Not at all, you just claimed it was there.

The problem you had there was that some people had seen it.

So you enter a topic suggesting a source to support creationism but have no interest in debating the topic.
That makes sense.

It raised some eyebrows, as in one "woohoo trash dawkins" and several "are you for real with that rubbish?"

The point was that it as example of a passionate response, examples of which you have failed to show.

Religion-critics usually do not attack people claiming that the bible speaks in metaphors to deliver a piece of wisdom. Metaphors often do a wonderful job in doing so. Parables. Fables. Even fairy-tales. Maybe that is why that rebellious carpenter talked so much in parables - it was the best way to adress a crowd of uneducated simpleminded Peters and Pauls most of which never attended a school and could neither read nor write. Not to mention joining philosophy classes and courses on ethics and history. Would you discuss Einstein'S theorems with a goat shepard who never had left his mountains and thinks some deities are angry when thunder and lightning strike the earth?

Metaphors. Parables.

Trouble with people swinging the bible like a club starts where they take its miracle stories as real matter and fact that is to be taken for real and as factual truth. And when the barbaric and inhumane content - that the Bible also includes and in large quantities - is taken as an argument why to shape the world according to this blueprint, barbarism and hate kill tolerance and humane peacefulness, and life turns into a hellhouse inhabited by hopeless stupids and hate-filled fanatics.

You are absolutely right. Of course there's plenty of evidence for many of the events in the Bible. I don't know why I put it like that, exactly, I guess I meant the Bible has no evidence of creationism :P .

I don't have have the least bit of desire, or passion enough, to entertain your unusal obsession with me. You act as if you're trying to impress me, or perhaps others with your incessant quibbling. I have to be honest, I am not impressed by you.
And, no, it's not because of disagreement. It's the manner in which you conduct yourself.
http://i1045.photobucket.com/albums/...ps78ed1d4f.jpg

@Safe-Keeper:
Unfortunately, my typing skills are so inept, I could only dream about making such replies. I have typed out long replies before, but it took me (usually) over and hour to do so. Now, I try to keep them as short as possible.
You make a lot of good points to many different posters, though it's hard to keep track of who said what.
Perhaps you're correct, that Mr. Dawkins is not Mr. Evolution himself, but then again, I suppose neither was Darwin, since so many different theorists have tried to link all the missing pieces of evolution together. I find, for myself, that it takes much more faith to believe in some of the evolution theories than it does to believe in "Intelligent design".

My context of the use of the word religion may have been misinterpreted, but it does fit with one of the definitions found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
4. :a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

I never said Science was a Religion, but that" it seems, is becoming more like a religion". Religion-like was my meaning, as defined by number 4 in Websters.


Theory as defined in the same dictionary:
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation


3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>


4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>


5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>


6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

To define "hypothesis" is to include even more uncertainty than Theory. It includes words like "assumption" and "interpretation".
Theory and Hypothesis, from my perspective, takes a degree of faith to accept as fact.



Now Evolution involves a lot of Theory and Hypothesis. The entire puzzle is not complete. There are missing pieces. Despite some facts (e.g., the finding of fossils), theory and hypothesis is used in extrapolation or inference to try and tie various aspects together. This means that an unknown quantity exists and it takes "faith" in the science (or scientist) to believe unproven theories or hypothesis. Once they are proven, they are known facts and no longer listed as theory. It takes faith to believe in that.

Now, I suppose every documentary is edited biasly, one way or another, in favor of the producer, director, organization or science vying for the funding to continue it's cause. So, in essence, all documentaries can be considered suspect. I suppose I should toss out all the documentaries I have watched about Evolution. But, I don't. I simply find that the more I watch about Evolution by National Geographic or Discovery Science, the more I realize how much they still don't know "by their own account".

BTW, I never said anyone should kill anyone. I still have no idea where that one came from.:huh:

That definition applies to all scientific theory: Gravity, electricity, aerodynamics anything. We observe that gravity is real, and we use electricity every day, but we still don't know exactly why and how they work the way they do. Evolution, like any other scientific endeavor, attempts to explain observed phenomena within the context of what we do know.

That definition is what science is all about.

That definition is what non-scientists think of when they say "It's only a theory."

This is the difference between a wild guess and an educated guess.

And there are different kinds of faith. Here we are talking about not belief, but acceptance of what has gone before. I "believe" that 1+1=2 because I can do the math myself, and I know what the terms mean. Scientific theory is based on what has been observed and how it fits together with older information. Any true scientist knows that it's "only" theory, and that information may come to light tomorrow which will force him to sit back and re-think his whole concept of what it is and how it works.

