Your believe: Darwin or Creationism?

Agreed, however today’s scientists and their cutting edge tools, smart H bombs (lol) lasers, robotics, computers, and the application there of will be to futuristic eyes 20th century witch doctors using the equivalent of spells and stone tools to heal and kill. If by process you mean the scientific method some forms of ID even some applications of creationism use 95% of the same method. Also (see post #123) for reference.

Reva~

 

Jeeze what a fantastic rebuttal! Tell me why is string theory is still the "future of physics" according to claims of many scientists. To be sure string theory has been the darling of theoretical physics for a decade. Guess what, it fails and therefore lends evidence to support my claim. String theory FAILS to meet one of the main requirements of the Scientific method. Its (conclusions)are not testable and it has made NO verifiable predictions.

reva

 

No one says that science shouldn’t be taught, if you had paid attention I would not have to repeat this. it’s the seculars that want to force their views upon all of us at the exclusion of everything else. Go back to post 123.

reva

 

String theory isn't a theory though.

 

Some of the seculars deserve to be cursed. If I still practiced I would be happy to slam em with a visit from a demon. Ahhh’ sometimes I lament of the things I have to give up to be a good semi radical Christian. Somehow sticking pins in representations of Darwin lovers feels better than forgiving my enemies and turning the other cheek…well that applies only in the short term. Science has shown and Christians etc have known for around 4000 years that to forgive is better than holding a grudge. Stuffing anger only leads to depression in later life and other bad things. Smurfs into Gold? Yeah but it will cost you your soul...

Mark 8:36; What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his soul?

reva

 

Hot (*)(*)(*)(*) what a enlightening statement in a dream world somewhere! A theory isn’t a theory. I give up. No first I want you to tell me why ST is not Theory. Did you even read my sources?

Why do I even take the time to post these things?

String theory is an active research framework in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. It is a contender for a theory of everything (TOE), a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

reva

 

Contender, but not yet a theory.

 

Just like so many terms, don't confuse a popular appellation with the REALITY of what something IS.

String Theory could be more appropriately named "String Supposition", or "String Speculation" if headlines were going to be literally accurate.

The SECOND paragraph from your source (Wikipedia) says it clearly: "String theory posits.....".

It doesn't say "proves". It doesn't say "Shows". It just says "posits" which is another way of saying "Let's assume".

Yeah, until you learn some principles of science, that could be a very appropriate question.

 

I say it’s a THEORY as per my source, there are others. I have seen both, the reason for that is because of people in power that have been beating down ST and criticizing it for the same reasons I (no power) have for the last eight years. There are other sources that agree wiki was the first and clearly stated the truth. Even if we say it is an emerging theory wtf? Ok creationism/ID is an emerging theory on par with string (not a) theory. If you had read my prior posts you would see that I do not suggest teaching ID/creationism until a standard theory is developed.


string theory - definition of string theory by the Free Online Dictionary ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/string+theory - Cached - Similar
string´ the`o`ry (strĭng´ thē`ô`r&#375. n. 1. (Physics) A mathematical theory for
describing the properties of fundamental particles, which represents the particles
as ...

The Unraveling of String Theory - TIME
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1226142,00.html - Similar
Aug 14, 2006 ... Two new books argue that the hottest idea in physics is just a passing fad.

Physics . a mathematical entity used to represent elementary particles, as gravitons, quarks, or leptons, in terms of a small but finite stringlike object existing in the four dimensions of spacetime and in additional, hypothetical, spacelike dimensions. The theory of such objects (string theory) avoids the many mathematical difficulties that arise from treating particles as points.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/string+theory



reva

 

Some scientists think that String Hypothesis should be String Theory and so they call it so. However, since there's no line in the sand a hypothesis needs to reach to become a theory beyond scientists saying it is, it takes more than a few scientists with a pet hypothesis for it to become accepted as a theory.

 

ID and creationism cannot meet the criteria for becoming a theory as they aren't supported by the Scientific Method as they fail at Step 2.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

The Hypothesis is based upon physical and emperical evidence but there's neither physical or emperical evidence of the existance of god. ID and Creationism will never be anything but a belief based upon everything we know about the universe.

