It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Continuing Challenge to Creationists

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Or maybe more to the point...

"Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don’t change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made," Tanner told Live Science."




posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I accept the challenge!




I 'win'.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Evolution is a scientific theory. I posted exactly what the scientific definition of 'theory' was. Posting other definitions other than the scientific one is erroneous.


In other words...not a fact.


Oh for goodness sake. Now you're pulling the erroneous "it's a theory, not a fact" card.


Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.


ncse.com...


Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]


en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 21-9-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: GetHyped

Or maybe more to the point...


How is your post more to the point? Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism isn't even a hypothesis. You STILL persist in misunderstanding and misusing scientific terminology.

Learn first, argue second.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped







How is your post more to the point? Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism isn't even a hypothesis. You STILL persist in misunderstanding and misusing scientific terminology.



But the idea of a Creator is currently being tested.

We don't yet have the results.

Granted the experiment is several thousand years in the making.


Testing for a Being (if He even exists) that is billions of years old or perhaps timeless, is supposed take how long exactly?



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Both creationism and evolutionism are theories. As theories, regardless how many people may believe one over the other...there is no fact. Debating a theory proves nothing except who is the better debater.

And no...I don't believe in creation.


Not true. A scientific theory is backed by facts.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Funny. But no banana - sorry!



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   


You persistently misrepresent the hypothesis of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution to make clumsy, fallacious arguments (and I'm being generous),
a reply to: GetHyped


He misrepresents?

He doesn't need to.

Here is a quote from Talk Origins.


Summary

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution


Knock me over with a feather (that spontaneously generated from thin air)

Spontaneous Generation is what the field of Abiogenesis lives on (Literally).


It is linked to Evolution


The “big hope” is that he has identified the underlying physical principle driving the origin and evolution of life, Grosberg said.



A New Physics Theory of Life



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423






Not true. A scientific theory is backed by facts


Like what, the sun rises, there are fossils in the ground and that life appears to behave a certain way?

There is data, and there is the interpretation of the data.

Philosophies have risen from the interpretations.

Words like can't and cannot become intertwined with these theories.

Minds close when ideas like, can't, begin the exclamation.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: GetHyped

the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition;

In other words...not a fact.

The more we all know the better


Sorry, no banana on that one either. Darwin's "theory" was based on observation. He drew conclusions based on the technology (which wasn't much) at the time.

Today (yes, it is 2015), a scientific theory has legs because whatever facts you collect can be tested in a number of ways. In other words, there is a verification process BEFORE an idea can be called a theory. Of course, that's not to say you know everything about the idea. But a theory in science carries with it testable facts. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for observations. For instance, I observe that when a tree grows, that it increases in mass. So my hypothesis is: The tree increases in mass. Now we design tests to see if we can come with some FACTS that may lead to a theory.
We still have a HYPOTHESIS because we have no FACTS - yet.

Experimental design:

1. Possibilities:
a. Does the soil it grows in (assuming the tree is in a pot) decrease in mass as the tree increases in mass?

b. Does the tree absorb mass from the air?

c. Does the tree synthesize its own mass without any outside intervention or acquisition of mass?

d. Do the components of the tree (leaves, branches, roots, bark) "feed" the tree?

e. What other elements is the tree exposed to that might play a role in its growth.

f. Does water cause the tree to accumulate mass?

So now you have 6 questions that you can design experiments around.

2. Observation: Setup an experiment:

Jan Baptista van Helmont conducted an experiment in the 1600s - he put a tree in a pot - watched it for 5 years. Weighed the tree against the original soil weight and mass - the growth of the tree in terms of mass did not equal any significant depletion in the soil from the original measurement. So he concluded that it must be the water (it was the only other thing he could think of at the time). Rule out soil as the causative factor in mass increase and junk that HYPOTHESIS. Move on test number 2.

In 1700 Priestly conducted an experiment: He put a mouse in a closed jar. The mouse passed out after some time due to lack of air (oxygen primarily). Then he put a mouse in a jar with a plant and voila! The mouse didn't pass out. DISCOVERY: The plant must be producing oxygen to keep the mouse alive.
Now we have fact #1: Plants produce oxygen. It wasn't until the late 1700's that someone (forget his name) observed through experiment that there seemed to be a gas exchange between the plant and the environment. And on it went until finally there were enough FACTS to formulate a THEORY that plants could synthesize mass through gas exchange with the addition of light. At that point in time PHOTOSYNTHESIS was now a THEORY.

So the flow chart is (and let's get this right once and for all folks???)

1. OBSERVATION
2. FORMULATION OF A HYPOTHESIS
3. ACCUMULATION OF FACTS BASED ON EXPERIMENTAL DATA
4. A WORKING THEORY AS TO HOW SOMETHING WORKS BASED ON THOSE FACTS
5. CONTINUED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY

I'm not going to go through all the steps up to the final discovery of photosynthesis and how it works. You can do that yourself.

Please memorize the flow chart. There will be a test tomorrow





posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Can we please stop these ridiculous threads? Creationists will always believe God created the Earth, and you won't sway them.

Faith has no basis in reality or logic, and has no basis in reason.

You'll never get to have a reasonable discussion with any person of faith, if the opposing viewpoint challenges that faith.

Even if that faith is completely misguided and meaningless.

Remember when ATS used to be a conspiracy site?



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Very well stated, a star for you.

