Lets get this straight.

Originally posted by WWindmill
Click the little yellow arrow or change the number in your searchbar dear.

Careful now ...you dont want to get horny again ...

Originally posted by Rajk999
Careful now ...you dont want to get horny again ...

Im trying my best not to get horny.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Water/

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html

Originally posted by pritybetta
Some assumptions are brought about by other things that have been proven, same as theories. They are only what man has made as a conclution without total proof, a guess.

the·o·ry: [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] –noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of ...[text shortened]... a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

They are only what man has made as a conclution without total proof, a guess.

Scientific theories are NOT guesses.

It's interesting that you copy and paste from dictionary.com yet you miss the explanation below that says:

"A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.[/i]

You also ignore the american heritage dictionary definition that states:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

This is much closer to the definition of a scientific theory.

In science theories have to be verified until they become established. They are not just guesses. Yes, they most likely start off as just thoughts, but they become verified and then become established theories.

If you think the theory of relativity, atomic theory, evolutionary theory, gravitational theory and other theories are just guesses taught as assumptions then that's pretty sad since these theories have been verified over and over and over again and have not been contradicted by a shred of real evidence.

A scientific theory in science is as close to being a fact as you are going to get and they are the most important thing in science.

- We traveled to the moon using these theories.
- We cure diseases using these theories.
- We generate energy to power millions of homes using these theories.

You would belittle the work of thousands of scientists and say that their life's work is just assumptions.

Originally posted by pritybetta
I am only able to post because after I post once I can see the others.

I never said that Noah's Ark should be taught in the schools either. If theories were to be taught in school then that is what they should be taught as, just theories.

They should be taught as theories, but not as "only" theories. They should be taught as what they are: SCIENTIFIC theories which have been verified over and over in order to become what they are - established and verified explanations for the world around us.

Of course they have a degree of uncertainty, everything in science does. It's only religions that are arrogant enough to claim that they know things for sure.

Scientific theories are what science is based on.

Taking scientific theories out of science class is like taking the bible out of church sermons except it's worse - it threatens science education in this country. By teaching them as "only assumptions" it takes away their actual significance.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
They should be taught as theories, but not as "only" theories. They should be taught as what they are: SCIENTIFIC theories which have been verified over and over in order to become what they are - established and verified explanations for the world around us.

Of course they have a degree of uncertainty, everything in science does. It's only religions ...[text shortened]... s country. By teaching them as "only assumptions" it takes away their actual significance.

No matter what they teach, people will still want to figure things out. Unless it is made extremely difficult by a government or some other power.
It is more of an argument about which way you want your kids to be influenced. I would think that offering more than one origin or anything would promote people making their own decisions right? A fair (as possible) representation of each would of course be necessary.

Originally posted by SmoothCowboy
No matter what they teach, people will still want to figure things out. Unless it is made extremely difficult by a government or some other power.
It is more of an argument about which way you want your kids to be influenced. I would think that offering more than one origin or anything would promote people making their own decisions right? A fair (as possible) representation of each would of course be necessary.

I would think that offering more than one origin or anything would promote people making their own decisions right? A fair (as possible) representation of each would of course be necessary.

On what topics of science? So we should teach the theory that the earth revolves around the sun and then that the sun revolves around the earth and let people decide.

Let's teach that the earth is flat and then that the earth is round - then just let people decide.

It's only "fair" right?

No, it's not.

Science is the ONLY topic where people are suggesting that it's fair to teach the less validated claim on equal par with the well validated theory. Actually, it's not even in science - it's only with respect to evolution really. Why is that? Could it be that it somehow threatens some people's religious views?

The fair process for scientific theories to make it into the classroom is to work at verifying your hypotheses and verify your theory. When it is verified and it is shown to properly explain the phenomena that it claims then it can and should be taught in classrooms.

Grade school through High school and even in college science classes are about teaching the basics - the groundwork for you to be able to understand the vast amounts of knowledge accumulated. This does NOT mean that you aren't allowed to ask questions or question theories before college.

Similarly, high school history class isn't there to decide whether you believe the holocaust happened. It's there to teach you that established historical evidence shows that it did. If you want to go on and research the claim that it did not - you can, but you don't get it taught in schools until it's verified as being accurate and valid.

