WHY CREATIONISM WILL NEVER WIN

@BigTexN,

Big Texn does us a service. By showing himself as the "clear thinking" Christian, who eschews any understanding of science, we see what science students will be up against in the state over the next few years , (until this dumass law is revoked ). Thanks Texn.

Ros, yeh, perhaps I shoulda been less opaque about how this example of the "win/loss" game was specific to Texass (and by reference, tne textbook publishers)

0 Replies

Please, bigtex, stop embarrassing other Texans.

0 Replies

Farmerman -- from your lips to Murphy's ear. I hope I could be as optimistic as you are.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Im not saying that it wont be a rocky road, but the "big lie" that the CReationists have been attempting to perp, is just that, it has no substance. Im saying that, if the TExas law is enforced as it should be, the resulting conclusion by kids will be that the Theory of evolution by Natural Selection has so many things going for it (not the least of which is the opportunity tofully understand what "Theories" really mean in science).
As you can see, the above posts by several members are examples of positions based upon ignorance. Im sure that, after a kid spends time in class being taught about the "sufficiency and/or insufficiency of EVIDENCE for natural selection", the TExass legislature will then realize what a box of whoopass theyve opened.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Theory - A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.

I don't think that this is the definition at all. Cite your source.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

The fact that you say you don't think it is right indicates that you are not certain. If you want to be enlightened....look it up for yourself.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Brandon is correct.Intrepid's definition is irrelevant crap and isnt worth any consideration to science(unless youre a Creationist who doesnt want to accept the definitions that science had adopted for "Theory").The "speculation" aspect of the word is the definition included in a standard English Dictionary and doesnt even pwertain to science.

AGI's definition is accurate and quite symmetrical.
Theory--An explanatory system of propositions, general principles or laws, inferred from the phenomena and linking known facts and observations:A theory is held to be true until contradicted or amended by new facts or observations. Example: Quantum Theory, Evolution,Plate Tectonics,Magnetism"

from, the AGI Glossary of Geology, (ed V) 2005.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Brandon is correct.Intrepid's definition is irrelevant crap and isnt worth any consideration to science(unless youre a Creationist who doesnt want to accept the definitions that science had adopted for "Theory").The "speculation" aspect of the word is the definition included in a standard English Dictionary and doesnt even pwertain to science.

Somebody makes a statement and it is immediately called irrelevant crap. In other words, nobody else should have an opinion. I was not aware that there is a definition as it pertains to science and then another definition as it pertains to anything else. Where is the separation?

If you are referring to me as the creationist in your statement. This is false crap. I don't dismiss anything in science as I do not dismiss anything regarding creationism. Have you ever considered a combination of the two?

I guess it is all irrelevant anyhow since you finally explained your reason for the thread. I have no interest or knowledge of what is going on in the Texas education system. As such, I will bow out of your conversation as I have nothing of value to contribute.

4 Replies

@Intrepid,

Your definition was irrelevant crap because youve fully failed to recognize what a theory actually means in science. You merely tried to act like the "speculation" definition from an on-line dictionary was all the definition that existed for the word , so you are being disengenuous at least.
Pewrhaps you were ignorant of the definition of theory used within ALL OF SCIENCE, In that case , I apologize for making light of that ignorance.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Quote:

If you are referring to me as the creationist in your statement. This is false crap. I don't dismiss anything in science as I do not dismiss anything regarding creationism. Have you ever considered a combination of the two?

WHY? Id like to say that we should go wear the facts lead, not attempt to develop some accomodation to the myths that we all grew up with. Wheres any evidence or predictions that have been made by Creationism? What defined the sufficiency or insufficiency of the CReationist position? Id wager a farthing that Creationism has no evidence behind it and it therefore lacks any ability to predict anything.
So why a combination of the two, that merely sounds like something some Presbyterain minister would try to throw into the pile.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Don't know. I am not familiar with Presbyterian ministers or their doctrine.

I was merely pointing out what I believe to be a possiblility for me since it covers both ends. Sorry to have bothered you in your thread.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Your definition was irrelevant crap because youve fully failed to recognize what a theory actually means in science.

It scares those who religiously hold on to science to acknowledge that "theory" requires an element of "faith" to reach any level of conclusion...

...so the defense mechanism...the knee jerk reaction...of those who religiously hold on to science as the answer to all meanings in life is to dismiss this hypothesis as "irrelevant crap".

So much for open minded discussion and intellectual interaction.

An intellectual interaction can not be had if the evolutionists start in denial.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Somebody makes a statement and it is immediately called irrelevant crap. In other words, nobody else should have an opinion. I was not aware that there is a definition as it pertains to science and then another definition as it pertains to anything else. Where is the separation?

Perhaps we've run across this attempt to conflate "theory" with "scientific theory" one too many times.

"Theory" can mean what you said. "Scientific theory" is something entirely different. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

1 Reply

@BigTexN,

I'm with Edgar on this one; please stop embarrassing our state. Choose a more apt screen name; perhaps BigDumbN would suffice.

0 Replies

@BigTexN,

No faith involved in scientific explanations. You dont even have to "believe" that testable predictions are valid. You can continue living with your sagas and wonder why all the other nations are beginning to pass us by in basic sciences.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I hate to admit it but I think we are talking way over big TexNs head. Lets try to use words with no more than two syllables (oops)

A syllable is a "hunk" of a word Tex.

PS Im glad that native Texns are taking offense at Bign's crassness

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Somebody makes a statement and it is immediately called irrelevant crap. In other words, nobody else should have an opinion. I was not aware that there is a definition as it pertains to science and then another definition as it pertains to anything else. Where is the separation?

Perhaps we've run across this attempt to conflate "theory" with "scientific theory" one too many times.

"Theory" can mean what you said. "Scientific theory" is something entirely different. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Are you saying that "scientific theory" is not a theory at all, but is FACT?

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Are you saying that "scientific theory" is not a theory at all, but is FACT?

It is an explanation based on facts. It can be modified if and when new facts contradict it.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

It is an explanation based on facts. It can be modified if and when new facts contradict it.

Hmm, kinda like statistics...you know the old saying, there are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.

I think you meant to say "If an explanation can't be based on facts, then modify it until the facts don't contradict it....use different numbers!"

If you bend and twist enough, your faith will lead you to the conclusion you seek!

2 Replies

@BigTexN,

BigTexN wrote:

I think you meant to say "If an explanation can't be based on facts, then modify it until the facts don't contradict it....use different numbers!"

If you bend and twist enough, your faith will lead you to the conclusion you seek!

I know what I meant to say, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I think you're projecting your own values, here.

0 Replies

WHY CREATIONISM WILL NEVER WIN

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know