Creation "theory", on the other hand, is based on what was written in an ancient manuscript. There is no evidence for it at all. Creationist arguments hinge solely upon trying to disprove Evolution. If we can do that them our alternative must be the correct answer. Yes, there are questions involving any scientific theory. There are no holes in Creation arguments because there is nothing there to make a hole in.

Yes, every documentary is suspect, even the ones that appear unbiased, and should be followed up by careful research. This kind of "documentary", however, doesn't document anything, but constructs an argument for one thing and against another. This type of film is not biased in the conceptual sense, but is intentionally trying to prove a point. There is a big difference between letting your beliefs influence your work and flat-out lying to "prove" that you are right. Any film that is intentionally edited to make someone look bad as a method of "proving" them wrong is not a documentary, but a propaganda piece.

To sum up: Yes, all science can be influence by the observer's bias. There is a modicum of faith involved. Creationism, on the other hand, is no science at all, but an attempt to "prove" something that has nothing other than faith to support it. I have no problem with stating that a branch of study has flaws, but anyone truly interested in the truth will apply the same rigor and technique to his own beliefs as well. Anything less is being dishonest with oneself.

I would suggest that you put down Websters and pick up a science textbook for definitions of the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" as used in a scientific sense. They do not mean what you think they mean.

"Science doesn't know everything. But science knows it doesn't know everything. Otherwise it'd stop." – Dara O'Briain

Stop. Just....stop. And go back, and read how science defines theories and hypotheses and then try again.

Well, your being quite general in certain areas, as maybe I was too, but Gravity and Electricity, in and of themselves, are not theories. They have been proven to exist. Some laws that apply to them are still (perhaps) unknown and theory can be applicable in those unknown quantities.
I agree that Def. 5 "scientific acceptability" is what science is all about. It bears it's owner's name (Science).
Are we to assume that scientists do not hypothesize?
An educated guess is still a guess nevertheless, even though extrapolation may draw an inference (i.e., conclusion based on circumstantial evidence rather than on the basis of direct observation).
As far as Creation Theorists, I don't believe that all of them have the sole purpose to disprove Evolution, though some of them may. They certainly aren't anywhere nearly as well funded as their counterparts, but these ancient manuscripts you allude to are becoming to be found (slowly albeit) more and more historically corroborated with the findings of temples, scrolls, artifacts and cities being excavated in the middle east.

If you look up the word "evolution" in Websters, it offers a series of generally applicable definitions until you reach number 4:
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny


b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Yes, there are indeed many different types/kinds of faith but they all (usually) involve something that is believed especially with strong conviction. Sometime there is some (or a lot of) proof, sometimes there is little proof, sometimes there is no proof. Many people have been jailed or executed because the criminal proof appeared, at one time, to be overwhelming. It was only later that, through various channels or venues, we hear that another convict is set free after years of wrongful imprisonment.
I understand your point on many issues. I cannot see the wind, but I can feel it's existence. I don't need to rely on a science or theory to convince me that there is such a thing as wind. I believed in it long before they could scientifically explain it.

So, the question now comes down to this: Do I believe in Evolution?
No. Can I prove the existence of God? Of course not. Only He can do that with whomever He wants when He wants to.
But, I was not trying to convert anyone by posting about a documentary that has called into question, the blackballing of other well respected scientists, science journalists and university professors simply because they entertained another theory that kept creeping up in their own research: "Intelligent design".
There are some facts in this documentary, and you hear it from those who were affected. Should we assume they are all liars?

A meaningless statement. 'Theory' does not mean what you think it means, no matter how many times you misuse the word.

Theory means what the dictionary says it means:

Definition of THEORY
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another


2: abstract thought :speculation


3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>


4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>


5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>


6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Facts, Hypotheses, Theories, and all that stuff

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science7.html

I especially liked this paragraph

What a dictionary from a linguistic POV has to say on terms, means little as long as it is not specific dictionary of scientific terminology.

Scientific theory is what theory means in context of scientific methodology.

Science does not claim to produce ultimate knowledge. What it does is putting observations into a systemtiac, artifical order - and order designed by us in a way where observations make the most sense, can be explained in the easiest way and are the least confusing and opposing to each other. Said order we try to arrange so that we can make predictions about the conditions needed to reproduce an event. All scientific "knowledge" always is object of constant re-checks and repeated analysis, and if new data proposes, leads to theories being corrected, altered, replaced. But any data doing that must be verified and by procedures meeting the basic standards of scientific methodology - just claiming something or making an argument of some randomly overheard hear-say, does not qualify for that, for example. Events and effects must be reproducable. (does one use that word: reproducable?)