When we look at Creationist and Intelligent Design websites they don't "propose" anything but instead attempt to focus on trying to disprove scientific theories on the origin of the universe and the evolution of life. We also find that they are highly dishonest in these attempts resorting to attempts to confuse the uninformed mind as opposed to any litigimate arguments. For example I've read "statistical analysis of probability equations" on ID/Creationist sites but the problem is that something that has already happened has a probability of 100% regardless of what the odds are of it happening again. Probability statistics cannot disprove something that has already occurred and are used exclusively to deceive the reader. They are dishonest arguments being promoted for nefarious reasons.

The fallacies of the Creationist "argument" are very evident on the following website. Please not that it doesn't propose 'creationism' but makes bogus arguments about evolution.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creationism-faq.htm

Let's address the BS questions it asks:

Did anyone observe the origin of life? Straw horse argument. Life formed on Earth and we can document the earliest forms of life on Earth though the fossil record.

Did anyone observe all the species being formed from another species? Another straw horse argument. We don't even know all of the species that have existed because of the high probability first of a fossil being formed and then for us to actually find it. Of course the observation of most species being formed were observed by other species.

Did anyone observe any species being formed from another kind or species with or without help from us? Another straw horse. Once agian other species have observed the forming of new species and the fossil record documents this happening.

Has anyone found fossils that represent transitional forms that would be expected if the theory of evolution were true? Yes, numerous transitional species have been found in the fossil record. Not all transitional species have been found and the odds agianst a fossil being formed and then us actually finding it is astronomical.

Are the fossils found in the lowest Cambrian layer only partially formed compared with their life forms today? "Partially formed" misrepresents the theory of natural selection and evolution. Life forms in the Cambrian layer are fully formed just as all life forms are at any evolutionary period. This is an intentionally deceptive question meant to mislead the uninformed.

Do we have more species that exist today compared with what we know existed at any earlier time? Another straw horse. There have been numerous mass extinctions and the theory of natural selection dictates that life forms will develop to fill any niches that provide an advantage for survival. The question for today is do the species fill all of the available niches which are advantageous for the species today and they do. That is why we don't have any complex new species evolving. There are no real niches that would be advantageous for survival. This is another misrepresentation of the theory of natural selection. In fact, if there are two species competing for the same food source or environment there is a probability that one will win out and the other become extinct. Just think of how many species have become extinct because mankind.

Have experiments made life from non-living matter? Not yet but we're about halfway there. Considering that it took hundreds of millions of years and trillions of trillions of chemical reactions it's almost unbelieveable that we're as close as we are in the lab. We've already been able to create organic compounds from inorganic compounds and have formed nucleotides from organic compounds in the lab. Nucleotides are the components of RNA and DNA which are the fundamental building blocks of life.

Have experiments to cause mutations in fruit flies been able to improve the design so their survival chances would be better? Another straw horse intended to deceive the uninformed. Fruit flies are already a fully formed species perfectly adapted to their environment. As such they can't be "improved" because they're already a fully developed species.

Have natural scientists consistently presented facts and icons of evolution that have been credible? Absolutely.

Has the explosion of new information about DNA, RNA, the complexity of the cell and the irreducible complexity of the cell supported evolution? Another straw horse because RNA and DNA are not complex. They're made up of a few simple chemicals that are joined to form nucleotides. Repetition does not represent complexity. By analogy the English language has many, many words but they're all based upon the simplicity of 26 letters.

Something that the "creationists" miss is that most of the DNA and RNA genetic sequences are shared by all forms of life and 98% of that has been long considered as "junk" DNA as it didn't apparently do anything. If intelligence were involved in the creation of DNA and RNA then there wouldn't be these junk sequestions. It would be like building a car where the majority of parts did nothing and served no purpose. Why would a shovel be welded in a door panel on a car for instance?

What new studies seem to indicate is that these repetitive DNA sequences might be the chemical mechanism for evolution though. If that eventually proves to be true then it is one more nail in the coffin of "creationism" and "intelliegnt design" that remain nothing more than religious beliefs that originated several thousand years ago.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110228104318.htm

 

I'll sum up ID.

