| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
29th June 2009, 02:34 PM
| | Warning - The following may cause you to think
30   
| | Join Date: 13th November 2007
Posts: 1,569
Blessings: 67,960 My Mood 
Reps: 1,141,313,842 (power: 1,141,319) | | Originally Posted by Philothei  and how is not counterproductive when you teach them evolution theories instead of scientific facts?
I like the way Kenneth Miller explains it... Theories are more powerful than facts, because theories explain facts and tie them together.
(Not a direct quote because I can't remember the exact words he used)
Plus, he's Catholic... so I kinda like referring to him with our current audience in mind.  |
29th June 2009, 02:37 PM
|  | Love never fails. St. Paul
     
 | | Join Date: 5th November 2006 Location: Northeast, USA
Posts: 39,875
Blessings: 2,608,354,258 My Mood 
Reps: 5,726,193,625,421,512,704 (power: 5,726,193,625,421,558) | | Originally Posted by WilliamduBois Again: please present us your credentials. How long have you studied any field related to evolution?
so are you saying you have to study theology to talk about creationism....hmmm...that would limit and exclude all parents from forming opinions thus it leaves those who ONLY have studied to talk....According to your logic no one should be voting either since they do not have a degree in political science...  either?
__________________
An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
29th June 2009, 02:40 PM
| | Love never fails. St. Paul
| | Join Date: 5th November 2006 Location: Northeast, USA
Posts: 39,875
Blessings: 2,608,354,258 My Mood
Reps: 5,726,193,625,421,512,704 (power: 5,726,193,625,421,558) | | Theories are more powerful than facts, because theories explain facts and tie them together. So...is ANY theory more poowerful than facts?
__________________
An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
29th June 2009, 02:41 PM
|  | BenderBendingRodriguez
29  
| | Join Date: 11th March 2006 Location: Desselgem, WVL, Belgium
Posts: 273
Blessings: 88,668 My Mood 
Reps: 10,316,166,019 (power: 10,316,172) | | Originally Posted by Philothei so are you saying you have to study theology to talk about creationism....hmmm...that would limit and exclude all parents from forming opinions thus it leaves those who ONLY have studied to talk....According to your logic no one should be voting either since they do not have a degree in political science... either?
One can have an opinion on something. However, that opinion is worth less than someone that studied it. My opinion on what a certain parable actually means is worth less than the opinion that studied theology and mine would probably be the wrong interpretation. When discussing geo-politics and disagreeing with Henry Kissinger, it's likely I'm wrong. Voting, however, is just selecting which party-program you agree with the most, no education required.
Your (wrong) idea that a scientific theory means "there's no evidence for it" disagrees with the knowledge of thousands and thousands of people that studied years on related subjects.
Tell me: why should I trust your opinion instead of trusting those that actually studied for it?
__________________
William "BBR" duBois
"If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion."
-Edmond de Goncour |
29th June 2009, 02:44 PM
| | Warning - The following may cause you to think
30
| | Join Date: 13th November 2007
Posts: 1,569
Blessings: 67,960 My Mood
Reps: 1,141,313,842 (power: 1,141,319) | | Originally Posted by Philothei
So...is ANY theory more poowerful than facts?
I would venture to say that any true scientific theory is. Keep in mind though, the term "theory" only survives if the supporting data stands up to strict peer review and numerous tests. |
29th June 2009, 02:49 PM
| | Love never fails. St. Paul
| | Join Date: 5th November 2006 Location: Northeast, USA
Posts: 39,875
Blessings: 2,608,354,258 My Mood
Reps: 5,726,193,625,421,512,704 (power: 5,726,193,625,421,558) | | Originally Posted by WilliamduBois One can have an opinion on something. However, that opinion is worth less than someone that studied it. My opinion on what a certain parable actually means is worth less than the opinion that studied theology and mine would probably be the wrong interpretation. When discussing geo-politics and disagreeing with Henry Kissinger, it's likely I'm wrong. Voting, however, is just selecting which party-program you agree with the most, no education required.
Your (wrong) idea that a scientific theory means "there's no evidence for it" disagrees with the knowledge of thousands and thousands of people that studied years on related subjects.
Tell me: why should I trust your opinion instead of trusting those that actually studied for it?
A scientist can be just as biased in believing his own theory as true as any other or we would not have people overturning medical scientific proven theories. And they have so it depends which school you are from and so many even contradict each other... Why would so many evolutions theories be correct ? it seems to me a wild goose chase as per nutrition for example so many contradictiory "findings" prove their own theories and in the end proves what? That we are know less of what we "think" we know...