Thus, science makes preliminary statements on and about things, events, phenomenons, and tries to harden these statements by constant trial and error that either adds credibility to the content of these statements, or forces the statements to be corrected or deleted. Total ultimate truths science does not claim to announce. It is not about certainties, it is about probabilities.

relgions do not ask such quesitons, but already announce answers from all beginning on, and claim to ask questions about these statements is unneeded and unnecessary. Often rtelgious people attack scientists on that scientists are claimed to announce absolute truths, while a responsible and reasonable scientists would never do that. But religions do that, ALL THE TIME. And they do not want to have their statements critcally questioned and analywsed. What they want is that they arew bliondly believed, without any reason that stands the test of what a scientiifc theory must pass in order to become accepted as a theory.

Science is about theories, and theories must qualify for that status. Religion is about claims that state they are absolute truths. They want to corrupt scientific methodology and the rules of logic and the standards of reason by being seen as equivalent if not superior to theories - without ever having passed the standard tests for that.

That is why I refuse to take arbitrary claims like creationism serious, and why I refuse to debate it beside scientific theories on evolution, as if the two would have both the same intellectual qualification. They have not. If you want to believe in the existence of pink elephants on one planet in the system of Alpha Centauri, well, do it, but leave me alone with it - for what I say on that, is this: the probability for that claim being true is so incredibly small that it does not reward the effort to take it serious and consider it as if it were a well-founded theory - it is not.

Is this Haplo with a fake account?
It certainly bears all the hallmarks:rotfl2:

As for passion, your contribution to this topic displays your passion and your inability to actually defend your views shows that passion is all you have.

So you object to being asked questiions about claims you have made which appear to be false.
Not surprising really.


Yes, questions can be a real bugger for creationists to face.
But its OK, I see you are tying yourself in knots with your attempt on theories which is even funnier than your OP was.

By definition, scientific theory must be falsifiable but is based on tested verifiable fact and observation. It is a story made up to fit those facts and observations.

When someone is driving slowly in the passing lane, we make up a story about what an idiot they are based on one observation that may, or may not be true, but our theory is they are an idiot. That is not a scientific theory because it was not tested. If we were to investigate why they are driving slowly, gather facts about them, and further observations, we come up with a scientific theory for why they are an idiot, or we disprove the theory by finding a fact that shoots it down such as they were having some type of medical emergency.

The thought occurred to me of why would humans hunt a T. Rex in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier to hunt the lesser dinosaurs? :huh:

We knew they existed before the fact. The science, and the theory, is in trying to discover how and why they work the way they do. They are indeed theories. This seems to be what you're misunderstanding. As was pointed out, you need to use a science dictionary, not a general one. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Then go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

Of course they do. That is the starting point of any theory. They then experiment with the hypothesis, attempting to prove it right or wrong. The theory is formed from the results. What they don't do (at least the good ones) is to make something up out of whole cloth and then do everything they can to prove themselves right, and if they can't do that do everything they can to prove any other theory wrong.

Yes it is, and when it happens there are other scientists in the same field who are quick to point that out.

Other manuscripts are being found that agree with the ones we have? That doesn't surprise me at all. Does the existence of more ancient writings prove that the Young Earth claims are true? Is there heretofore undiscovered science in these manuscripts? Sure, they tell us more about the civilizations that wrote them, and that's a good thing. Unless they can actually show evidence that the Creationist claims are true, they mean nothing to this topic.

You don't "believe" in wind. You feel it. The science comes with trying to explain it. Many people came up with theories of why it's there. The current explanations are accepted. I don't "believe" the current explanations; I accept them as offering the best answer to the question. Until something comes along that disproves them I'll continue to accept them.

Nor do I. I do, however, accept the word of thousands of people working in the field that it is the best answer so far to the questions involved. If something comes along tomorrow that disproves it, great.

Nor would I ask you to, though some will. Well, if you claim to "know" God exists then I will ask for proof. You can't prove faith either, but I not only admit but proclaim that I don't know. Before I'll believe again I would like to see some evidence, but that's just me. I freely admit that it could be true. I just want to see it.

But you were proposing as a serious document that disproved Evolution.

Blackballed how? Laughed at? Refused funding? Refused printing of their articles? If a "respected scientist" seriously proposed that the ancient Hindu, Greek or Babylonian ideas of Creation might be true, would it be blackballing to refuse him funding or refust to print his "theories"? How is Biblical Creation any different in that respect. Is there any discovery that would lead an unbiased observer to that conclusion if he didn't already believe the Bible's account? Any evidence at all?

And yes "Intelligent Design" is just the modern phrase for "Biblical Creation". No one who proposes ID ever equates it with the Deistic concept that God (or Somebody) made the universe exactly the way we find it and that science is the tool He gave us to figure it out.

It's funny. Their interviews don't seem to have been edited for the sake of mockery or called into question. As I've said, any film with an axe to grind is not a documentary; it's propaganda.