Posted on 11/11/2004 3:44:08 AM PST by Lindykim
Coming from someone who tries to enforce his definition of scientific "theory", that's pretty funny. There was a very comprehensive description of scientific "theory" vs. "law" in a Crevo thread last week. I'm too lazy to repost it here. You can look it up.
In the mean time, grace me by being the first Creationist to answer my question about why they teach music "theory" in college? Is there some question about whether music exists? Do you have any personal doubts about the existence of music?
Words mean things. You are the one who's played games with them and I caught you red handed so you're mad.
No, it's a distinction made by trained, published scientists, the fact that it sends you into fits notwithstanding.
Tell you what, when you manage to "evolve" a dog into something non-canine, let me know. It is not up to us to prove a negative.
And for the record, not all "creation scientists," as you broadly use the term to apply to everyone who disbelieves Darwinism, subscribe to a young earth model. The fact that you guys keep having to fall back on that false dichotomy demonstrates the weakness of your positive proof for Darwinism.
Well, when you Creationists get your act together on what you believe. And get all your evidence lined up. Get back with me.
Until then, just attacking a science that you don't like with nothing to replace it just won't cut it.
Creation Science will not be able to "prove" the existence of God, which is obviously what many religious people are looking for. So stop looking for such a proof. You can take solace in the fact that science also cannot dis-prove God. And for the most part it doesn't try until Creationists provoke this silly Crevo fight.
It is not a prediction of the theory that some particular cat will turn into a dog over the course of an hour or two in a laboratory while Buggman stands around impatiently looking at his watch. Given how long Buggman has been on these threads, one has to wonder why he is still pretending out loud to wonder why such has never been observed.
At any rate, if such an event ever were observed, it would be proof that the origin of species must be something quite different from what Darwin said it is. It would be a falsification, not a proof, of evolution.
However, since that doesn't happen, there is no difficulty.
It's simple, Mr. Narb. "Theory," has 4 meanings. When applied to music, it means
| A set of rules or principles designed for the study or practice of an art or discipline. |
| An assumption or guess. |
Yes, words mean things. Choose them carefully so they don't come back to haunt you.
Have you read the Bible? It has quite a bit of biology and scientific truths in it. For example, God describes springs at the bottom of the ocean. Guess what, springs were discovered at the bottom of the ocean within the past few years. Believe it to be symbolic, that's your choice, but don't spew on other's belief.
Who appointed you god of word meanings?
For shame, Retro. I think we all wonder why you dozen or so evos cling to your devastated worldview to the point that truth is suppressed because it might be religious. I believe that is classified as paranoia.
There is absolutely no comparison between Jesus and Darwin. Not surprising a comment from someone who thinks he/she knows that we are somehow flawed and uses Vitamin C to dispute an entire belief. Blowing in the wind........
I have read it. Genesis blows it completely on the origins of this universe. The order is totally out of wack.
wack = whack SIGH!
| When applied to evolution, it means An assumption or guess. |
American Heritage dictionary, meaning #4.
That's another thing I can appreciate about the FR evolutionists. They ask a question, dare you to answer it and then get all huffy when you do. I think that is very enlightend, scientific, reasonable, intellectual, etc. etc....
Loose vacuum tubes?
Did you see the "list-o-links" in post 66? Well worth you time to study them. :-)
LOL! :-)
Temporary core dump. hehe
You can always blow up my irony meter. Off to Wal-Mart for another!
I'm going to waste my time and actually check that out. Somehow I have some serious doubts about either the context of your citation, or its actual existence.
1. God would not make mistakes in design, as the designer of your washing machine did. Why do we need vitamin C to survive? What does the appendix do and why does its removal when infected not harm us, but the infection does?
No need to dip into arcana. Why not ask: why can't we fly? Why do we have to eat or sleep?
What you perceive as a "mistake" may not actually be one.
(LOL-the point is we have inherited from the primate line an absence of the gene that produces vitamin C. It is apparent from studying comparative genetics that other animals have such a gene, but it was dropped from primates. Until you can answer why God would have dropped such an essential gene, your argument is very very weak.)
