a funny quote.

[Angel75]

Creationists make it sound as though a ´theory´ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night

isaac asimov.

i thought that was funny, thought i would share these forums need a little humor sometimes.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Creationists make it sound as though a ´theory´ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night

isaac asimov.

i thought that was funny, thought i would share these forums need a little humor sometimes.

Indeed, A little irreverence is good for the soul.

But the problem with making a joke at the expense of creationists, is that the creationists don't think it's funny, and nobody else thinks it's a joke.

 

[ashibaka]

Not all that funny if you appreciate the fact that Creationists have actually said that:

http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:rLf_AONn6ggJ:www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/hoax.html

 

[ikester7579]

Not all that funny if you appreciate the fact that Creationists have actually said that:

http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:rLf_AONn6ggJ:[url]www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/hoax.html

Just because someone expresses there personal opinions about something, does not mean we all "say" or "think" that like that person does. Besides, I've read much worse about creationists on evolutionists sites. That creationists are morons with brain damage etc... And that was one of the nicer comments I read. Some were very degrading and full of foul language. I actually got the impression on one site that they would like to snuff out all creationists. But what can you do? Can't control what's on the web. Though I think there should be some type of control or seperation of information.
To change the subject for a minute to express an idea. One thing that most people would like to see controlled on the web is porn. My idea, because I don't think it could be removed completly, is to give it it's own section. You know, .com, .org why not .porn? It would make filtering easy and most who don't want to see it won't. Because .porn would always identify what site your going to before you go.

 

[JohnR7]

I actually got the impression on one site that they would like to snuff out all creationists.

During the tribulation period that is exactly what they will do. Just like at the beginning of the church they liked to feed the Christians to the lions. Of course every now and then a christian comes along like Daniel that has enough of the power of God in them to shut the mouth of the lion. Those who persecute the church of God are always disappointed when that happens.

 

[Jet Black]

You know, .com, .org why not .porn? It would make filtering easy and most who don't want to see it won't. Because .porn would always identify what site your going to before you go.

so how many porn sites have you been to then? I have never been to any. I know where I can find them, but I just decide not to, no need for a .prn suffix.

 

[Jet Black]

Though I think there should be some type of control or seperation of information.

sounds alot like removal of the right to free speech to me.

 

[Siliconaut]

And then, where do you draw the line? To a taliban, a woman without a burkha is tantamount to porn...

@John: Wielding the persecution club again, eh? Luckily, there are no lions around that could prove your position... I guess it must be really disappointing that all you can offer in the way of persecution has to do with emotional traumata suffered from being told to stick to the facts and discuss in a coherent way...

 

[Jet Black]

And then, where do you draw the line? To a taliban, a woman without a burkha is tantamount to porn...

@John: Wielding the persecution club again, eh? Luckily, there are no lions around that could prove your position... I guess it must be really disappointing that all you can offer in the way of persecution has to do with emotional traumata suffered from being told to stick to the facts and discuss in a coherent way...

this is why I think some christians ought to listen to Jesus a bit more, he never went round saying crazy stuff.

 

[worship4ever]

No No, theory is not something that you come up when your drunk, it is though, JUST AN IDEA, its not a scientic law, or certainty. Theory is something that is based on good sound thinking based on science we already know. I think we know about .01% about all science. Theories have been wrong before and will be wrong again.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Talking about funny quotes: John said " every now and then a christian comes along like Daniel that has enough of the power of God in them to shut the mouth of the lion."

Now that is funny, since Daniel lived during the time of Darius 4 CENTURIES BEFORE CHRIST. Daniel was not a Christian but a Jew - just like Jesus was.

It reminds me of a story I heard once about what an aid to Jimmy Carter supposedly said during the Camp David Talks to the disputing parties involved "can't we settle this like good christians" (I have no idea if that is really true or not)

 

[worship4ever]

Late, does that last statement has an purpose? Or did you type it b.c you felt the need to type something?

 

[Siliconaut]

@w4e:

No No, theory is not something that you come up when your drunk, it is though, JUST AN IDEA, its not a scientic law, or certainty. Theory is something that is based on good sound thinking based on science we already know. I think we know about .01% about all science. Theories have been wrong before and will be wrong again.

There we go again. Deliberately misunderstanding termini doesn't further your point: A scientific theory is NOT just an idea - that's what the word "hypothesis" stands for.

A scientific theory is an accurate, thoroughly tested description of the why and how of a particular phenomenon. To be called a scientific theory, it has to have survived the combined attack of intelligent scrutinizers all over the world, with many different scientific and philosophic backgrounds.

A scientific theory can - of course - be falsified, but in the mean time, we can think of it as an accurate description to base our work onto, not just a simple hypothesis.

The layman's term "theory" does NOT mean the same...

 

[worship4ever]

My webster says: Theory is:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I agree its not a hypothesis, but its not a scientific law or FACT. It can, and in evolution, will be proven wrong.

 

[worship4ever]

Sorry, Here's the webster site, check it

http://ads.specificpop.com/pop_code;gid=17,pid=382,bid=842

1: an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "true in fact and theory" 2: a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices" [syn: hypothesis, possibility] 3: a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"

It's odd that it says: an organized system of accepted knowledge, lol, who made evolution accepted, surely not creationist, and well, the normal person doesn't know any better.

 

[Meatros]

My webster says: Theory is:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I agree its not a hypothesis, but its not a scientific law or FACT. It can, and in evolution, will be proven wrong.

Using websters? You know, no offense, but you do show your scientific illiteracy by suggesting that a "theory" in scientific terms is just basically a guess. It's especially funny that number one on your list seems to be the closest.

Here's how it works:
(simply)
There are facts: What goes up, comes down.
Then there are laws: This is the law of gravity, it will always happen this way.
And then their are theories: The law of gravity behaves this way because of....

Do you know that when Newton discovered the law of gravity, he still wasn't sure about the theory?

 

[Meatros]

AiG even disagrees with you:

Check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye-Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin-Landau/Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

 

[worship4ever]

Meatros, did i ever say it was a guess, i dont think i did, wait, let my read my post's, ummm, no, i didnt. I never said it was, i did say that is was not proven.

 

[Meatros]

No No, theory is not something that you come up when your drunk, it is though, JUST AN IDEA, its not a scientic law, or certainty. Theory is something that is based on good sound thinking based on science we already know. I think we know about .01% about all science. Theories have been wrong before and will be wrong again.

So you didn't write this?

 

[Meatros]

I agree its not a hypothesis, but its not a scientific law or FACT. It can, and in evolution, will be proven wrong.

You also said this very puzzling statement.

The theory of evolution will never become a "law", laws are different concepts entirely. That's why Newton said the following, from http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html :

Interestingly, Newton addressed the distinction between law and theory with respect to gravity. Although he had discovered the law of gravity, he refrained from speculating publically about its cause. In Principial, Newton states" . . . I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis . . ." " . . . it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained . . ." (Newton, 1720/1946, p. 547).