I just want to say I wish we had more evolutionists like you on ATS and less like Barcs, it would make for much more reasonable discussions overall. But realize this, you are a threat to his ilk.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: GetHyped

the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis,, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition;

In other words...not a fact.

The more we all know the better


Words in red were added by you and are wrong.

Words boldened are by me are for your attention.

For clarification since you said "The more we all know the better" then please see my signature and click on the link to "theory vs scientific theory".

Somehow I get the impression you do not honestly wish to learn more if that proves wrong I will be pleasantly surprised.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

Very well stated, a star for you.

I just want to say I wish we had more evolutionists like you on ATS and less like Barcs, it would make for much more reasonable discussions overall. But realize this, you are a threat to his ilk.


Barcs verbalizes in a descriptive way that everyone should understand. And that's the point - not everyone is trained in science so having someone who speaks to the layman and makes them think is a good thing. And as I said many times, the popular media very often gives the wrong impression as to how science is done. I like his posts - he's talking to YOU (not you per se, but laymen - and there's no excuse for laymen not to do research into a topic - that's the point he makes over and over again). Sometimes I don't do that.


The point of this whole forum - to me at least - is that people should be able to discuss these topics, understand what evidence is and is not and use their noggins to think critically. I've done a lot of research into topics that I wouldn't ordinarily be interested in. So I've learned a lot.

But the fundamental workings of science is the same across the board. The flow chart is the same whether you're a chemist, physicist, biologist - it would be very chaotic if we all had different standards of evidence.

edit on 21-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: Phantom423






Not true. A scientific theory is backed by facts


Like what, the sun rises, there are fossils in the ground and that life appears to behave a certain way?

There is data, and there is the interpretation of the data.

Philosophies have risen from the interpretations.

Words like can't and cannot become intertwined with these theories.

Minds close when ideas like, can't, begin the exclamation.



Hard science is not philosophy and philosophy is not hard science. Data goes through a lot of mathematical hoops in the process of discovery. Standard deviations, outliers, anomalies - these are the things that are calculated, studied and reported on. Philosophy has nothing to do with a chi squared analysis (I'm giving you the link to Wikipedia for the definition of chi squared - en.wikipedia.org...).

Unless you made a critical mistake in your algorithms, the data is the data and the results are the results. If someone doesn't agree with the results, then they must repeat the experiment and show WHY the original conclusion was wrong.
It's that simple.

You want to complicate everything with philosophy, religion - which really amount to personal opinions. Science isn't done that way. Read the flow chart again.


edit on 21-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
Can we please stop these ridiculous threads? Creationists will always believe God created the Earth, and you won't sway them.

Faith has no basis in reality or logic, and has no basis in reason.

You'll never get to have a reasonable discussion with any person of faith, if the opposing viewpoint challenges that faith.

Even if that faith is completely misguided and meaningless.

Remember when ATS used to be a conspiracy site?


Well you're free to read it or not read it. I think it has value. People are not stupid. Even if I don't agree with the Creationist point of view, engaging in dialogue is important to both sides. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

I respect everyone's opinion. I'm interested in how people draw some of their conclusions - are they following a guru or did they think it through themselves. Some of the Creationists here have put up a decent fight. On the other hand, the other side has also put up massive amounts of evidence. So massive in fact, that I created the ATS library on Evolution.

It's a good thing when people think and figure out things. You never know when a good idea, even a brilliant idea, will show up.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



Who gets a banana?



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

the urge to response does not arise in me because of worry abut how you or others think of my posts. It is far more simple, I just enjoy writing and do it for the sake of it. It is a pleasure for me to share this if there is curiosity, because I don't debate this in real life with friends because there is little interest in such topics.

But everyone is entitled to his or her own thoughts. We all in general take what looks like good fit and feels right for us at the present moment and drop the rest. In this case of my posts if I just inspire one person to contemplate about the real nature of our mind and existence then I have cultivated a small seed which can and will grow in a beautiful flower in time.

I think they are all quoted somewhere on a page and I have read them all or else I would not have mentioned them. But it is true that the ones which are extra long like vedas were read in a conjuncture with other gurus who are using them for explanation in their talks for students.
And there are other books not listed which are good for study and are from more recent times as you suggested.
Like my personal two very liked books: master of self realization and dashbod or the books about Tibetan buddhism schools about mahamudra or dzogchen are great and to the point.

They all talk about the same thing, but just different variation. We are all each own story and are "writing"/living our variation, whatever that may be. But the truth can be recognized because for it, there is no who, where, when.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


I don't agree with that. Here's why: Reasonable doubt in a courtroom is based on a LACK of evidence to convict. "Reasonable doubt" in science suggests that there exists other evidence that may conflict with the current findings. But here's the clincher: that other evidence has to have been acquired under the standards of the scientific method. And that can certainly happen. But typically prior to publishing, a thorough search of the literature is conducted. If that other evidence did exist, then it would be the responsibility of the current author to include it in some way in his publication either by citation or inclusion of some aspect of that research, for instance a table which reflects the data. But that doesn't constitute reasonable doubt. It only says that another scientist worked in a similar area of research.

Nope. No evidence is needed. The established doubt is intrinsic to the scientific method.

This is not a scientific debate, but a philsophical one. Evidence is, quite frankly, irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   
its the same as holding a debate over what came first the chicken or the egg.
nothing anyone has to say offers any evidence or proof of the existence of God.
The is no proof or irrefutable evidence that disproves the existence of God.




top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join