No, intelligent design is simply superstition and faulty theology disguised as science.
Calling ideas names doesn't invalidate them. I'll add that you don't seem to understand what the word "superstition" means and that you're not well-versed enough in theology to determine what in the discipline is "faulty".
(I have a Dr. in Ministry. Your interpretation of Genesis is faulty. I know superstition when I see it.)
Science is not all about experimentation. It is collection and analysis of data, too.
Absolutely. Once data is collected and verified it can be used to construct a theory which can then be tested. Observation is a necessary precondition to experimentation and an essential part of the scientific method.
(The theory had been continually tested over 150 years. It has been predictive of genetics and molecular biology. It has never been contradicted. Experimentation is not necessary in all areas. However, mutations have been experimented with in bacteria and virae with results that
are expected from the Theory. So, you are just plain wrong.
Your understanding of science is clouded by your zeal to believe wrong-headed theology.)
Over the last 150 years, millions of data points have been collected, not one of them contradicting Darwin's Hypothesis,
That's simply incorrect.
(No its not. If the Theory had been found to be incorrect, science would drop it. This is unlike your superstitious
holdings that you will never drop, despite all evidence to the contrary.)
which elevates the hypothesis to a Theory (a Theory is a fact of science).
Incorrect again. A theory is not a "fact of science" - it is the working model under which scientific inquiry operates.
(Nope, that is more a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a working model. You creationuts always confuse scientific definitions to make your specious arguments. Give it up.
We who understand science won't fall for it, but you might fool some Kerry voters who don't seem to rely on facts, either.)
If any contradiction of any element of the Theory or the Theory as a whole is obtained, science would immediately drop it.
That's an extremely naive statement. The scientific community was so dedicated to Newtonian mechanics that for decades it refused to consider that Newton's model might not subsume all mechanics. Phlogiston theory is another paradigm that preoccupied chemists for more than a century.
(Newtonian mechanics are still true, except at the subatomic level. Phlogiston is pre-science.)
Historically, scientific theories hang on as ruling paradigms for quite a long time after they should have been discarded.
(You can give no example of this. You just think you can.)
However, Darwin explains how biology has worked and is working today. It is observable today in genetics.
Darwinism does not explain modern biology. Mendelian genetics does, and Mendelian genetics - the real way physical characteristics are passed on from generation to generation - demonstrates the difficulties in the Darwinian hypothesis. Genetics shows that mutations are continually rejected by populations and that reversion to the mean is characteristic of genetic variation.
(The above is simply false. I don't have the time to explain why you are totally wrong. However, genetics was predicted by Darwin in his Theory. Genetics forms the modern Theory of Evolution with Darwin's principles as a foundation.)
Both faith and science are founded on fact.
True. As St. Augustine said, God wrote two books - the Scriptures and Nature.
(Men wrote Scriptures. God created everything. The Theory of Evolution is true. None of these things contradict each other.)
However, belief in God is a leap of faith that science does not cover.
Incorrect. God's existence is a matter of fact, not of faith. What God has revealed about Himself, or whether He has revealed anything at all, is the subject of faith.
(That is not what the Bible says. I am surprised you would go to heresy to support your erroneous anti-scientific position.)
Do you deny that Jesus existed? If so, this is the same as denying Darwin's ideas.
That's just silly. Christ existed and Darwin had ideas.
(Unbelievable! You think Darwin didn't exist? That is the illogic of your argument.)
The fact that Darwin had ideas does not mean his ideas are automatically true.
Denying a historical fact - that Christ existed - is not the same as denying that Darwin's ideas are valid.
That's just an illogical statement.
(Darwin's ideas have been substantiated with millions of pieces of data that all fit together to solve the puzzle of how allele frequency changes in populations over time. Sorry if you can't face the truth.)
Do you believe Jesus existed-faith founded on fact.
Immaterial.
(I'll tell Jesus you said that.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.