All theories are not equal.

PeterMaclellan

Regular Member
May 7, 2007
190
35
35
✟8,006.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Greens
I am so sick of the anti-evolution crowd using the argument that creationism, intelligent design and evolution are all "just theories" and because they are "just theories" they should all be taught in the class room. This is ridiculous, yes all three are theories, but all three do NOT have equal strength and scientific evidence. Evolution is accepted by the VAST majority of the scientific community and if science class is to prepare our children for a place in the scientific community should they decide to pursue it then the educational institutions have a responsibility to teach children the theories that will assist them in the real world. If intelligent design or creationism is provable through scientific observation then it will be the researchers and scientists that will make the breakthroughs and THEN it will be taught in schools. If we teach children at a young age that creationism and intelligent design are just as scientifically justified as evolution while the scientific community believes the opposite, then we will be raising a generation of children without the necessary tools to succeed in the scientific community. If intelligent design is provable with science, then it will be the scientific community that proves it, not grade school kids.
 

rain292

Active Member
Feb 3, 2007
53
5
✟7,704.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I am so sick of the anti-evolution crowd using the argument that creationism, intelligent design and evolution are all "just theories" and because they are "just theories" they should all be taught in the class room. This is ridiculous, yes all three are theories, but all three do NOT have equal strength and scientific evidence. Evolution is accepted by the VAST majority of the scientific community and if science class is to prepare our children for a place in the scientific community should they decide to pursue it then the educational institutions have a responsibility to teach children the theories that will assist them in the real world. If intelligent design or creationism is provable through scientific observation then it will be the researchers and scientists that will make the breakthroughs and THEN it will be taught in schools. If we teach children at a young age that creationism and intelligent design are just as scientifically justified as evolution while the scientific community believes the opposite, then we will be raising a generation of children without the necessary tools to succeed in the scientific community. If intelligent design is provable with science, then it will be the scientific community that proves it, not grade school kids.
I'd have to double-check some definitions to be totally sure, but with the "evidence" there is in regards to Creationism, I was under the impression that it didn't yet even qualify as an actual scientific theory, because there isn't enough actual, scientific proof.
 
Upvote 0

WolfBitnGodSmittn

Fresh Meat... Sweet \/^^^\/ Stalking The Night
Apr 14, 2006
3,214
73
the dark recesses...
✟3,914.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Libertarian
Creationism cannot be a scientific theory, because at it's root it relies on the supernatural, which exists outside of the empirical realm by definition.
Lucretius has been through THIS debate and lost soundly

it can easily be shown that the 'theory' God created the heavens and the earth, is a far superior theory than anything he can put on the table... His theories concerning the initial cause dont even scientificly merit the proper scientific term 'theory'... dont even qualify
 
Upvote 0

rain292

Active Member
Feb 3, 2007
53
5
✟7,704.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Lucretius has been through THIS debate and lost soundly

it can easily be shown that the 'theory' God created the heavens and the earth, is a far superior theory than anything he can put on the table... His theories concerning the initial cause dont even scientificly merit the proper scientific term 'theory'... dont even qualify
So you're saying that the idea that the universe, etc. was created by God actually fits the literal critera for being a scientific theory?

I find that very hard to believe, but please, explain your reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

WolfBitnGodSmittn

Fresh Meat... Sweet \/^^^\/ Stalking The Night
Apr 14, 2006
3,214
73
the dark recesses...
✟3,914.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Libertarian
So you're saying that the idea that the universe, etc. was created by God actually fits the literal critera for being a scientific theory?

I find that very hard to believe, but please, explain your reasoning.


Hi

if youll read the one on one debate on the 2nd forum page or page 3, between lucretius and i youll see it demonstrated to fit the definition of 'theory' yes... whereas his side has no falsifiable theory concerning the initial cause of all there is or the cause of the bang even
 
Upvote 0

rain292

Active Member
Feb 3, 2007
53
5
✟7,704.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Hi

if youll read the one on one debate on the 2nd forum page or page 3, between lucretius and i youll see it demonstrated to fit the definition of 'theory' yes... whereas his side has no falsifiable theory concerning the initial cause of all there is or the cause of the bang even
Could you not just explain here how it fits the definition of a scientific theory? It seems like that would be something quickly proven or disproven.
 
