Conquer Club

john9blue wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, what you really show is that you were never taught real science. What is taught as fact IS fact. What is taught as theory is not 100% proven, but has a LOT of evidence backing it.

The ideas that all animals were created at once, that dinosaurs and other ancient animals did not make the ark, that the Earth is only thousands of years old, not millions are plain and simply PROVEN FALSE.

There's always misunderstanding about this. I don't know why I bother posting in this thread. Okay here we go:

- I was definitely taught "real science", and continue to teach myself "real science" to this day. No baseless personal attacks, thanks.
- "Creationism" is the theory that there was a supernatural force at work in the creation of the universe. That's IT. No arks, no coexisting dinosaurs and humans, or anything like that. Player I know you have a crusade against the latter definition, but try not to form stereotypes.

I said "if" you believe the earth is only a few thousand years old then, no, you have not. I don't believe that is your belief. I believe you want to make Creationism synonymous with any Christian. The problem is that is exactly what Creationists want you to believe, because it makes their life a lot easier. And, per their definition, Creationism IS Christianity. It just so happens they think believing the Earth is young, etc is a requirement of Christianity. (though they will mince words about that).

This is NOT stereotyping and that claim is part of why Creationism... Dr Morris' type creationism is now taking such a strong hold.

No. and whatever you wish to believe, when the term "Creationism" is used politically, in schools, etc, it IS Dr Morris' ideas. That is the whole problem and yes, I have taken it on as a crusade and DO harp on it because one big reason Dr. Morris' ideas have been able to take hold (and note, Those are the ideas to which Widowmaker, essentially does subscribe, which is why debate enters into this thread). A lot of Christians, thinking just like you, come out and say "hey", what's wrong with this... there really is no reason to not teach both. Then what gets taught is Dr Morris' ideas.

john9blue wrote:- What is today considered "supernatural" is not outside the realm of science.

Yes and no. Science is and always has been about asking questions and finding answers. When things are so tenuous that any hope of any real evidence is just not possible, it is the realm of philosophy and religion.

You can ask "what is love" and test chemical processes to come up with some sort of definition. OR you can ask what it means in terms of human behavior and again, test some aspects, but you cannot really and truly prove, for example that someone loves another person, not really. Similarly, you can pose the question, in science, "does God exist". However, the tools just do not exist to prove it. The evidence that exists is, for the most part, not testable, not repeatable, etc. They are personnal experiences. Of course, I consider such proof valid, but it is not scientific evidence, not yet.

john9blue wrote: Like "creationism" people have pigeonholed the word "science" to encompass less than it really means. In ancient times the "heavens" were simply outer space, considered by most to be the realm of the gods only and outside human understanding. Science is nothing more than asking questions, collecting evidence, and finding answers.

To be science, requires testing and using the scientific method... that is you put forward a theory, form a testable hypothesis and go on.

There are many areas where religion and science broach each other, even occasionally, cross (as in the love bit.. there are physical signs and behavioral signs we use in part to define "love", but there is also something more that is beyond the scope of science).

The distinction, subtle though it is, is very, very important. That it gets blurred in this discussion too often is also a problem, not a reason for justifying the validity of Creationist teaching.

john9blue wrote:The God question and many other aspects of philosophy fall inside this definition.

Again, they cross, but philosophy and religion both deal with "intangible" issues, things that we think and feel but cannot touch or see or hear or feel in a physical way (for the most part). Science deals with things that can be proven. Again, knowing the difference is very, very critical.

john9blue wrote:- Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Not entirely true.

Evolution, the broad and complete theory of how everything evolved specifically is a theory. HOWEVER, within that theory are many, many, many facts, including the FACT that things change over time.

Other facts: fossils represent animals that once lived
fossils showing transitions from one species to another over a very long period of time exist. There are also fossils of animals that have not changed at all or that have changed very little (Nautilus, horseshoe crabs, horsetail ferns, some mosses, slime mold, etc.)

Natural selection -- that species with an advantage in reproduction will tend to have more offspring and will therefore have a greater impact on the succeeding generations than those that produce fewer offspring (NOT that the "strongest always survives") is fact.

That, in general (not 100%, some random stuff happens, too) , this natural selection drives species toward adaption to their environment is fact

That mutations occur and create genetic changes in species -- is fact.

That rocks are formed in layers and that each layer represents a different time, is fact.

john9blue wrote:- The idea of Earth having a molten core is a theory.

