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.
Originally posted by ValhallasValkyrie
Originally posted by wytworm
ID /Creationism is not testable therefore not a theory. Next?
Hmm... definitions please!!!
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
the·o·ry Audio Help /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Well now, with that definition I shall point out that, yes, Creationism is a theory .. as is evolution.
Your "theory" that it isnt.. is.. well... a theory. Odd how that works huh? Of course, based on what you say, your theory is not testable so.. not a theory.. which would then make it an.... dum dum dum... opinion. And we all know what they say about opinions right?????
Either way, Lightmare has it right.. neither should be taught in school. Period. End of discussion. Classes can be taught without either of those two subjects brought into the lessons - hello, my biology class in 10th grade never discussed Creationism or Evolution. So it is possible.
Next??
Originally posted by Lightmare
reply to post by wytworm
Oh boy....
You've really done it now. Seriously....you can't win against VV. Just trust me on this one. I pretty much live with her and I've tried. And I've never won a debate with her yet.
*****Prepares to take shelter******
Originally posted by ValhallasValkyrie
reply to post by Lightmare
*eyeballs the other half*
Ahem.. on with the discussion...
Ok.. point blank..
In your own words.. a theory has to be testable. Yes? You have to be able to test it to prove it fact or false.
...
Creationism. Not testable. It is faith. I cannot even begin to think of a way to try to test it.. so by YOUR definition, it is not a theory.
Great. They are... OPINIONS. Your links do not show me anything I did not already know. Neither subject is testable.. therefore, according to your post, they are not theories.
...
VV
Creationism. Not testable. It is faith. I cannot even begin to think of a way to try to test it.. so by YOUR definition, it is not a theory.
Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.
These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift.
Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.
Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process.
The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other is seen to occur over thousands of years (ie. a quantitative difference). Essentially they describe the same process.
The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Originally posted by pexx421
come now caorot....religion is all about brainwashing. Thats what it IS. Spirituality is one thing, but all large organized religions are diametrically opposed to doubt, question, and enlightenment. They are systems of control.
1.
Reconstruction of Ambulocetus, ‘at the end of the power stroke during swimming’, by Thewissen et al.
2.
The stippled bones were all that were found. And the bones coloured red were found 5 m above the rest.
The name Ambulocetus natans comes from the Latin words ambulare (to walk), cetus (whale) and natans (swimming), and means "a walking and swimming whale." It is obvious the animal used to walk because it had four legs, like all other mammals, and even wide claws on its feet and paws on its hind legs. Apart from evolutionists' prejudice, however, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived on land and in water (like an amphibian)........
- The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus ends at the pelvis, and powerful rear legs then extend from it. This is typical land-mammal anatomy. In whales, however, the backbone goes right down to the tail, and there is no pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus, believed to have lived some 10 million years after Ambulocetus, possesses the latter anatomy. In other words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between Ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and Basilosaurus, a typical whale.
Originally posted by Horza
Evolution, because it is a science, should be taught in school science classes and Creationism or I.D. should not.
Well, evolution is not testable. You cannot run a test/experiment to prove it. Period.
So not a theory by YOUR definition.
Creationism. Not testable. It is faith. I cannot even begin to think of a way to try to test it.. so by YOUR definition, it is not a theory.
Great. They are... OPINIONS. Your links do not show me anything I did not already know. Neither subject is testable.. therefore, according to your post, they are not theories.
One teaching Creationism and the other teaching non-theistic evolution.
Before I make my post on this.. understand that I am in no way Christian. I do not hold any Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Does this mean I tell my kids that we descended from apes?
Both my children go to church. Something I encourage. So obviously, they are learning Creationism. Good. It gives them a basis to decide what they believe as they grow.
In the end.. if more adults would stf and stop being so adamant about things their way ... things would be easier. Seriously... stop whining and look at it as a way to have more intellectually rounded children.
Isn't this site about denying ignorance??? Seems to me learning both would do just that... deny ignorance.
Originally posted by ValhallasValkyrie
Isn't this site about denying ignorance??? Seems to me learning both would do just that... deny ignorance.
VV