Upvote 0

WolfBitnGodSmittn

Fresh Meat... Sweet \/^^^\/ Stalking The Night
Apr 14, 2006
3,214
73
the dark recesses...
✟3,914.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Libertarian
Could you not just explain here how it fits the definition of a scientific theory? It seems like that would be something quickly proven or disproven.
sure

a proper scientific theory must be 'falsifiable', meaning that it must be possible to test... even if that testing is time sensitive... for instance we could theorize on the effect on haleys comet on the gravitation field on the earth, and this theory would in time be testable, though we cannot test it YET.

it must be testable in that it must be 'sensed' as lucretius said

1) we have the claim by Jesus AND His deciples that He is God...

This was seen heard, and miracles were performed so it WAS falsifiable, and not proven false

2) we have the claim made that He lived and died

this is attested to by non christian historians who were contemperary, and the first four books of the new testament are testimony of his life and death... There is so much extrabiblical proof of this that atheists are forced to concede the point... at any rate whether he lived and died it is falsifiable, and has only thus far been proven true... not false

3) we have the claim that He rose from the dead

this is accounted by over 500 witnesses... making it not only falsifiable, but thus far true, and no one has even been able to prove it false

4) we have the claim He made the heavens and the earth... i dont know how, He may have even created a tiny particle and caused it to BANG... BUT... is this falsifiable? yes it is... we are told He will return, takie the world, and sometime later create a new heavens and earth, and this will begin just shortly after a time when the world unites economicly, people are forced to receive something in their hand to do commerce, and terrible war breaks out shortly threafter...

so far we see the economis system setting up and we have www.verichipcorp.com Verichip leading the way, already implanting thousands of people

We see these events occuring so we have a time span to go by, therefore we have a time sensitive falsifiable theory, because we will SEE the creation of the NEW heavens and earth... when we see this worldwide economic system come into effect, we wont even have 7 years left to go on this earth as it is, and 1000 years after the reign of Christ it will be destroyed and we will see the new creation

on the flip side... not one theory concerning the cause of the bang held by atheists is scientificly falsifiable
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

WolfBitnGodSmittn

Fresh Meat... Sweet \/^^^\/ Stalking The Night
Apr 14, 2006
3,214
73
the dark recesses...
✟3,914.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Libertarian
I am so sick of the anti-evolution crowd using the argument that creationism, intelligent design and evolution are all "just theories" and because they are "just theories" they should all be taught in the class room. This is ridiculous, yes all three are theories, but all three do NOT have equal strength and scientific evidence. Evolution is accepted by the VAST majority of the scientific community and if science class is to prepare our children for a place in the scientific community should they decide to pursue it then the educational institutions have a responsibility to teach children the theories that will assist them in the real world. If intelligent design or creationism is provable through scientific observation then it will be the researchers and scientists that will make the breakthroughs and THEN it will be taught in schools. If we teach children at a young age that creationism and intelligent design are just as scientifically justified as evolution while the scientific community believes the opposite, then we will be raising a generation of children without the necessary tools to succeed in the scientific community. If intelligent design is provable with science, then it will be the scientific community that proves it, not grade school kids.
the world was flat was once accepted by the scientific community...and do you imply there are no scientists who are also christian?
 
Upvote 0

Electric Skeptic

Senior Veteran
Mar 31, 2005
2,315
135
✟3,152.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Lucretius has been through THIS debate and lost soundly
No, he didn't. The ONLY person in whose opinion he lost (and you won) is your own.

it can easily be shown that the 'theory' God created the heavens and the earth, is a far superior theory than anything he can put on the table... His theories concerning the initial cause dont even scientificly merit the proper scientific term 'theory'... dont even qualify
It cannot be shown - easily or otherwise - that the belief that God created the heavens and the earth (or even that he exists) is any kind of scientific theory whatsoever. This is completely independent of any other theories.

A religious belief on god and certain acts by him is not and cannot be a scientific theory.

if youll read the one on one debate on the 2nd forum page or page 3, between lucretius and i youll see it demonstrated to fit the definition of 'theory' yes.
It did nothing of the kind. Despite repeated claims by you of being able to do so and repeated requests in at least 3 threads, you have not even attempted to show how any of the above qualifies as a scientific theory. You haven't even attempted to show how such a belief is falsifiable.

whereas his side has no falsifiable theory concerning the initial cause of all there is or the cause of the bang even
Completely irrelevant to the issue of whether your religious beliefs qualify as scientific theories.
 
