‘Go to hell, creationists!’ (Evo tolerance in action)

CMI ^ | December 30, 2008 | Carl Wieland

[GodGunsGuts]

Information scientist, author and evangelist, Dr Werner Gitt, a close friend of CMI, told us that on 23 October 2008 he was subjected to the most strident opposition he had ever encountered...

[do the dhue]

The universe is observed in its current state. Of course, there are those who say if you go back in time far enough you can see the start of the universe and the way to go back in time is to try and reach the ends of the universe. This is only a theory and not proved. Nobody has been to the end of the universe to prove it. It is all a belief, a theory from the mind.

My observation is the love in my heart that is given to me by God. To me, this is the Creator of me and the universe. I am not pushing this belief on you. I am simply stating what I believe. You have the right to do so too. I like talking about it because talking about it continues to strengthen my belief. Please don't think I am doing this to change you and I hope you are not trying to change me.

Thanks for listening though.

[NinoFan]

Do you believe that someone who disagrees with you on Gen 2:7 can be a Christian?

[metmom]

*sigh* You can’t prove a theory. No wonder you’re banging your head against a brick wall. You don’t even understand scientific terms as scientists use them.

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can’t be conclusively proved, because—at least in principle—a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of “proof” causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician’s meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say “We proved Newton’s law” Rather say, “Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton’s law in the particular case of...”

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/resource/misused_glossary.html

[NinoFan]

As someone who deals with mathematics everyday, I appreciate you pointing out the meaning of the word ‘proof’ and how it’s often misused. However, I must point out that the meaning of the word ‘theory” is often used casually by some of you guys here. Precise definitions are important.

[CE2949BB]

*sigh* You can’t prove a theory. No wonder you’re banging your head against a brick wall. You don’t even understand scientific terms as scientists use them.

lmao.

I'm still waiting for your answer.

Heliocentrism or geocentrism?

Do you believe the earth orbits the sun or does the sun orbit the earth?

[do the dhue]

Ok, when does theory become law (see Isaac Newton's theory of gravity which became the laws of gravity)?

I believe it is when theory is tested and proved. You can gather facts and arrange them in a manner to create a theory, but it does not become law until it is proven. In my view, to prove a theory, it has to be tested.

Einstein challenged the law of gravity by saying matter is not pulled, it is pushed. I may be wrong (I don't think I am wrong though), but I don't think this theory has been tested to proof and it remains a theory.

And this is why I feel that scientific theory is nothing more then a belief.

[tpanther]

Why is it that they don’t have one, but go on to tell us that we’re wrong, that it’s mythology, fairy tales, bronze age goat herder folklore.

We’re wrong based on exactly what criteria?

Well, apparently whatever suits their fancy at that certain point in time...it's like trying to hit a moving target.

The evo-cultists think they and they alone get to define science, and are some sort of self-appointed gate-keepers of what is or isn't science, what should or should not influence science, and so on.

[do the dhue]

You must be some kind of genius. I think we are thinking alike. ;-)

HMMMMMMMMM Could it be ......... the Holy Spirit?

[tpanther]

As someone who deals with mathematics everyday, I appreciate you pointing out the meaning of the word ‘proof’ and how it’s often misused. However, I must point out that the meaning of the word ‘theory” is often used casually by some of you guys here. Precise definitions are important.

Now that's interesting because here in Georgia, people placed a sticker on a science text merely reminding students that evolution IS INDEED theory, and preidctably they were sued.

So yes, apparently precise definitions are important in so far as they support or don't support the CULT of evolution.

[do the dhue]

That is a pretty good observation and deduction, in my book.

[tpanther]

Do you believe that someone who disagrees with you on Gen 2:7 can be a Christian?

Do you know what being a Christian means?The definition of Christianity? How one becomes a Christian?

[do the dhue]

Theory actually has several different definitions. I suppose it all depends on how one uses the word.

In Science, theory doesn’t become law until it is tested and proved.

[NinoFan]

I believe myself to be a Christian.

[CE2949BB]

Heliocentrism or geocentrism?

Do you believe the earth orbits the sun or does the sun orbit the earth?

And he still waits for a simple answer to a simple question. :)

[do the dhue]

What does it prove? Why does one have to wait? So when they don't answer, you can say you won? Who really cares who wins or loses here? It is all based on faith. You have your belief and you should be happy with that. I am happy with mine. And I am happy for you, if you are happy in your own skin. We are free to believe what we want, and we should be happy with that and respect those who differ.

So, what if someone does not answer. It doesn't mean anyhting one way or another. I don't think anybody is trying to change you. I do think we are defending our God in a civil debate though. Just like you are defending you belief. You never answered a few of my questions, but I didn't try and rattle your cage about it.

How about I answer that question? I believe the Earth revolves around me. Want to debate it? ;-)

[do the dhue]

I think one day we will be in heaven and the Great Scientist will teach us the mysteries.

By the grace of God, I will see you there.

[CE2949BB]

What does it prove?

Everything.

Why does one have to wait?

I've asked her, repeatedly, and she - as far as I can see, maybe I missed it? - refuses to answer.

So when they don't answer, you can say you won?

When someone won't answer such a simple question, it makes one suspicious.

It is all based on faith.

Oh, no, it's not. The answer is easily observable.

You have your belief and you should be happy with that. I am happy with mine.

This isn't a matter of 'belief'. This is a matter of fact versus Biblical faith.

Let's roll. I want an answer. I will demand an answer from every Creationist and supporter of Intelligent Design from now on - BEFORE any and all discussion of evolution.

Anyone that believes the sun orbits the earth has no business discussing science on ANY level.

And I am happy for you, if you are happy in your own skin.

I am quite happy.

We are free to believe what we want, and we should be happy with that and respect those who differ.

This ain't a matter of belief. It is in the realm of observable fact, now.

[do the dhue]

Ok, so the Earth evolves around the sun. Teach me how this proves evolution vs creation.

And I think it is fair for me to ask you this question (which UI have asked before): How can you observe beginning of all life from which we have evolved?

[NinoFan]

“Let’s roll. I want an answer. I will demand an answer from every Creationist and supporter of Intelligent Design from now on - BEFORE any and all discussion of evolution”

You are really getting into this.

[do the dhue]

I want an answer. I will demand an answer from every Creationist and supporter of Intelligent Design from now on - BEFORE any and all discussion of evolution.

You stepped into the land of Free Republic and you demand that your questions be answered before you debate? Did Jim Robinson give you this authority over me to be able to demand this action? If not, then you have no authority to demand anything from me.