The Earth's core is supposed to be a solid core, NOT molten. In either case, it is theory, but a theory backed by much physics evidence. Its not my field, someone else talked about it in the "is God logical" thread pretty comprehensively already.

john9blue wrote:The pink unicorn is a theory.

Not really. That is, yes, you can put forward a theory that pink Unicorns exist, BUT there is no credible evidence they exist, at all. Therefore it will not be taken with any real serious consideration at this time. Can we be 100% certain that pink unicorns do not exist? No, because its almost impossible to prove a negative. However, the likelihood is pretty small indeed. So small that anyone putting forward that idea seriously would be met with even more derision than those putting forward young earth ideas.

Evolution, by contrast, has so much evidence in support of it that the chances it is wrong are very, very small.

john9blue wrote:-Any conclusion that is not directly demonstrable is a "theory". Some have more evidence than others. Collecting this evidence is part of what science is about.

Yes, but before something is taught in school, there has to be a good deal more evidence in support of it than is present for pink unicorns OR Creationism. There IS, by contrast lots of evidence supporting Evolution. In fact, evolution is actually no longer a theory, it is fact. Proveable fact.

john9blue wrote:-- The fact that these people treat evolution as a fact doesn't worry me all that much to be honest, seeing as it's almost 100% proven true.

evolution -- that things change over time, is true. The questions lie in the details.


It's the people that claim:
[list][*]creationism = anything supernatural = Earth is 6,000 years old[/quote]

No "anything supernatural" does not mean the Earth is 6000 years old. BUT, Creationism, and specifically Intelligent Design do each refer to young Earth theories. There is some variation... some believe the flood killed the dinosaurs, and created the Grand Canyon, others believe other things. HOWEVER, that is the idea being taught under the guise of Creationism. You can be angry that the term has been co-opted, as I am, but to claim otherwise is to feed in to the political debate firmly on the side of Dr Morris. Make no mistake, Creationism IS the name for the young earth/"God went "poof" and created all the animals we see", etc. set of ideas.

john9blue wrote:-[*]evolution explains the origin of everything

This is semantics. Evolution, originally was used strictly to refer to the biologicl progression of species, one to another. However, it has grown to include other forms of change through time.

Definitions change. This is one that has.

john9blue wrote:-[*]evolution and creationism are incompatible

Again, you have to use the definition that is real and applied. True Creationists like to exploit this confusion and use it as a smoke screen to hide behind. Then, when opposition is settled down .. it is young Earth Creationism that is taught. I used to think (even just 2 years ago or so, when the Dover case hit the news), like you, that Creationism was a more general term, that Intelligent Design pretty well could describe what I believe (more or less that God created all we see, using Evolution as a tool). HOWEVER, this is just not how the term is used.

If you say "football" here, Brits can argue all they want that it should mean "soccer", but sorry-- it does not. In Europe, you may need to specify "American Football", but here, you rarely do.

Dr Morris, CBN, etc have done a great job of co-opting the terms Creationism and Intelligent Design. Your idea of the definition just is no longer valid.

john9blue wrote:-[*]therefore nothing supernatural exists.
that bother me. If you buy into this line of thinking then I won't bother debating with you guys anymore.

It certainly bothers me, too. I believe in God. I believe in other things "supernatural". I also believe science. Though science is fallible, Creationism just does not fill the openings in science.

I guess if everyone takes "Creationism" to mean "young Earth creationism a la Morris" then I'm against it as well. By all means continue to debate WM and other like-minded people. I'll see how long I can stay out of it. I just think it's unfortunate that the word "creationism" has been actively corrupted by people on both sides of the issue. In fact that is why people feel the need to take sides rather than try and find common ground.

john9blue wrote: I just think it's unfortunate that the word "creationism" has been actively corrupted by people on both sides of the issue.

I absolutely agree

In fact that is why people feel the need to take sides rather than try and find common ground. [/quote]
I have tried for years to find common ground. The Creationists (ala Dr Morris, etc.) do not want common ground. They do not want common ground because thier whole stance depends upon refuting science. What I find scary and dishonest both is they way they try to claim they are using science AND claim that proof for their ideas exists.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote: Like "creationism" people have pigeonholed the word "science" to encompass less than it really means. In ancient times the "heavens" were simply outer space, considered by most to be the realm of the gods only and outside human understanding. Science is nothing more than asking questions, collecting evidence, and finding answers.

