Hilarious explanations of the Bill Nye Debate notepad creationist photos.

reply to post by CharlieSpeirs

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. 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.

source

Sure, not the be all and end all, but accepted as fact due to accumulation of evidence and repeatability...

Pal...

Creationist and Intelligent design proponents often like to describe the theory of evolution as just a theory. This relies on equivocating the common usage of the term theory (meaning "idea" or "guess") with the scientific meaning. Theories are the single highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory

source

Buddy...

reply to post by ThaddeusTStevens

Until you realize there is nothing beyond the physical, and then Jesus becomes more like Thor and Wotan.

I'm afraid that such a realisation requires far more arrogance than I can muster.

randyvs
reply to post by ThaddeusTStevens

 

Until you realize there is nothing beyond the physical, and then Jesus becomes more like Thor and Wotan.

I'm afraid that such a realisation requires far more arrogance than I can muster.

It requires more arrogance to believe in the validity of an invisible sky wizard than to accept the scientific method, or any legitimate method of epistemology.

reply to post by ThaddeusTStevens

It requires more arrogance to believe in the validity of an invisible sky wizard than to accept the scientific method, or any legitimate method of epistemology.

No, it absolutely does not. I humble myself in the acceptance
and even appreciate the fact that there is simply a more intelligent
higher being in existence than human beings. Who know exactly one
tenth of one percent of absolutely nothing, but still even tho they're about
to destroy their only home in the cosmos, can some how find the audacity
to entertain the notion, that they are knowledgable enough to deny the
existence of anything. Even more so a creator God, who thru his mercy and
kindness has promised a new Earth, as it just so happens to be becoming
one hundred percent obvious that we're gonna need one. Oh and sorry
but no one can blame God for this one Pal. So get over yourself acting like you
know something I don't know, you know something I don't know. Because you don't
know squat and it's pure unfounded arrogance that has you convinced you do and it's
pathetic.

randyvs
reply to post by ThaddeusTStevens

 

It requires more arrogance to believe in the validity of an invisible sky wizard than to accept the scientific method, or any legitimate method of epistemology.

No, it absolutely does not. I humble myself in the acceptance
and even appreciate the fact that there is simply a more intelligent
higher being in existence than human beings.

Without even the slightest shred of actual evidence. I believe that's called being a gullible fool.

reply to post by ThaddeusTStevens

Without even the slightest shred of actual evidence. I believe that's called being a gullible fool.

Doesn't matter to me what you call it and obviously you're the one who has no evidence.
But you will.

reply to post by ThaddeusTStevens


Most of the time they usually just say "gravity", "gravitational force/pull" without the word theory or fact.
However I will come to the "theory" part at the end of this paragraph.
I understand that Newton's theory of Gravity has come into question.
Much like Darwin's Evolution theory.
Things are now understood much better and they lacked key aspects within their particular theories.
That doesn't mean they got it all wrong though.
Like I said the difference in "pull" on Earth compared to the Moon, and hopefully soon Mars will join the list as testable part shows there is some force that keeps everything down(Gravity)...
I'd hazard a guess that it only thing that keeps Gravity as a theory is how powerful Gravity is when considering other planetary bodies & stars.
eg How high or far someone could jump and difference in free fall speed on Planets & Satellites(we only have the Moon & Earth tested so far)... & whether a Star's gravitational pull is definitely what causes planetary orbit.
What we do know is that what goes up, must come down, so that, without trying to sound pedantic, is in fact Gravity.
The theory IMO relates to the examples I mentioned.

Fully agree with the scientists reply though.
But that's also unfair to lump all creationists as deniers of evidence.

There is oddballs within both communities if we're being unbiased.

Peace.

ps: Wiki doesn't go down as a credible source of information here at ATS. You are new so I thought it best to tell you now.
I will check the link. But most here see it as the last line of defence.

reply to post by ThaddeusTStevens


Did I mention a Magic Sky Wizard?
Nope.
And I didn't say they had to "blow up the Universe".

You're choosing to be ignorant to what I said... about even the smallest explosion in laboratory tests being impossible without some sort of chemicals present.
Also putting words into MY Mouth and ignoring a valid question about Creation.

This site is about DENYING IGNORANCE... Not adopting it to try and look clever, because around here it comes across as Idiocy.

And I'm a "Troll"... No I like to question everything actually and you have yet to give substantiated proof that the Big Bang was the BEGINNING!!!
I actually believe in a Big Bang... but have clearly shown why I cannot be THE MOMENT OF CREATION...and therefore we need a new theory to experiment with.

Peace.

reply to post by ThaddeusTStevens


You do know that wasn't my quote???
It was a literal translation from a Scientific website that was favoured by Google to present a definition!!!
Theory is hypothesis.
Once people "add" to, or subtract from a theory it becomes a totally different theory with similarities.

Peace.

reply to post by aorAki


Why did you not C&P the bit right after from the same source;

"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change."

Interpretation/Explaination is not fact... It is guess based on the facts.
Yes evolution is a fact!
Each seperate interpretation is a theory.
The Big Bang is a fact!
But again each separate explaination is a theory.

Hopefully you now see the difference between me, someone who believes Science & Divine Creation are not mutually exclusive(which is for another topic)...as opposed to "Creationists" who like the non-theory of a "6000 yr old" Earth and a bearded man in the clouds!!!...
Buddy

Peace.

randyvs
reply to post by ThaddeusTStevens

 

Without even the slightest shred of actual evidence. I believe that's called being a gullible fool.