Can Evolution explain this thing totally not even related to Evolution? No? Ergo, evolution is wrong and ID is correct.

 

Darwin(ism) and creationism is about deception and reality. It's about fact (findings. study) versus theology (words)
Ten years of propaganda about Darwin on television and most people believe that story, ten years of propaganda about creationism on television and most people start to believe that (so don't pick a side immidiatly) Same with the Moon landings, lots of people disbelieve the Moonlandings because of the anti propaganda over the last decade. One period of Earth's history this planet looked like a monsterplanet, the dinosaur period. There are still creatures alive from that period (fact), ants (a billion years), scorpions other insects too, crocodiles and deep oceanic life you can still see details of that very old world of hundreds of millions of years ago. The only way is to find out yourself by seeking the truth (same with politics, most of it is deception, and masses of people buy into it very easely)
Centuries ago most people believed the Earth was flat, if you tell people today if you believe that the Earth is flat they laugh at you (it's about what people was told, people copycat information without verification) This will happen over time with Darwin and creationism too. But there could be a new explanation on evolution (that Darwin not even could see), because the search and study of were we came from is far from over. One thing is sure, our natural behaviour does not change (we can't even see our own (ant/animal like) behaviour, suppose you look from space to Earth on how we organize and group you can see that we are part of the rest of the ecosystem, we are not different, not even religions that believe they are alien have the same ant/animal this human organisation, there is nothing else than hierarchy in nature, everythng that is alive is trying to survive) There is more proof that we were not created than created by something. We are a coincidence by nature (organic processes), the dinosaures were too (ants, crocs and sharks survived all the time, other species came and went) Over the last sixty million years Earth was cooled down enough to have a stable ecosystem (in dinosaur period more violent and warmer climate), this stable period is why we are here and Earth became like a paradise (stable environment and ecosystem) Intelligent life can only excist in a stable environment.

 

Is this opinion based upon a complete lack of knowledge? It obviously must be because the theories of the origin of life on Earth and the evolution of early simple life-forms to complex life-forms does "explain" all of the life on Earth.

When we address the creation of the Universe there are also theories that explain it.

No, the theories have not all been validates but all of the "tests" of those theories have supported the theories. The theory of the origin of the universe, for example, predicted black holes and now we can locate black holes even though we can't see them. We can measure the orbits of stars circling black holes and calculate the mass and location of the black holes.

The theory of the origin of life predicted that organic matter could originate from inorganic matter and that has been done in the lab. The theory of the origin of life predicted that RNA can form from organic compoundsl and short chains of have been created in the lab although they are to short to be reproductive yet. Longer chains of RNA molecules are self-replicating merely a matter of time. RNA is the reproductive element in a virus. If RNA can form from organic compounds then logically DNA can logically form from RNA.

The theories of life and the universe have not been confirmed by tests but the tests so far support the theories.

 

Evolution and God aren't mutually exclusive, that's where fundies are misguided.

 

Evolution and a God who made mankind out of a muddy puddle are incompatible. The irony being that every atom in existence was forged in the heart of a star, including us. THERE's a creation story to wonder at!

 

There is no reason to believe otherwise, its written in the good book, so it was written so it was done. Creationism is the truth, and this is the link to prove it.

Beginning of Creation

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

First Day

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

There are six more days of creation, but the first day pretty much describes how the rest of the week went.

 

Have you seen Expelled?

I didn't watch all of it because I thought it'd turn me stupid or something.

I saw an interview with Ben Stein. He basically claimed "Darwinism" was wrong because it couldn't explain, among other things, gravity.

 

Haven't seen Expelled and based upon the above we can assume that movie producers aren't necessarily very bright.

 

Their main claim was that not agreeing with what religious people say about science is a violation of their religious freedom.

 

Oh how I love these polls that give you no real choice. I can pick one or the other. So if I believe in "Creative Design", or even "Alien Space Bats" or anything else forget it.

I did not vote for this reason.