A simple question for creationists.

[`mud]

How insanely tiny was the point at which the last apparant entity,
nested into the point which not one more entity could further nest there,
surrounded by an untold abundance of absolute nothingness,
forever and ever into the very bowells of the Cosmos.
In those bowells, that were everywhere, in every possible direction,
there was no motion, of course, there wasn't anything there that could move.
Light wasn't there yet, it had been long ago swallowed by the point of everything.
That intensely concentrated container of everything that there was.
It had to have been black, light couldn't escape, the MOTHER of all black holes.
Strange.........
no motion in the surrounding nothingness,
and no motion inside the container of everything.
I wonder what the temperature of the inside of the container of everything would be ?
And of course, what was the temperature of the surrounding nothingness ?
What was the container of everything, made from ?
Where was the creator ?
Assumptive theory, but a decent question or two.
~
`mud

 

[gnostic]

To yaddoe


In science, law is a brief statement that could be either description or mathematical equation.

A theory (again, in science), on the other hand, that describe facts or the evidence, the structure or function of the given field or phenomena. theory would also explain the law, and when, where and how this (above) law(s) can be applied.

Look at the (classical) theory on gravity for example. Newton provide us with the law of universal gravitation which contain both a short description and a formula of gravitational force between 2 masses (objects). By itself, a law is not enough for anyone to fully understand gravity, so more generalized explanation is to describe the effect of gravity between 2 objects.

Theory may include description of a experiment, the result of the experiment and the conclusion on how the result met the predictive requirements of the theory and satisfy the law.

The law(s) are always found in scientific theory and it is part of the theory. The law only highlight on certain part of the theory.

Creationists often fail to understand how vital a theory is. And I think the main confusion is that they confuse theory with hypothesis.

Hypothesis is untested (and unverified) "assumption" or "proposition". There is 2 possible outcome for a hypothesis.
If the hypothesis fails its test or has no evidence to support its assumption, then it is refuted, and the hypothesis is discarded.
If the hypothesis succeeds in it test, that doesn't mean it become a "new theory". :no: the hypothesis must be tested again, and again, repeatedly. The rigorous and repeated tests are done to ensure that success of the 1st test was not just a luck shot or a fluke. Repeated tests would also help discover if there were any error or anomaly.

 

[johnhanks]

That is interesting, what are your sources?

This is a bit like asking a fisherman what are his sources for defining a trout differently from an eel: it's just something anyone working in the field would know. However, if you insist on a source, try here.

 

[johnhanks]

... carbon dating proves the age of the earth...

Choosing usernames is a perilous business.
Radiocarbon dating is useful for objects up to about 60 000 years old, but is of no use whatsoever in estimating the age of the earth.

 

[Krok]

Oh I am very much aware that they can....

Your "awareness" is false, then. A theory stays a theory.

... but then it becomes a fact and ceases to be a theory,....

Theories explain facts. Theories remain theories.

.. thus so long as it remains a theory, it shall remain an assumption.

What? Gravity is an "assumption"?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Your "awareness" is false, then. A theory stays a theory. Theories explain facts. Theories remain theories. What? Gravity is an "assumption"?

Is it called the theory of gravity or the law of gravity?

 

[gnostic]

Is it called the theory of gravity or the law of gravity?

There law only give a very brief statement, that can either be mathematical or not, or both. Theory will often explain the law, and (when, where and) how the law to be used. A scientific theory is supposed to give you the FULL EXPLANATION.

 

[johnhanks]

Is it called the theory of gravity or the law of gravity?

In the strict sense of the word, a theory of gravity would explain why gravity exists and how it operates. Newton's law of gravity states that two massive bodies attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them.

The water is muddied by the fact that some sources call this law Newton's 'theory of gravity': but the true sense of the word theory here is Newton's proposing the same inverse-square force as the explanation for all observations of falling and planetary motion.

In other words, as usual, laws describe, theories explain.

 

[FearGod]

This is a really simple and probably obvious question to ask creationists (or anybody who doesn't think evolution is correct), but one to which I can not ever recollect obtaining an answer to.

