 1 The lowest form theories are purely speculations and can hardly predict correctly. Whenever they are used to predict, they will be falsify right away. This include the 'theory of evolution'. So whenever you use the 'theory of evolution' to make a prediction on what will be the next to evolve, and under what environmental factors (temp. and hum. etc) should this evolution occur, the theory will fail its prediction and thus be falsified. So evolutionists, don't ever try to predict an evolution using your theory, or else your theory will be falsified right away. Category 2 an upper form of human theories attempting to summarize certain rules which can make some predictions, but their rate of success is low and heavily depends on how well and how experienced you are to make use of them. these theories include war tactics, politics, sociology, financial/economic theories and so forth. Category 3 these are pseudo or semi science with some capability of prediction, yet waiting to be adjusted under a attempt-falsify-attempt process. These include geography, psychology, climate study and so forth. Category 4 These are the scientific theories or laws or whatever you call them. They can make predictions upto 100%. These include physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForwardFromEden Posted December 11, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 23 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/05/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2009 Exactly how open ended is the law of gravity? That would really depend on what frame of reference you're talking about. According to the Penrose-Hawking Singularity theorems gravity starts to get a little problematic for describing how a point with zero volume and infinite density behaves. Additionally, keep in mind that by leaving all conclusions open-ended science isn't expecting them to necessarily be contradicted as much as refined. Lurker It is truly amazing the ability you have to use so many words and say nothing of import. You are to be envied most certainly. You are on your own now, the circle remains unbroken in this "discussion". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted December 16, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I'm sick of people eating ham. Admit that pigs are cute and ham eating will come to an end. I mean really, who can look at a cute little piglet and want to eat such an adorable little creature? I like them on a spit with an apple in their mouths, and some apple sauce. The crackling is nice too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted December 16, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 16, 2009 I'm sick of people eating ham. Admit that pigs are cute and ham eating will come to an end. I mean really, who can look at a cute little piglet and want to eat such an adorable little creature? I like them on a spit with an apple in their mouths, and some apple sauce. The crackling is nice too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyguy Posted December 17, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 373 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,331 Content Per Day: 0.59 Reputation: 71 Days Won: 10 Joined: 10/15/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1965 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I'm sick of people eating ham. Admit that pigs are cute and ham eating will come to an end. I mean really, who can look at a cute little piglet and want to eat such an adorable little creature? Baby cows are cute too, but that's not gonna stop me from going to McDonalds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 17, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2009 In science we use whatever theory can best explain the most evidence; it doesn't have to be perfect it just has to be better than any other theory. According to these basic criteria in biology the theory of evolution reigns supreme - it explains the fossil record, the distribution of life, the graduated diversity of life, and the genetic relatedness (including shared evidence of past diseases across species such as ERV's). It uses mechanisms that have been observed (random mutations acted upon by natural selection) to produce novel abilities and/or functions in living things. And it has withstood over a century of criticism. Evolution is a theory because it seeks to explain something, not describe it. Hence it will always be a theory and it will continue to be the leading theory in biology until someone can come up with a better explanation for our observations about living things. It really not the best explanation. Waaaay too many anomalies. Creationism is a better model, but since science somewhere along the line that it CANNOT deal with anything outside of the natural, they will never be able to consider creationism "science:. However, that doesn't mean it is not true. The next thing science will embrace is the notion that aliens planted the first life or lives here on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 .... I mean really, after seeing everything there is on earth and even more in the Universe, how could they have not been Created.... This scripture is applicable to everyone with the Evolutionary mindset: Romans 1:18-22 (AMP) 18 For God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick-Parker Posted December 17, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.23 Content Count: 4,269 Content Per Day: 4.96 Reputation: 1,855 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/17/2021 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/03/1955 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I'm sick of people eating ham. Admit that pigs are cute and ham eating will come to an end. I mean really, who can look at a cute little piglet and want to eat such an adorable little creature? Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brockbfball1563 Posted December 23, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 4 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/23/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) Creationism is a better model, It's a better model because it's simpler and directly answers the question of where we came from. A simpler model that gives an answer with no evidence to back it up doesn't exactly work in the real world. ...but since science somewhere along the line that it CANNOT deal with anything outside of the natural, they will never be able to consider creationism "science:. Because there's still no evidence for anything outside of the natural. In science, we have things that can be explained and things that can not yet be explain, but that we hope to find answers in the future by doing research. In religion, we have things that can be explained and things that God has done that no one questions. And no smart scientist will say that they will never consider creationism as science. They say that until some evidence is given, they have no reason to consider it. Imagine I went to a scientist and told him I could fly. Would he say "Oh wow! What an amazing discovery! This will go in all the science books!" or would he ask for proof of my claim? The next thing science will embrace is the notion that aliens planted the first life or lives here on earth. And as of right now there's the same amount of evidence for both aliens planting life on Earth and God creating it. It's actually really closed minded of you to completely dismiss something like this. It's interesting how I look around and see all these Christians (not necessarily this forum) call people who believe in evolution "close-minded." Now look at your statement. Do you have any proof that this won't happen? Probably not, so why completely dismiss it? I'm open to every explanation. Yes, even that a God created it. Only an idiot would actually say "There is no god." Even some of the most famous atheists and scientists (i.e. Richard Dawkins [edit] has stated that it would be unwise to dismiss something that can't be proven to be untrue. With the current amount of evidence, I do not believe that there is a God, but it's certainly still a possibility. Edit: Are we not allowed to post links to youtube vids here? I would have figured people would want proof that what I was saying was true rather than just stating something as fact with no evidence. Edited December 25, 2009 by Brockbfball1563 youtube link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne Posted January 4, 2010 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 923 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 32 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/14/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/03/1974 Share Posted January 4, 2010 So far as I am aware "you tube" links are not allowed here. Due to the fact that there is a whole lot of misinformation on it. *this is my opinion, not the official opinion of Worthy* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts