Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex

Even closer to Utahraptor.

I thought a Utahraptor was an aggressive mormon.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Yeah, I knew that going into the film. Disclaimer*, I can't stand Maher. I was bored, and I was mildly curious about the film. I was surprized he never visited JW headquarters. I think that would have been entertaining.

I actually like Maher's political comedy, my wife hates him, she prefers Dennis Miller.

[Simmy]

Nowhere in the bible does it say the earth/universe is 6,000 years old.

Evolution is taught in schools as if it is a scientific fact. Even though it is called a theory. It's a theory because it can not be shown to be scientific fact.
Some think dinos died when a meteor struck the earth, some now think it was a comet. Others ask if that is true why aren't all these fossils found in the same layer of earth? They are not.
Some say dinos didn't go the way of the dodo bird, they because birds.
If you look at evolution piece meal you see that the experts agree on almost nothing. Some say evolution happened over great periods of time (Darwin).
Others say over great periods of time with moments of rapid change, still others (the guys I agree with) say the record shows different periods of time with total extinctions and then a stating over.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Simmy

Evolution is taught in schools as if it is a scientific fact. Even though it is called a theory. It's a theory because it can not be shown to be scientific fact.

Back to the same game again? In that light there is no such thing as a "scientific fact". All science is theory. Reread NeonSamurai's posts to find out what a Theory really is.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Simmy

Nowhere in the bible does it say the earth/universe is 6,000 years old.

I don't think any one is saying that it does.

There were some religious scholars who posited a theory that based on their analysis of the bible, they could calculate that the earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years old

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_...ionism#Origins

No one of any merit has ever claimed that the bible stated this. It was an inference based on hermeneutical analysis.

[Sailor Steve]

A good point, but the Creationism that was the topic of this thread is based entirely on that concept. Those people say the Bible does say that, and the argument is with them, not with what the Bible actually says.

There were some religious scholars who posited a theory that based on their analysis of the bible, they could calculate that the earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years old

And there are some religious scholars who say the figures they base that on are from alterations to the scriptures done in ancient Egypt to prevent them contradicting the local recorded history at the time.
Basicly the idea is that the scribes added lots of years to the early charcters lives to push thier story back beyond the then recent history the ancients had at the time.

[Simmy]

Back to the same game again? In that light there is no such thing as a "scientific fact". All science is theory. Reread NeonSamurai's posts to find out what a Theory really is.

Oh yes, because his supposed reasoning agrees with yours?

WEBSTER - 2: A PROPOSED EXPLANATION WHOSE STATUS IS STILL CONJECTURAL.
6: A GUESS OR CONJECTURE.

When a theory is proven then it becomes actual science. Many theories have gone the way of the dust bin because they were shown to be wrong.

You better check on the meaning of "theory" and "scientific fact".

I only mention 6,000 years as an age because many people following the bible backwards come to that age as the time earth/universe was created.

Music theory can be shown to work, at least in part, but the theory breaks down at different points. Some things that should work don't and some things that shouldn't work do.

How people can conclude that evolution is a science fact when there are so many different theories and so much disagreement between "experts" is very strange.

Sailor Steve, you should let people discuss general topics in general topics and stop with the I know everything frame of mind. You may not agree with them but who in the hell are you to attack people you don't know over subjects you don't seem to have much of a grasp on?

[Skybird]

Sigh.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, 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.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.

A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-wha...of-theory.html

Google is your friend.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Simmy

Oh yes, because his supposed reasoning agrees with yours?

No, because we've already been over this and you're bringing it up again like it's something new.

When a theory is proven then it becomes actual science. Many theories have gone the way of the dust bin because they were shown to be wrong.

I guess you missed the part where a theory can never be proven, only disproven. Or did you just choose to ignore it.

You better check on the meaning of "theory" and "scientific fact".

Or maybe you should. This goes all the way back to you not believing that different fields have their own dictionaries.

Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/...cientific-work

I only mention 6,000 years as an age because many people following the bible backwards come to that age as the time earth/universe was created.

Yes, the Creationists we were talking about in the first place. Without them we wouldn't be having this discussion. This means that what the Bible actually says on the subject is irrelevant. What is relevant is that some people believe it, and insist on it. They are the ones who attack Evolution the hardest.

Music theory can be shown to work, at least in part, but the theory breaks down at different points. Some things that should work don't and some things that shouldn't work do.

Again, different fields, different meanings. Studying the science of music is like studying mechanics - we already know it's there, we study it to find out how and why it works the way it does.

How people can conclude that evolution is a science fact when there are so many different theories and so much disagreement between "experts" is very strange.

Per my earlier link, there is no such thing as "fact" in science, just today's assumptions waiting to be disproven. What you choose to ignore is that the majority of scientists accept evolution because it is the theory that currently fits the known facts (i.e. the fossil record) the best. Tomorrow it may no longer be, but that's tomorrow.

Let me ask you a question: What would you replace it with?

Sailor Steve, you should let people discuss general topics in general topics and stop with the I know everything frame of mind. You may not agree with them but who in the hell are you to attack people you don't know over subjects you don't seem to have much of a grasp on?

I'm telling you you can't discuss it? You seem to be telling me I shouldn't discuss it.

Second, when have I ever claimed to know everything? I don't claim to know anything. That I argue against your points because they seem to me to be lacking.

Third, when have I attacked you? Saying you're playing the same game? That was a reference to what I said earlier, that you're repeating arguments you've already made in a fashion that makes it look like you've come up with something new.

Lastly, you say I don't seem to have much of a grasp on the subject. That's true, but I can read what has been written and learn from it. Are you saying your grasp on the subject is better? Then show it. Until then, ending your post with a rant does a disservice to both of us.

[Simmy]

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Yes, when you need something to hang on to to keep from drowning, you create your own definition. Much like they did with the word "planet".

Per my earlier link, there is no such thing as "fact" in science, just today's assumptions waiting to be disproven. What you choose to ignore is that the majority of scientists accept evolution because it is the theory that currently fits the known facts (i.e. the fossil record) the best. Tomorrow it may no longer be, but that's tomorrow.

Oh I don't ignore anything and understand that most scientist accept one or the other of the many versions of the theory. That still does not make it fact.


http://ncse.com/evolution/education/...cientific-work
Yes there is truth in science, well truth as far as we will ever be able to prove it. That's when something is so well proven that no one can demonstrate it to be wrong.

Third, when have I attacked you? Saying you're playing the same game? That was a reference to what I said earlier, that you're repeating arguments you've already made in a fashion that makes it look like you've come up with something new.

When was it I made this argument before? You must be confusing me with someone else. And who could come up with something new concerning something people have argued about now since the 1800's? That is a ridiculous statement.

My original post was mainly in light of the title of this thread. Men never walk the earth with dinosaurs, though it appears both have existed.

Anyway each to his own.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Simmy

Are you saying I said that? Better look again.

No, the quote was from the link. I'm sorry, I could have done that better, but a quick read-through should have shown you that.

When was it I made this argument before? You must be confusing me with someone else.

Laughing at myself, and kicking myself at the same time. Yes, in tiredness and not thinking I confused "Simmy" with "Sammi". My fault, and I apologize. And I'd like to start over please.

[soopaman2]

http://web.stagram.com/p/437731966365779464_15896072

Anthony Cumia from the Radio duo Opie and Anthony has this in his yard.

He is also a hardcore right winger.


Coincidence?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Simmy

Yes, when you need something to hang on to to keep from drowning, you create your own definition.

It is not "my definition" neither by wording nor by content, it is common academic consensus. But feel free to continue clowning along. Why caring for facts or reality, if one has a personal "opinion" painting things differently.

[Simmy]

It is not "my definition" neither by wording nor by content, it is common academic consensus. But feel free to continue clowning along. Why caring for facts or reality, if one has a personal "opinion" painting things differently.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.,

Look, all I am saying is that a theory by any other name is still a theory.

Laughing at myself, and kicking myself at the same time. Yes, in tiredness and not thinking I confused "Simmy" with "Sammi". My fault, and I apologize. And I'd like to start over please.

No harm done. And yes, let's start over