Creation Vs. Evolution

I love how this is in IB. Thats exactly what these discussions always are. Incoherent Babbling

Fuck I have no videos for creationism.....

There you go.

No, a theory does not necessarily have to be proven correct.

Definition of a theory according to dictionary:
-A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
-an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.

Neither had said that theories has to be proven scientifically to be able to be called "a theory".

Right, there may be plenty things to consider, but once a theory has been proven wrong, it would be called a false theory, and the other would be considered a fact. But, to the best of my knowledge, neither of these have been proved right.

Yes, it's has to hold it's ground in the scientific world in order to be considered a theory. Otherwise it's just a hunch.

Also you can't prove something wrong if there's no way of testing Intelligent design. It's an explanation, but not a theory.

More like, in my opinion, it has to have an evidence to support its theory, or point of view. In this cases, both do have some evidence that support both theories.

Shouldn't it the other way around, Cruz? For the second part, that is.

http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/crenotscience.html

He/She/It does a better job at explaining why it's not a theory, or science.


But I'll humor the notion that creationism can be a theory(and actual theory, not a hunch), what evidence supports this assumption?

I will go check that link a bit later on, I just woke up and posting from my phone. But again, maybe due to the nature of your belief that theory is science, you find my argument is ridiculously idiotic.

Well here, I'm pretty sure you believe that Creationism is nothing but stuff that comes from religions, true? Religion do have their own holy books. Holy books can be considered as an evidence. After all, these religious people wouldn't come up with Creationism without reading or heard about it somewhere. I'm not implying that these people are not intellegent, but compared to those scientist, you can't compare the two.

By the way, this will be as far as I am going, I may have started a religion debate again, so I am not gonna talk about something related to religion again for that reason. But, by all means, if we can get back on track, we can continue :3

FABRICATED evidence (if anything).




Just because they got their explanations from somewhere else doesn't mean the explanation is true, it just means it was passed down or borrowed.

Well, based on what did you come up with that answer?




Didn't you read my whole point? If you didn't, read it again.

A theory does not have to be true. After all, they are called a "theory", not a "fact". Something can be considered as a theory when it has something to back it up. This is where an evidence takes part. For an evidence to be considered false, you have to come up with a theory, or even better, a fact, to prove that evidence is a fabricated evidence. In this case, you haven't proved me anything.

Come on people, we were just discussing about the meaning of the word "Theory", not having this kind of argument.

Guys, stop it. This will go nowhere.
You CANNOT argue with a religious person. You just can't. The cat-snake thing has it right up there, "ignore contradicting evidence".
No science-minded individual will listen to the majority of the arguments of a religious person because they will more likely than not be rooted in conjecture and/or scripture.

We're all wasting our time with this.

Just felt like saying this, even though this may or may not directed towards me.

While you are right, I am questioning what Gism88 has said.
He has said that holy books are fabricated evidence. On what base did he come up with that conclusion? I believe that is the only matter that involve religion in this thread.

I hope you read the whole discussion between Cruz and I, if not I'd be disappointed at you. You know damn well Cruz and I were debating on our definition of theory, not arguing about religion whatsoever.

Oh no, I read it. I'm speaking in general. And I'm not gonna get any deeper into this.

Ah, cool.
I felt like I need to clarify some things, cause there may be some people (not you) that would assume some things that I didn't do.

And yes, I wouldn't want to as well. this is a porn forum not a religion forum.

How often do you pop into SD?

Don't ask me that question, that place is ridiculous. That place full of either full on intelligent people or totally idiotic. I don't fit in there cause I'm the latter type. The latter gets bullied a lot there.

The pope stated that evolutionary theory is compatible with relgion. Faith and science are two different things. remember science is only 300-400 years old vs christianity which is 2000... the bible was before science its not real proof of anything but faith and teaching of nomads and former animalists. No one can say if one or another is true unless your five thousand to 100 million old. It's just Darwin's is more factual with some sort of logical proof by people with ph.d's vs snake charmers and literalist of a book of moral fairy tales created by thousands of different peoples and translations.

Can one say evolution isn't God's way of amusement? Can one say there a god or some force of nature or nature itself? No one can prove god exist or can disprove. Theory's are just that. Even gravity is a theory. Just accepted facts.

Why fight just make that sweet homo sex that the lord loves.

I don't think you know what a theory really is.

It's not a guess or a hunch.

Well, this is based from my knowledge. You did well explaining what theory is according to you, but it didn't convince me enough to change my definition of theory. Sorry. I guess this time we don't reach to a conclusion, huh. It was fun though.