==================================

Similarly, high school history class isn't there to decide whether you believe the holocaust happened. It's there to teach you that established historical evidence shows that it did. If you want to go on and research the claim that it did not - you can, but you don't get it taught in schools until it's verified as being accurate and valid.
=================================

Someone was there to witness it. So that's a historical matter.

Darwinism was not witnessed over 60 million years. It is a theory about the way some people think biological life developed.

Am I right?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================

Similarly, high school history class isn't there to decide whether you believe the holocaust happened. It's there to teach you that established historical evidence shows that it did. If you want to go on and research the claim that it did not - you can, but you don't get it taught in schools until it's verified a ...[text shortened]... is a theory about the way some people think biological life developed.

Am I right?

Only partially.

Darwinism has been observed. It has been observed in organisms that have thousands of generations within our lifetime. We have recently seen E-Coli, for example, evolve a new ability in the lab. We have also seen a lot of other evidence for it - i.e. Ring species, Nylon eating bacteria and others.

You're right that we haven't observed transitions from primitive ape to human, etc... and frankly, if we could then evolution would be in trouble since darwinistic evolution states that this is impossible. We would never be able to witness such a major transition since such major transitions require many smaller transitions over time. Each transition requires a new generation. However, just because we haven't observed something doesn't mean that we don't have a lot of evidence for it.

We have a lot of evidence the holocaust happened without eye-witness testimony.

We also have not directly observed the earth rotating around the sun. Would you say that we don't know that? That is also a theory, just like evolution. We have inferred that the Earth orbits around the sun because of the other evidence we see in the solar system and from predictions that are made and confirmed from that hypothesis. By us just looking at ourselves and the Sun, we wouldn't be able to tell that we revolve around the sun or vice versa.

Evolution is a theory explaining how life developed. It is what the vast majority of biologists (~98.5% of Biological scientists) accept as the most valid theory that we have.

Originally posted by WWindmill
My claim is that a person who believes in Jesus AND FAILS is then a danger to society because they will take extraordinary lengths to achieve that figment in their head of what GOD'S love should be for the people they are in charge. They will persist even when all around them tells them they are wrong because of their faith. The same can also be said for M ...[text shortened]... who in their faith will actually take their own lives to achieve the greater purpose of Allah.

oh so you are saying that a person who believes in jesus will forego any kind of reasoning and will go to every length to defend and impose his faith upon the world? that a buddhist monk who teaches every life is sacred and one shouldn't hurt a fly will build an army and take over the world so nobody will hurt anything ever again?


are you so obtuse that if a person adheres to a philosophy, then that philosophy is to blame for everything the person does? and religious always means fanatic?
don't answer that. of course you are.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Only partially.

Darwinism has been observed. It has been observed in organisms that have thousands of generations within our lifetime. We have recently seen E-Coli, for example, evolve a new ability in the lab. We have also seen a lot of other evidence for it - i.e. Ring species, Nylon eating bacteria and others.

You're right that we haven't obser iologists (~98.5% of Biological scientists) accept as the most valid theory that we have.

====================================

You're right that we haven't observed transitions from primitive ape to human, etc... and frankly, if we could then evolution would be in trouble since darwinistic evolution states that this is impossible. We would never be able to witness such a major transition since such major transitions require many smaller transitions over time. Each transition requires a new generation. However, just because we haven't observed something doesn't mean that we don't have a lot of evidence for it.

=========================================

Does this mean that a FIRST Human Being was impossible?

Do you mean that the transition from pri-mate "ape" (usually the artists make it look like an ape at least) and human is so gradual that there was no such thing as Human Being # 1?

Since this is a Spirituality Forum I would suggest that this is problem to many Christian's concept of a "first man Adam."

So to believe in Evolution I have to discard with the teaching that there was a Number 1 - First Man Adam ?