Doesn't matter to me what you call it and obviously you're the one who has no evidence.
But you will.

Translation

"Nu-uh! I am rubber you are glue!"

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by ThaddeusTStevens

 

Most of the time they usually just say "gravity", "gravitational force/pull" without the word theory or fact.
However I will come to the "theory" part at the end of this paragraph.
I understand that Newton's theory of Gravity has come into question.
Much like Darwin's Evolution theory.
Things are now understood much better and they lacked key aspects within their particular theories.
That doesn't mean they got it all wrong though.
Like I said the difference in "pull" on Earth compared to the Moon, and hopefully soon Mars will join the list as testable part shows there is some force that keeps everything down(Gravity)...
I'd hazard a guess that it only thing that keeps Gravity as a theory is how powerful Gravity is when considering other planetary bodies & stars.
eg How high or far someone could jump and difference in free fall speed on Planets & Satellites(we only have the Moon & Earth tested so far)... & whether a Star's gravitational pull is definitely what causes planetary orbit.
What we do know is that what goes up, must come down, so that, without trying to sound pedantic, is in fact Gravity.
The theory IMO relates to the examples I mentioned.

Fully agree with the scientists reply though.
But that's also unfair to lump all creationists as deniers of evidence.

There is oddballs within both communities if we're being unbiased.

Peace.

ps: Wiki doesn't go down as a credible source of information here at ATS. You are new so I thought it best to tell you now.
I will check the link. But most here see it as the last line of defence.

I see you neglected to even post a single link to a citation, and instead insist that what you mean to be a theory is what all scientists mean, despite my evidence to the contrary being cited. And then you say that a wiki is inadmissible as a ciation, because...?

You realize that wikipedia CITES their sources, right? You can just click the little footnote around the data you are look at and it will direct you to the source text.

PS

Are you even TRYING?

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by ThaddeusTStevens

 

Did I mention a Magic Sky Wizard?
Nope.
And I didn't say they had to "blow up the Universe".

You're choosing to be ignorant to what I said... about even the smallest explosion in laboratory tests being impossible without some sort of chemicals present.
Also putting words into MY Mouth and ignoring a valid question about Creation.

edit on 17-2-2014 by CharlieSpeirs because: Auto-Correct!

1) God, for all intents and purposes, is your magic sky wizard. And he is an integral part of your creation mythology. Unless that is, you are saying that god had nothing to do with your creation myth. So guess a giant space turtle created us then? Or aliens?

2) So you are saying that the big bang never happened because scientists cant create explosions from nothing? You do realize that matter, however small, was present during the big bang right?

3) The only valid question about creation is how child like people who believe in it are.

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by aorAki

 

Interpretation/Explaination is not fact... It is guess based on the facts.
Yes evolution is a fact!
Each seperate interpretation is a theory.
The Big Bang is a fact!
But again each separate explaination is a theory.

Hopefully you now see the difference between me, someone who believes Science & Divine Creation are not mutually exclusive(which is for another topic)...as opposed to "Creationists" who like the non-theory of a "6000 yr old" Earth and a bearded man in the clouds!!!...
Buddy

If you were not a creationist from the start, then were you just playing devils advocate (poorly)?

reply to post by ThaddeusTStevens


About 4 different posts of mine have given the true definition of theory, including the infamous "Scientific Theory" despite the fact there is no difference...
I feel weary having to keep repeating myself regarding this... But 1 last time here goes;
Scientific Theory... An explanation/interpretation based on experiment of the facts. Of which there is many different explanations/interpretations from many scientists!!!

It doesn't matter if a scientist claims their "theory" fits that facts better than another scientists theory on the same subject.
The facts are what are important, not the theory... In accordance with Scientific Method!!!

Did I say that I don't like Wikipedia???
No in fact I was being very civil & thoughtful to the new-comer status as you go along your ATS journey you will find a lot of people will not listen to Wikipedia, because it can be edited second-by-second by whoever holds a Wikipedia account.
I said this for your future benefit.
I also said I will check the link, because I am not one of the people who feels this way.

Please read what I say carefully if you truly care for a back and forth.

I was trying, I now find myself contemplating whether I should have bothered.

Peace.

reply to post by ThaddeusTStevens


Okay... Let me do this in a civil manner...

1) I can't even begin to say where you got this wrong... Just pure assumption about another's beliefs to which...
NONE OF THIS RELATES TO MY BELIEFS. NONE...OF...IT!!!
Not the "God", not the "He", not the "Magic Sky Wizard", not the "Aliens"... NOT a single piece of this diatribe full of rhetorical conjecture!!!
But keep up the assumptions of ATS members, as I said previously they will eat you alive for this sort of thing.

2) You didn't read my post in which I stated I believe that a Big Bang occurred... I just said it was NOT THE MOMENT OF CREATION...
To which if "Matter" existed already as you proclaim... Is actually proving my entire point!!!

3) You do know that it is against T&Cs to mock and ridicule people's opinions and beliefs here yes???
Yet you continue to do so right???
You won't last very long with such an attitude.

As I said stop putting words into other people's mouth.
It's not part of debate no matter the subject at hand.

You assume so much, and know so little... That's a BAD combination on ATS!!!

Peace.


SideNote: Capitals for emphasis, NOT shouting!!!