__________________
An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
29th June 2009, 02:50 PM
| | Love never fails. St. Paul
| | Join Date: 5th November 2006 Location: Northeast, USA
Posts: 39,875
Blessings: 2,608,354,258 My Mood
Reps: 5,726,193,625,421,512,704 (power: 5,726,193,625,421,558) | |
And how you define true? We do not know simply put. Thus the "theory" part..
__________________
An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
29th June 2009, 02:54 PM
| | BenderBendingRodriguez
29
| | Join Date: 11th March 2006 Location: Desselgem, WVL, Belgium
Posts: 273
Blessings: 88,668 My Mood
Reps: 10,316,166,019 (power: 10,316,172) | | Originally Posted by Philothei A scientist can be just as biased in believing his own theory as true as any other or we would not have people overturning medical scientific proven theories.
You've been told here that there is no "proof" in science. There is evidence, that can be updated. Updated evidence means we might have to change the way we think about things.
As far as "biased" goes: that's where peer-review comes in. Someone that can actually show why the theory of evolution is wrong would become famous. Win a nobel prize, probably. Why doesn't anyone come out with it in any peer reviewed paper? Why is Creationism mostly done by people without any relevant diploma? And they have so it depends which school you are from and so many even contradict each other... Why would so many evolutions theories be correct ?
There is but one theory of evolution. The discussions about it are in no way serious enough to discredit it, and are about details. it seems to me a wild goose chase as per nutrition for example so many contradictiory "findings" prove their own theories and in the end proves what? That we are know less of what we "think" we know...
And you still haven't said why I should trust you, only why I shouldn't trust the scientists (and you did a bad job saying that, since you won't convince anyone with it).
So again: what are your credentials?
*edit:
*sigh* You've been told what a scientific theory is. Equating it with the common day usage is a lazy and very wrong answer, at the very least.
__________________
William "BBR" duBois
"If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion."
-Edmond de Goncour |
29th June 2009, 03:05 PM
| | Love never fails. St. Paul
| | Join Date: 5th November 2006 Location: Northeast, USA
Posts: 39,875
Blessings: 2,608,354,258 My Mood
Reps: 5,726,193,625,421,512,704 (power: 5,726,193,625,421,558) | | And you still haven't said why I should trust you, only why I shouldn't trust the scientists (and you did a bad job saying that, since you won't convince anyone with it).
did I miss something here? I said that even the scientists do not trust each other... why should I trust them? You said: There is evidence, that can be updated. Updated evidence means we might have to change the way we think about things.
it is not updated but proved flat out wrong so...why beliveve it? I mean years of taking one drug and studies done on that certain drug....and then one day that is the cause of serious disease....Again why should I trust science.? no reason to "trust" it at all. The reason I do 'follow' it is that the alternative given is not paid by most insurances really... Otherwise, conventional medicine is fairly new and trad. medicine is eons long.(botanical holistic) ..AGain no reason to "trust" science that is seems that is it nothing more than the blind leading the blind....
__________________
An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
29th June 2009, 03:14 PM
| | Warning - The following may cause you to think
30
| | Join Date: 13th November 2007
Posts: 1,569
Blessings: 67,960 My Mood
Reps: 1,141,313,842 (power: 1,141,319) | | Originally Posted by Philothei A scientist can be just as biased in believing his own theory as true as any other or we would not have people overturning medical scientific proven theories. And they have so it depends which school you are from and so many even contradict each other...
Which theories, specifically, contradict each other? Originally Posted by Philothei Why would so many evolutions theories be correct ?
"So many"? "theor ies"? You seem to imply there is more than one. Please list them. Originally Posted by Philothei it seems to me a wild goose chase as per nutrition for example so many contradictiory "findings" prove their own theories and in the end proves what? That we are know less of what we "think" we know...
It seems to me that you just don't know much about the subject. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though, so feel free to answer the questions presented above and we can try and figure out where you're getting confused. Originally Posted by Philothei And how you define true? We do not know simply put. Thus the "theory" part..
I added the "true" qualifier to ensure we kept our discussion on scientific theories... and not any old subject that someone just decided to throw the term "theory" in front of.
Anyway, a "true" scientific theory is a theory that is well-supported with data, is testable, verifiable, makes accurate predictions, and has been peer-reviewed by others to ensure accuracy, and authenticity.
Furthermore, "theory" does not equate to "we do not know"... and constantly repeating the expression will not make it so. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
