SandraJ, you make good sense. I highly doubt your contestants are old enough to say the earth is over 6000 years old. There is no proof that it is. There are only theories, and we all learned what theories were early in life. Anything else is an attempt by the anti-christ movement to invalidate the word of God.
35 comments
Evidently, you didn't learn what 'theory' means in the scientific sense. At any rate, there's a difference between 'evolution-the-fact' and 'evolution-the-theory'. Life evolves to become more successful within its environment. This is a fact , which was observed by Charles Darwin on the Galapagos Islands and continues to be observed to this very day. How evolution happens is still a theory. Natural selection is definitely a theory, I won't contest that, but it's a theory in the same way that our explanations for how gravity, heat, radiation, the formation of stars, black holes, etc. work. Comparatively, the fact of gravity is that anything with mass will fall back towards the earth when no longer supported by another mass. The theory of gravity is that space is warped by matter, drawing objects closer together without changing their relative positions in space.
You're confusing the word 'theory' with 'hypothesis', the latter being an educated guess based on meticulous observation, which is more than I can say for Intelligent Design/Creationism. Theory = a working model that accurately addresses all facets of a particular natural process, can be explained in simple terms within logical boundaries, does not contradict known scientific fact, has withstood all experimentation and criticism and accurately predicts outcomes of natural events. The theory of evolution succeeds in doing all of this things when it comes to the fact of evolution.
There are only theories, and we all learned what theories were early in life.
Obviously you missed the memo.
SandraJ, you make good sense
Uh oh...this isn't going to end well.
I highly doubt your contestants are old enough to say the earth is over 6000 years old. There is no proof that it is. There are only theories, and we all learned what theories were early in life. Anything else is an attempt by the anti-christ movement to invalidate the word of God.
Hey look, I was right.
Well, depending on how early "early in life" is, then I would say your statement is true, since I learned what a scientific theory is somewhere between 11 and 13.
No, it's not fucking just a theory. A theory in science is the absolute closest we can get to fact. A theory in layman's terms is generally speculation, which isn't even a hypothesis in many cases. I'm not trying to invalidate the Bible. It does that on its own. All I want to do is study the world as it is, and I want you idiots to quit trying to undermine everything scientists do with your fucking idiotic "just a theory" and "it contradicts my beliefs so it must be wrong no matter what evidence you have" mantras.
There are only theories, and we all learned what theories were early in life.
just like germs and demonic ppssesion are competing 'theories' for why people get sick.
Okay, ANYONE who still believes in a 6,000 year old Earth is, sorry, completely psychotic.
RADIONUCLETIDE DATING, anyone? Oh, and forget all about that "accelerated decay" thing. If all the decay we observe was "accelerated" so that 6,000 years looked like 4.5 billion (that's THOUSAND-million), we'd have a planet that matched the energy levels of hypernovae.
No "assumptions". No "liberal/atheist/godhater" biases. Simple physics. No "interpretations", either. Hard, solid science and math. All of which says that you're a total nutcase who should be locked up.
Sigh...
Let us examine just one of the many direct measurements that argue against the 6,000 year old Earth BS. Ice cores.
Anyone, even fundies, can count the lines for themselves. We have ice cores that prove over 800,000 years of the Earth's existence. It doesn't take a theory, anti-christ movement, or even much intelligence. Just count the lines.
Intelligent people can utilize the varied methods for aging the Earth and arrive at 4.54 billion years. But even the stupidest fundy can't refute the 800,000 years proven by ice cores.
Ugh. Why can't these retards learn what a scientific theory is? Here's heads up: It doesn't mean wild guess. I wild guess would be if I was a goat herder sitting around a campfire 4,000 years ago and with a limited understanding of nature(or anything for that matter), told everyone that we were created from dirt by a god.
and we all learned what theories were early in life
And now, Samuel L. Jackson parodies for fundies:
"Evidence motherfucker, have you heard of it?!?!?"
Yes, a theory is an explanation of the facts and evidence. Oh, I guess you were thinking of a hypothesis. As my teacher says, "theory" is the most misused word in the English language.
Edit: MrsAntiChrist, are you my teacher? ;-)
It only a theory like, Cell Theory,Germ theory,Atomic Theory,Chaos Theory,Pythagorean theorem,Earnshaw's theorem.I could go on and on but after all there only theories .Who cares right it no like it a fact .
The Role of Theories, Laws, Hypotheses, and Models
Evolution is a theory, and the standards make it clear that "a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer." If creationists thought they were undermining evolution by calling it a theory, they just demonstrated their own scientific illiteracy
pete:
You are wrong. An actual fundie said to me about lines in ice cores "What do you believe, the word of god or fallible scientists?".
Another response is to simply lie. A creationist article claimed the lines are only distinct up to 5000. Below that the lines are too squeezed and distorted to count. By an amazing coincidence, Noahs flood was 5000 years ago.
"There are only theories, and we all learned what theories were early in life. Anything else is an attempt by the anti-christ movement to invalidate the word of God."
Gosh, Mr. "Facts" here is apparently over 6000 years old himself to remember , firsthand, the old and new testaments being written.
Because otherwise his special pleading that we take the authority of a book of doubtful provenance as "proof" of events from before living memory, while dismissing multiple independent lines of evidence for an Earth far older than a literal reading of a myth would lead you to believe as "theory" (You mean "an explanation of physical phenomena strongly supported by observation and experiment"? Yes it is.) would be rank hypocrisy.
"There are only theories, and we all learned what theories were early in life."
Homeschooling for the win !
A theory, in science, is the highest possible level of probabilitI must admit, though, that on a nice spring day, if you squint your eyes a little, the earth doesn't look a day over 6,000.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