To be science, requires testing and using the scientific method... that is you put forward a theory, form a testable hypothesis and go on.

Scientific method-First you make observations, then you formulate a hypothesis which attempts to explain the observations(this is what you think a theory is), then you test your hypothesis to see if it fits(not all experiments are mixing liquids together). If it fits, than others

john9blue wrote:- Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

The two are pretty close. Theory is as proven as a hypothesis can get, at that point they're nearly 100% sure.

john9blue wrote:The pink unicorn is a theory.

Nope. The pink unicorn is actually a metaphor for god used to make fun of the religious.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote:-Any conclusion that is not directly demonstrable is a "theory". Some have more evidence than others. Collecting this evidence is part of what science is about.

Yes, but before something is taught in school, there has to be a good deal more evidence in support of it than is present for pink unicorns OR Creationism. There IS, by contrast lots of evidence supporting Evolution. In fact, evolution is actually no longer a theory, it is fact. Proveable fact.

No! A theory is an explanation for observations that is supported by facts, demonstrable, and confirmed by others as fact. Collecting evidence used to support hypotheses, theories come after it is fully proved and no more evidence is needed(though they do constantly find more and more).

Oh and btw, earths core is molten, and would be a liquid possibly a gas, but its under so much pressure that it cannot expand to become a liquid/gas. I'm not sure what this theory is called... but key point, its fact!

john9blue wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, what you really show is that you were never taught real science. What is taught as fact IS fact. What is taught as theory is not 100% proven, but has a LOT of evidence backing it.

The ideas that all animals were created at once, that dinosaurs and other ancient animals did not make the ark, that the Earth is only thousands of years old, not millions are plain and simply PROVEN FALSE.

There's always misunderstanding about this. I don't know why I bother posting in this thread. Okay here we go:

- I was definitely taught "real science", and continue to teach myself "real science" to this day. No baseless personal attacks, thanks.
- "Creationism" is the theory that there was a supernatural force at work in the creation of the universe. That's IT. No arks, no coexisting dinosaurs and humans, or anything like that. Player I know you have a crusade against the latter definition, but try not to form stereotypes.
- What is today considered "supernatural" is not outside the realm of science. Like "creationism" people have pigeonholed the word "science" to encompass less than it really means. In ancient times the "heavens" were simply outer space, considered by most to be the realm of the gods only and outside human understanding. Science is nothing more than asking questions, collecting evidence, and finding answers. The God question and many other aspects of philosophy fall inside this definition.
- Evolution is a theory, not a fact. The idea of Earth having a molten core is a theory. The pink unicorn is a theory. Any conclusion that is not directly demonstrable is a "theory". Some have more evidence than others. Collecting this evidence is part of what science is about.
- The fact that these people treat evolution as a fact doesn't worry me all that much to be honest, seeing as it's almost 100% proven true. It's the people that claim:

• creationism = anything supernatural = Earth is 6,000 years old
• evolution explains the origin of everything
• evolution and creationism are incompatible
• therefore nothing supernatural exists

that bother me. If you buy into this line of thinking then I won't bother debating with you guys anymore.

Tbh I don't see any real problem with what this guy's saying ... I mean, I'm totally, 100% atheist, fully in support of the theory of natural selection and soforth. But at the end of the day, all the dude's saying is that he believes that somewhere along the line a god was involved ... which is a fair position IMO. I look at that evidence and say "there probably is no god", but if someone wants to keep hold of that possibility that there is (and it is possible, just IMO highly unlikely) a god - fair enough.

As long as it's not brought in to the classroom and taught as fact (or probable)

AlgyTaylor wrote:
As long as it's not brought in to the classroom and taught as fact (or probable)

Oh, I fully believe that God created the universe.

However, the Creationism that is being spread through home-schooling, private schools and which is indeed now coming into public schools, often as a "viable alternative" to Evolution is the idea that the Earth and all we see was created in 7, 24-hour periods , roughly 6,000 years ago (some go as long as a couple of hundred thousand, but not the millions most scientists believe is reality).
This website covers it.
http://www.icr.org

(or the article I quoted) They constantly change, so I don't know what will be there when you look, but usually it is an article that purports to disprove or poke holes in Evolution, but really shows a lack of science understanding and critical thinking.

jonka wrote:Oh and btw, earths core is molten, and would be a liquid possibly a gas, but its under so much pressure that it cannot expand to become a liquid/gas. I'm not sure what this theory is called... but key point, its fact!