My question is simply, how do you explain fossils?

It may sound like a daft question to ask, but it honestly does baffle me.

Please give your honest opinions

All of us should accept that evolution did really happened long time ago and the most important
evidence which we can not neglect is the fossils which have been found to show us that a different
kind of creations have been on earth before the modern ones appeared and were much related to it.

Thinking deeply without bias to one verse in the holy book will let us think that god realize this fact.

translated by Yusuf Ali (29:20) : Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation;
so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

So god asked us to travel to find facts about the first creations and that will mean nothing but the fossils,
because the only signs which we can get from traveling around the earth to find the previous creations
is by fossils.

God make it clear from understanding the verse without a biased thinking regarding the religion as
many indeed hate to think that god did any thing and refused any idea that suggest that he did anything
and many prefer to think that all creations changed due to mutations and chances through millions of
years and neglect what god said that i have the power for all such changes.

 

[Ignite]

Actually the fossil record supports creation. We have fossils of creatures that are alive today with no changes. No fossil can be shown to have any direct ancestor or descendant relationship with any other fossil. We have fossils with DNA which validates a young earth. We have fossils of creatures that were in struggles with other creatures when they died which show a quick burial. We have marine fossils on just about every mountain top which validates a global flood.

The fossil record doesn’t support all the evolution that supposedly took place, even Darwin admitted that. Other evolutionists have had to admit this also which is how the theory of punctuated equilibrium came about.

So you are saying because there are fossiles of existing creatures, the theory of evolution is refuted? On the contrary, those fossiles can act as our "control groups" to show that these fossiles do indeed give us valuable insight as to what species roamed this planet. The aligator, for instance, is a species that has been around since the age of the dinosaurs, it is one of the few creatures that have lived since that time (turtles included). Does this mean that if I go and I find a fossile of a turtle, the bible is bound to be correct? No.

Fossiles, although substantial, are not the only piece of evidence of evolution. If you visit the natural history museum, you will see that there are mountains of bones and statures of animals that show a clear transition from one phase to another. The theory of evolution by natural selection does not debunk creationism, it is creationism that debunks evolution. The difference is, one has stockpiles of scientific evidence, while the other has an imaginary friend who sent you here to determine whether you are naughty or nice. Have you ever heard of the term "Carbon-14 dating"? Carbon-14 is an isotope of carbon that has an extraordinarily long lifespan (50,000 years ±5,000), it is found in organic corpses and bones that are to be dated back. Scientists determine the "half-life" of the carbon-14 to see exactly how old an organic corpse is. This is just one of the many things that tell us the earth is much older than the bible says it is. From carbon dating, we can also see that the existence of very similar species were often living in much different timeframes from one another. With much further research, it was deduced that many of the physical changes that we can now see resulted from environmental changes in the time-frame the species lived in. This is just the tip of the iceberg, scientists have tons and tons of evidence to show that the world is about 6.4 billion years old. Radiometric age dating of meteorites (a processes similar to carbon-14 dating) also points to this evidence.

 

[johnhanks]

All of us should accept that evolution did really happened long time ago...

What makes you think it's stopped?

 

[Hawkins]

To yaddoe


In science, law is a brief statement that could be either description or mathematical equation.

A theory (again, in science), on the other hand, that describe facts or the evidence, the structure or function of the given field or phenomena. theory would also explain the law, and when, where and how this (above) law(s) can be applied.

Look at the (classical) theory on gravity for example. Newton provide us with the law of universal gravitation which contain both a short description and a formula of gravitational force between 2 masses (objects). By itself, a law is not enough for anyone to fully understand gravity, so more generalized explanation is to describe the effect of gravity between 2 objects.

Theory may include description of a experiment, the result of the experiment and the conclusion on how the result met the predictive requirements of the theory and satisfy the law.

The law(s) are always found in scientific theory and it is part of the theory. The law only highlight on certain part of the theory.