Do I also have to accept that perhaps there are people around today which are slightly less than a fully evolved human being?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================

You're right that we haven't observed transitions from primitive ape to human, etc... and frankly, if we could then evolution would be in trouble since darwinistic evolution states that this is impossible. We would never be able to witness such a major transition since such major transitions require many smalle ...[text shortened]... here are people around today which are slightly less than a fully evolved human being?

yes a first being is impossible.

the transition from ape to human is gradual. between human and ape there are a lot of "almost-humans". at one point in time the human was born and obviously there was a first. but right after him many others were born so it really is pointless to talk of a first man.

yes, you have to discard the adam theory. it is not a theory, it is a metaphor. he is the transition of humanity from beast to sentient species. adam before eating from the tree of knowledge is the ape. the ape was in paradise(happy) because he didn't want more than food and sleep. once he became sentient he became aware of his mortality and he wanted more and wanted to transcend death by creating. and more.

our children are different than us and mostly they are better because they get survival traits from both of their parents. but that doesn't mean we are different species. like psycho said, the transition is smoother and unnoticeable from a generation to another. but to give the example of the decimation of the native americans. how do you explain that, while both euros and aztecs for example are humans, the euros had resistance to some diseases and the aztecs didn't?

============================
yes a first being is impossible.
=============================

How do we know then that there are real humans today? Perhaps the percentage of real humans is very small.


====================================
the transition from ape to human is gradual. between human and ape there are a lot of "almost-humans". at one point in time the human was born and obviously there was a first.
======================================

That's all I wanted to know. Now you say obviously there was a first human being. Above you say the first being was impossible.

Is there a contradiction in these two statements?

==============================
but right after him many others were born so it really is pointless to talk of a first man.
=================================

Why is it pointless ? It is certainly not pointless in the Bible. A first Man is important to an understanding of the Person and work of Christ "the second man".

=============================
yes, you have to discard the adam theory. it is not a theory, it is a metaphor.
================================

That is kind of arrogant of you. You say "Yes you have to discard the words of the Bible and take up my interpretation of Adam being a metaphor. And when I say metaphor I don't mean simply symbolic, I mean not historical."

Adam, the first man, was metaphorical to the Apostle Paul also. But he did not say or even insinuate that because of this Adam was not historical.

You say "Yes, you must discard this theory." I say "On your say so? Forget about it. Who said your exegesis of Genesis and Romans is better?"

==================================
he is the transition of humanity from beast to sentient species. adam before eating from the tree of knowledge is the ape.
======================================


It was no simply a tree of knowledge. It was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Again you are saying of necessity drop the exegisis of many fine biblical teachers and take up yours. Why should I ?


=========================================
the ape was in paradise(happy) because he didn't want more than food and sleep.
===========================================

Again. You have the right to your interepretations and your biblical exegesis. But I find some better ones which I think are superior to yours - more logical and more reasonable.

So you say "Yes, drop Pauline theology and take up my analysis of Genesis."

Not so fast sir. I find Paul's insights into Genesis as they relate to the work of "the second man" Christ ( also called "the last Adam" to be greatly more helpful than yours.

What? On your say so embrace now that I have to understand the Bible as being in error when it speaks of "The first man Adam?" (1 Cor. 15:45).

You say in essence "Oh, for goodness sakes man, it is only a little minor concession! Throw away this concept of "The first man Adam" and take on my interpretation that there was no first man, only an ever so gradual evolution from ape to man, so slight that we could detect no line of demacation."

Excuse me. Maybe a minor concession for you, sir. But the Gospel writer Luke traces back the geneology of Jesus to the first human being Adam.

On your say so, disard that as a minor glitch? You have the real inside story? some of us cannot lightly dismiss Luke and Paul in favor of your interpretations which are contrary to the New Testament.

========================================
once he became sentient he became aware of his mortality and he wanted more and wanted to transcend death by creating. and more.
==========================================

Your interpretation may be interesting. But it doesn't square with what is written in Genesis. He knew of no death. And apart from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there was no OTHER reason given for him to die.

===================================
our children are different than us and mostly they are better because they get survival traits from both of their parents. but that doesn't mean we are different species. like psycho said, the transition is smoother and unnoticeable from a generation to another.
==========================================


In the Bible you definitely have a FIRST MAN. When you come on like "Oh that's a minor glitch that you certainly can afford to dispense with." I have questions about that.

Maybe it is a minor glitch to you. But in God's plan of salvation you have a second man Christ and a first man Adam. And the too much of the plan of salvation depends on this understanding of human history.

If you discard a first man Adam you damage severly the plan procedure of salvation as elaborated by the Apostle Paul. And he wrote 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Not only so, you contradict Genesis which clearly teaches that the first man and woman were Adam and Eve.