According to the latest expertise, the core is supposed to be solid. However, no one really and truly knows for sure, so it is a theory. Not a fact.

(this was actually covered pretty well in the "is God logical" thread.)

john9blue wrote:- Evolution is a theory, not a fact. The idea of Earth having a molten core is a theory. The pink unicorn is a theory. Any conclusion that is not directly demonstrable is a "theory". Some have more evidence than others. Collecting this evidence is part of what science is about.

Oh lol.

I think you'll find that the earth's molten core is a very fucking solid fact. Just because you can't see it directly does not mean it suddenly falls into some sort of "theory-realm" where things are not all that certain. Unless you say that the existence of atoms, molecules and viruses are also all theories.

I'm pretty sure that the earth is the back of a giant turtle, so unless that giant turtle has a molten core...

Snorri1234 wrote:

john9blue wrote:- Evolution is a theory, not a fact. The idea of Earth having a molten core is a theory. The pink unicorn is a theory. Any conclusion that is not directly demonstrable is a "theory". Some have more evidence than others. Collecting this evidence is part of what science is about.

Oh lol.

Oof... I didn't catch this bit. Goes well with this:

john9blue wrote:- I was definitely taught "real science", and continue to teach myself "real science" to this day. No baseless personal attacks, thanks.

GabonX wrote:I'm pretty sure that the earth is the back of a giant turtle, so unless that giant turtle has a molten core...

No it's on the back of 4 elephants who are on the back of a giant turtle. Geez, they teach you this in first grade.

Snorri1234 wrote:Oh lol.

I think you'll find that the earth's molten core is a very fucking solid fact.

Was that an intentional pun? Be honest.

Snorri1234 wrote:Unless you say that the existence of atoms, molecules and viruses are also all theories.

I'm sure there were people just like you back in the days of the plum-pudding model and the early Rutherford model, and back when the Greeks insisted the atom was the smallest unit of matter. IT'S NOT THEORY IT'S FACT! That's why you're an atheist and not an agnostic.

Keep thinking you're the final arbiter of truth if you like... no skin off my back.

john9blue wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Oh lol.

I think you'll find that the earth's molten core is a very fucking solid fact.

Was that an intentional pun? Be honest.

Snorri1234 wrote:Unless you say that the existence of atoms, molecules and viruses are also all theories.

I'm sure there were people just like you back in the days of the plum-pudding model and the early Rutherford model, and back when the Greeks insisted the atom was the smallest unit of matter. IT'S NOT THEORY IT'S FACT! That's why you're an atheist and not an agnostic.

Wait, you actually believe the existence of molecules and viruses are merely theories?

john9blue wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Oh lol.

I think you'll find that the earth's molten core is a very fucking solid fact.

Was that an intentional pun? Be honest.

Snorri1234 wrote:Unless you say that the existence of atoms, molecules and viruses are also all theories.

I'm sure there were people just like you back in the days of the plum-pudding model and the early Rutherford model, and back when the Greeks insisted the atom was the smallest unit of matter. IT'S NOT THEORY IT'S FACT! That's why you're an atheist and not an agnostic.

Keep thinking you're the final arbiter of truth if you like... no skin off my back.

That last paragraph was like what I imagine reading the thoughts of a Jack Russel Terrier would be like.

Snorri1234 wrote:

john9blue wrote:- Evolution is a theory, not a fact. The idea of Earth having a molten core is a theory. The pink unicorn is a theory. Any conclusion that is not directly demonstrable is a "theory". Some have more evidence than others. Collecting this evidence is part of what science is about.

Oh lol.

I think you'll find that the earth's molten core is a very fucking solid fact.

Well if it's so fucking solid, where are you supposed to burn for eternity?
Wiseass.

heavycola wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

john9blue wrote:- Evolution is a theory, not a fact. The idea of Earth having a molten core is a theory. The pink unicorn is a theory. Any conclusion that is not directly demonstrable is a "theory". Some have more evidence than others. Collecting this evidence is part of what science is about.

Oh lol.

I think you'll find that the earth's molten core is a very fucking solid fact.

Well if it's so fucking solid, where are you supposed to burn for eternity?
Wiseass.