Creationists often fail to understand how vital a theory is. And I think the main confusion is that they confuse theory with hypothesis.

Hypothesis is untested (and unverified) "assumption" or "proposition". There is 2 possible outcome for a hypothesis.
If the hypothesis fails its test or has no evidence to support its assumption, then it is refuted, and the hypothesis is discarded.
If the hypothesis succeeds in it test, that doesn't mean it become a "new theory". :no: the hypothesis must be tested again, and again, repeatedly. The rigorous and repeated tests are done to ensure that success of the 1st test was not just a luck shot or a fluke. Repeated tests would also help discover if there were any error or anomaly.

The difference is, scientific theory is always working towards predictability while ToE is not, which evolutionists themselves never understand or simply choose to ignore.

2H2O = 2H2 + O2

This can be a theory before the formula is confirmed. Yet no matter how you spin it, you need to try to do the lab to get your conclusions. The evolutionists' approach however is, instead of doing the lab itself, they study yesterday's test tubes and residues to form a theory. That is, they said that because this and that kind of residues are in the test tubes they found, such that water must have dissolved into hydrogen and oxygen.

If you are paying attention, you'll notice that this approach is never fruitful in bring up a predictable model for the Law to be formed out of the theory!

 

[Looncall]

The difference is, scientific theory is always working towards predictability while ToE is not, which evolutionists themselves never understand or simply choose to ignore.

2H2O = 2H2 + O2

This can be a theory before the formula is confirmed. Yet no matter how you spin it, you need to try to do the lab to get your conclusions. The evolutionists' approach however is, instead of doing the lab itself, they study yesterday's test tubes and residues to form a theory. That is, they said that because this and that kind of residues are in the test tubes they found, such that water must have dissolved into hydrogen and oxygen.

If you are paying attention, you'll notice that this approach is never fruitful in bring up a predictable model for the Law to be formed out of the theory!

Such confident ignorance! Experimental evolution is a very active field of research.

 

[Hawkins]

Such confident ignorance! Experimental evolution is a very active field of research.

Point out the flaw in my statements instead of making bold assertions. 'Because the scientists said so so it must be a truth" itself is a faith statement.

 

[McBell]

Point out the flaw

And here I thought he did just that when he quoted your post....

 

[Hawkins]

And here I thought he did just that when he quoted your post....

Then what you thought is unimportant. Leave it there for others to reason.

 

[waitasec]

Then what you thought is unimportant. Leave it there for others to reason.

i can feel the spirit of god's love through that statement...oh wait...that's nausea

 

[orcel]

Claiming hat the Big bang includes a Universe popping out of nothing is an deliberate and extreme mischaracterization of the Big bang Theory.

And I didn't make that point now did I?

In any way, why can't matter or energy also exist "external from the 10 dimentional Universe and therefore external from popping into existence"? We have empirical, verifiable evidence that matter and energy exist, you know.

if I understnd it correctly by time we'v defined 10 dimentions we've included included every possible form of everything. There's literally nothing left to theorize beyond it.

 

[Looncall]

Point out the flaw in my statements instead of making bold assertions. 'Because the scientists said so so it must be a truth" itself is a faith statement.

There is nothing to point out. You have such an abysmal lack of understanding of science that your post made no sense.

The key point of science is that it must be based on observation. Observation of traces left by past events is just as valid as lab experiments. In the case of evolution, both approaches have been used.

If your home is burgled when no-one is there, do you bother to call the police?

If you have obtained these misconceptions at church, I suggest that you have many hard words with your pastor.

 

[secret2]

Point out the flaw in my statements instead of making bold assertions. 'Because the scientists said so so it must be a truth" itself is a faith statement.

Except that the scientists don't just "say so." Publications have to be peer-reviewed, and there are rivals around the globe to try repeating the experiments.

But then of course we all know what your response would be. "The hegemony of science is a massive conspiracy funded by Illuminati." Every evolutionary biologist knows deep down that evolution is wrong and creationism is right, they are just too timid to challenge the institution/have their evil agenda in keeping the whole world ill-informed.