Upvote 0

WolfBitnGodSmittn

Fresh Meat... Sweet \/^^^\/ Stalking The Night
Apr 14, 2006
3,214
73
the dark recesses...
✟3,914.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Libertarian
dude you got the timespan, the observance that if this time span is exceeded it is falsified... therefore it is falsifiable, and it is only the opinion of the nonchristian who would say i lost anything... i cant help it if you try to change definitions according to a bias
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Lucretius has been through THIS debate and lost soundly

it can easily be shown that the 'theory' God created the heavens and the earth, is a far superior theory than anything he can put on the table... His theories concerning the initial cause dont even scientificly merit the proper scientific term 'theory'... dont even qualify

And yet "uncaused first cause" is philosophy, not science, so I don't know why you keep using the term theory regarding your assertion.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
the world was flat was once accepted by the scientific community...

No. It never was accepted by the "scientific community" since the times when it was accepted there was no "scientific community." And the circumfurance of the Earth has been known for over 2000 years. You'll need to stop using this assertion.
 
Upvote 0

Lucretius

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2005
4,382
206
35
✟5,541.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Define empirical please.
Oops, almost missed your post!

Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

In other words, empiricism is firmly rooted in the senses, and, therefore, the physical universe. As God lies outside of the physical universe, he cannot be tested empirically.

Even if God were supposed to interact, and occasionally enter our universe, we could never conclude, from the physical interaction, that something outside of the physical was at work. This would always be a logical jump, as physical evidence can only support physical conclusions.
 
Upvote 0

WolfBitnGodSmittn

Fresh Meat... Sweet \/^^^\/ Stalking The Night
Apr 14, 2006
3,214
73
the dark recesses...
✟3,914.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Libertarian
Oops, almost missed your post!

Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

In other words, empiricism is firmly rooted in the senses, and, therefore, the physical universe. As God lies outside of the physical universe, he cannot be tested empirically.

Even if God were supposed to interact, and occasionally enter our universe, we could never conclude, from the physical interaction, that something outside of the physical was at work. This would always be a logical jump, as physical evidence can only support physical conclusions.
Jesus Christ was within the physical Universe, has been observed here after His resurrection, and is returning to take the earth... Jesus Christ is God... therefore your speculation falls short

...and if nothing outside of spacetime can effect the universe, and you say as you have in the past that spacetime did not exist until after the beginning of the expansion, then there is no cause for any expansion and we see SOMETHING is possibly expanding.. as in the case of the big bang...

therefore the speculation falls short again
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Elduran

Disruptive influence
May 19, 2005
1,773
64
41
✟9,830.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Jesus Christ was within the physical Universe, has been observed here after His resurrection, and is returning to take the earth... Jesus Christ is God... therefore your speculation falls short

Actually, no it doesn't. We can empirically examine evidence for Jesus' existence as a person, and the number of evidences would suggest that a person called Jesus did in fact exist around that time, but we CANNOT empirically test for his divinity. Historical accounts are not always able to be empirically tested because they events have happened long ago. There is no way we can scientifically test for Jesus' existence, god's existence, the existence of a holy spirit, the existence of heaven and hell, etc. These are all unscientific, untestable, and all have to form part of your overall "god speculation", making the net total untestable, unfalsifiable, unscientific (take your pick, it's all 3)

...and if nothing outside of spacetime can effect the universe, and you say as you have in the past that spacetime did not exist until after the beginning of the expansion, then there is no cause for any expansion and we see SOMETHING is possibly expanding.. as in the case of the big bang...

2 points:

  • Why do we need a cause? The reason is because everything needs a cause, right? So why do radioactive atoms decay when they do? What's the cause of that? Perhaps not all events require direct causes, just enough of what passes for "time".
  • The "cause" of the big bang, if there is one, is almost completely unknown as yet, but testing may lead to some clues in the future. Further investigation may well lead to more concrete theory of what "preceded" the big bang. However, even if we never know anything more than we do now about the big bang, there is no logical reason to insert "therefore god". This is inherently a non-sequitur fallacy (i.e. "does not follow")

You really need more than this if you want to present god as a valid scientific hypothesis.
 
Upvote 0