Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 447,279 views
- 905
- United States
- Bye_Ya
Too late for what?
I asked a very simple question about the terminology. I had zero agenda with that question. It seems impossible to avoid confrontation in this section of the forum. I guess I should have prefaced the question with a bowing down to all of the authoritative knowledge held by the all-knowing pillars of the opinions forum section.
The arrogance in this place stinks.
I asked a very simple question about the terminology. I had zero agenda with that question. It seems impossible to avoid confrontation in this section of the forum. I guess I should have prefaced the question with a bowing down to all of the authoritative knowledge held by the all-knowing pillars of the opinions forum section.
The arrogance in this place stinks.
Last edited:
- 23,800
- Philippines
You asked the question:
Which implies that a "Theory" is lesser than something else.
There's nothing higher in the pecking order than "Theory". Perhaps we should blame popular culture and language for popularizing the saying "I have a theory!", because most times people really mean: "I have a hypothesis."
It's a common mistake, and ground that has been covered here many times (probably once every fifty posts), which is why some people aren't happy when the question comes up again.
Which implies that a "Theory" is lesser than something else.
There's nothing higher in the pecking order than "Theory". Perhaps we should blame popular culture and language for popularizing the saying "I have a theory!", because most times people really mean: "I have a hypothesis."
It's a common mistake, and ground that has been covered here many times (probably once every fifty posts), which is why some people aren't happy when the question comes up again.
- 15,855
- QLD, Australia
- Small_Fryz
- 15,855
- QLD, Australia
- Small_Fryz
- 905
- United States
- Bye_Ya
No. Once again, you people in here suit yourselves when it comes to chronological order of events and peoples' intentions. The very first words 'out of my mouth' were:
That is not a misuse of the term. It's a question regarding the terminology itself. If I was intending to use the term, then I wouldn't have used the parentheses. I put those in there for a reason. And why did I add the comment about creationism? To show that I wasn't in here to argue against the theory.
- 5,080
- Panama City, FL
Bye Ya, if you were actually asking for the definition of the word theory then your defense of yourself has merit.
If you were actually asking for the definition of the word theory then you would be the first one in the entire 8100+ posts to have done so.
No, your question, very clearly (because of what you quoted when made this post,) was along the lines of "Why do you guys treat this is fact when it's just a "theory?" which is a gross misuse of the word.
When that was pointed out, you then made the comment "I'm supposed to know that?"
Moving on, hopefully......
If you were actually asking for the definition of the word theory then you would be the first one in the entire 8100+ posts to have done so.
No, your question, very clearly (because of what you quoted when made this post,) was along the lines of "Why do you guys treat this is fact when it's just a "theory?" which is a gross misuse of the word.
When that was pointed out, you then made the comment "I'm supposed to know that?"
Moving on, hopefully......
- 7,436
- Canada
- photonrider
Here you go, Bye Ya:
- 23,800
- Philippines
Facts aren't called theories.
In science, facts are called data.
Explanations for the data are called hypotheses.
Explanations for the data that match the data already collected and which match any further data collected in attempts to verify it become Theories.
Weesa owns the language now. Aluminum! Aluminum! Aluminum!
In science, facts are called data.
Explanations for the data are called hypotheses.
Explanations for the data that match the data already collected and which match any further data collected in attempts to verify it become Theories.
Weesa owns the language now. Aluminum! Aluminum! Aluminum!
- 17,344
- United Kingdom
Are there not also things called Laws in science?
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Yes. They're generally used to describe certain processes. Laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics. "If [something] happens then [something else] happens/cannot happen". That sort of thing.
- 7,625
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Adding to HFS's post, laws are basically math that fits observations.
For example, conservation of mass doesn't just say mass can't be created or destroyed, but that within some volume the change of mass is equal to the amount of mass lost/created* in that volume and the flux of mass through the boundary of the volume.
*As long as the volume isn't all of existence, this doesn't have to be zero.
For example, conservation of mass doesn't just say mass can't be created or destroyed, but that within some volume the change of mass is equal to the amount of mass lost/created* in that volume and the flux of mass through the boundary of the volume.
*As long as the volume isn't all of existence, this doesn't have to be zero.
fitftw
(Banned)
- 1,642
- Rave2Grave
If I walk into a dark room with no windows, it will always be dark until someone installs a window or a light bulb. Imagine the dark room as the universe before there was a universe at all. No air, no molecules or atoms, no gravity.
Now, how did the dark room become lit without someone coming by to install a window or a light bulb?
Now, how did the dark room become lit without someone coming by to install a window or a light bulb?
- 15,855
- QLD, Australia
- Small_Fryz
Question is answered in this thread (I did note the time stamps and realize you only got answered after posting it in both threads)
- 687
Sorry if this one has been covered,but:
If we are to believe the abrahamic version of creation, god created man in his image and then created woman as a companion, right? And we are all basically the same as Adam and Eve. So why do men have nipples?
If we are to believe the abrahamic version of creation, god created man in his image and then created woman as a companion, right? And we are all basically the same as Adam and Eve. So why do men have nipples?
II-zOoLoGy-II
(Banned)
- 2,713
- F YOU
Decoration.
- 17,344
- United Kingdom
Because God did.. logically.
So, the quetion then is, why did God have nipples?
So, the quetion then is, why did God have nipples?
- 687
MatskiMonk
Because god is clearly a woman. Why else would she have put the family jewels on the outside, where they are so easily whacked, snagged, or otherwise damaged in comedy manners.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,322
- United States
Please excuse the title of the video, but the video itself is pretty good.
- 29,379
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I've posted it atleast once before, but Ken Miller's entire lecture is a must watch for anyone even remotely interested in this topic...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
... that Ken Miller is a Christian is also notable.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,322
- United States
Yeah sorry for the repost, I've been in this thread maybe a couple times at most. 
- 29,379
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
No worries - it really needs to be reposted every now and then anyway. 👍Yeah sorry for the repost, I've been in this thread maybe a couple times at most.