I am warry of a cavalier dismissal of these teachings with a wink and a smile that the Christian church will do find without them. Says who?

==================================
but to give the example of the decimation of the native americans. how do you explain that, while both euros and aztecs for example are humans, the euros had resistance to some diseases and the aztecs didn't?
=======================================

My problem is your re-interpretation of what is revealed in the Bible.

IF believing in Evolution requires me to believe that there was no first man and no first woman as is taught in the Bible, my reaction is that there must be something wrong with your theory. Keep studying.

I believe that God knows all the facts. If there is a descrepency between man's invention science and God's word the Bible, the mistake must be on the side of man's invention - science.

I think there was a first man Adam and his wife Eve. Discarding that for a gradual animal to human undetectable "something" in between is a major contradiction to that teaching.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]============================
yes a first being is impossible.
=============================

How do we know then that there are real humans today? Perhaps the percentage of real humans is very small.


====================================
the transition from ape to human is gradual. between human and ape there are a lot of "almos ing" in between is a major contradiction to that teaching.

in the bible. i don't have to read the bible to understand how the world works. i have better books when it comes to science. i am also not an atheist, claiming that if there are absurd things in the bible then it all must be absurd.

fine, don't listen to me, take it logically.


what happens when a brother and a sister make a baby? the baby will be prone to idiocy, malformation, genetic diseases or he will simply die because he cannot synthesize certain proteins. if he does manage to survive, how will the children of him and his cousin be? when dumb and dumber mate, how smart is the child likely to be? what about when "dumb cousin 1" and "dumb cousin 2" mate?

now, if we established that incest is bad, very bad(we don't marry our sisters nowadays or we most certainly shouldn't) let's introduce god into the picture. he has to watch over the development of child of adam son and adam sister(or adam son and eve which is again gross). God has to watch for 9 months so that the child doesn't develop malformations, idiocy and comes out with all his toes and eyes. but, he must do this for every child of the brothers that comes after, and maybe even shuffle the dna so that he doesn't have to debug every baby that is born for 1 thousand years after that. and of course, do the same with every species of animals in the world and do the process all over again after the noah incident.

or we could think that god, in his infinite wisdom managed to put a mechanism in place that takes longer and isn't so impressive to the ancient ignorant jewish shepherds but doesn't have to be tweaked every single second. mechanism that is called evolution.

which of the above do you think is a more simple explanation? is it reasonable to think god made a good system(the universe) and then allowed it to work on its own, or do you see the all powerful being create a thingy that needed tunning and maintenance every second? because there is no way we could have survived with all that incest without divine intervention.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]============================
yes a first being is impossible.
=============================

How do we know then that there are real humans today? Perhaps the percentage of real humans is very small.


====================================
the transition from ape to human is gradual. between human and ape there are a lot of "almos ...[text shortened]... ing" in between is a major contradiction to that teaching.

yes, god knows all the facts. how about paul? does he know all the facts? do you think he speaks only what the holy ghost tells him or when the holy ghost is not whispering, he speaks something that seems reasonable to him. i am sure paul thought about the theory of evolution all by himself and thought "how completely and utterly wrong".

in the genesis, the sun and stars are created after the plants. what did god think when he created plants but not the thing the plants needed to survive? or the universe was still in project phase and was not properly started? so he thought, hey the plants can make it another day without the sun. he makes day and night before the sun. he says let there be light, but without the sun, where does the light come from? why is it you believe this is more logical than the big bang theory?

if god dictated the bible, how do you think it would sound to a shepherd that cannot count more than the sum of his sheep: "i am god all mighty but i didn't create the world in 6 days, there were more like 15 billions. yes, abraham that is more than how many sheep you have. no, it is more than how many sheep you and Lot have.". so he invented an impressive story about him and 6 days to get the unimportant science stuff out of the way, stuff the shepherd could not have understood anyway and got to the relevant part which is a set of rules by which to live. and he allowed us to figure out the truth.

it is not a minor concession to admit you were wrong to believe in a book written thousands of years ago just because i say so. i don't expect you to do it because of me. sure it is difficult to let go but for heaven's sake think man. god gave us reason, and made us in his image to then be slaves to obsolete writings that may not even be all his?