Coffee -> monitor

for truth

john9blue wrote: IT'S NOT THEORY IT'S FACT!

Actually, its a definition. It is true because we say it is, in order that we can understand each other.

Snorri1234 wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Oh lol.

I think you'll find that the earth's molten core is a very fucking solid fact.

Was that an intentional pun? Be honest.

Snorri1234 wrote:Unless you say that the existence of atoms, molecules and viruses are also all theories.

I'm sure there were people just like you back in the days of the plum-pudding model and the early Rutherford model, and back when the Greeks insisted the atom was the smallest unit of matter. IT'S NOT THEORY IT'S FACT! That's why you're an atheist and not an agnostic.

Wait, you actually believe the existence of molecules and viruses are merely theories?

No, Snorri. He's saying that we've changed our minds about what atoms are. I think the implication is that, science changes, therefore science is not certain, therefore, um, (you'd better take it from there John, I don't know what you were implying.)

jonesthecurl wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Oh lol.

I think you'll find that the earth's molten core is a very fucking solid fact.

Was that an intentional pun? Be honest.

Snorri1234 wrote:Unless you say that the existence of atoms, molecules and viruses are also all theories.

I'm sure there were people just like you back in the days of the plum-pudding model and the early Rutherford model, and back when the Greeks insisted the atom was the smallest unit of matter. IT'S NOT THEORY IT'S FACT! That's why you're an atheist and not an agnostic.

Wait, you actually believe the existence of molecules and viruses are merely theories?

No, Snorri. He's saying that we've changed our minds about what atoms are. I think the implication is that, science changes, therefore science is not certain, therefore, um, (you'd better take it from there John, I don't know what you were implying.)

His point is moot, as atoms and molecules still exist, it's just more complex than originally postulated.

Frigidus wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Oh lol.

I think you'll find that the earth's molten core is a very fucking solid fact.

Was that an intentional pun? Be honest.

Snorri1234 wrote:Unless you say that the existence of atoms, molecules and viruses are also all theories.

I'm sure there were people just like you back in the days of the plum-pudding model and the early Rutherford model, and back when the Greeks insisted the atom was the smallest unit of matter. IT'S NOT THEORY IT'S FACT! That's why you're an atheist and not an agnostic.

Wait, you actually believe the existence of molecules and viruses are merely theories?

No, Snorri. He's saying that we've changed our minds about what atoms are. I think the implication is that, science changes, therefore science is not certain, therefore, um, (you'd better take it from there John, I don't know what you were implying.)

His point is moot, as atoms and molecules still exist, it's just more complex than originally postulated.

Also, I'm not sure the original idea the Greeks had about what constituted an atom is comparable to what we tody call atoms.

MeDeFe wrote:Also, I'm not sure the original idea the Greeks had about what constituted an atom is comparable to what we tody call atoms.

I've got to check into this, but I think the word "atom" originally meant, theoretically and by definition, the smallest particle/building block of all matter that could not be further broken down. At one point in the history of science, they discovered the evidence of what we call "atoms", thought they had discovered the smallest and indivisible thing and began to refer to them as "atoms". Later when it was discovered that this particle was itself made of smaller ones, it created a semantic paradox. Once again, I don't have sources for this and wouldn't swear to it, but I think this is how it went.

daddy1gringo wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Also, I'm not sure the original idea the Greeks had about what constituted an atom is comparable to what we tody call atoms.

I've got to check into this, but I think the word "atom" originally meant, theoretically and by definition, the smallest particle/building block of all matter that could not be further broken down. At one point in the history of science, they discovered the evidence of what we call "atoms", thought they had discovered the smallest and indivisible thing and began to refer to them as "atoms". Later when it was discovered that this particle was itself made of smaller ones, it created a semantic paradox. Once again, I don't have sources for this and wouldn't swear to it, but I think this is how it went.

This is how I learned it, too. However, the term "atom" still means the smallest block of elements, because the units of which atoms consist don't have the qualities of matter.

Electrons are in a category all their own, being energy, waves and particles all together.

What an atom is can/has been changed based upon our understanding because it is simply a definition.

... I thought this was rather interesting.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 83861.html

Nobunaga wrote:... I thought this was rather interesting.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 83861.html

Wow. that is fascinating.
A story to follow indeed.
Thank you.

I like how the guy said that the idea seemed stupid a few years ago. I thought that it made sense a few years ago, but I can't remember what I read or saw...