Topic: Should The Bible Be Taught in Science Class?

[Roger]

I don't know if you know this...but longwinded reponses never get read.  So I'll just get to the point...

Basically...you're wanting to get technical and make yourself sound ultra smart.  It's not working.  You're making yourself look ultra dumb.  Nobody wants to deal with a smart***.

This is a DEBATE forum...not a "look up facts, then present them to everyone to try to make them look stupid." forum.  People have opinions.  To have an opinion, you don't have to pull some facts from a website.  You can form an opinion on anything for any reason.

Next...nobody really cares what causes gravity, despite what you're pulling off a website that anyone can write on. Okay?  I could go on wikipedia, write an article claiming to be an expert on it, and they'd put it up.

[Lil Loco]

Definitions of  theory on the Web:

    * a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
    * hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
      wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


    * A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. See also hypothesis and scientific law.
      college.hmco.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/t.html

    * a general principle that explains or predicts facts or events
      education.jlab.org/beamsactivity/6thgrade/vocabulary/

    * a statement or set of statements used to explain a phenomena. A theory is generally accepted as valid due to having survived repeated testing.
      www.carm.org/evolution/evoterms.htm

    * A theory is an abstract formulation of the constant relations between entities or, what means the same thing, the necessary regularity in the concatenation (qv) and sequence of phenomena and/or events. A theory may be true or false. A valid theory attempts to eliminate all contradictions in the application of cause and effect to a given specific situation or set of conditions. The aim of a theory is always success in action. ...
      www.mises.org/easier/T.asp

    * A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis.
      www.whatislife.com/glossary.htm


    * An extremely well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of the natural world that incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses. (Eg, Einstein's Theory of Gravitation, 1916)
      www.nmsr.org/wrkshp9.htm

------------

I mean im not one to question such a prestigious place of learning such as PRINCETON, but hey, what do they know compared to....oh wait, you didnt give your sources did you? well hey, if other people can pull information and statistics out of their asses, i suppose your just as qualified.
===========================================

@bigcheez:

While a great deal is now known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question and gravity remains an important topic of scientific research.

Alternative theories

Historical alternative theories

    * Aristotelian theory of gravity
    * Nikola Tesla challenged Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, announcing he was working on a Dynamic theory of gravity (which began between 1892 and 1894) and argued that a "field of force" was a better concept and focused on media with electromagnetic energy that fill all of space.
    * Induced gravity: In 1967 Andrei Sakharov proposed something similar, if not essentially identical. His theory has been adopted and promoted by Messrs. Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff who, among other things, explain that gravitational and inertial mass are identical and that high speed rotation can reduce (relative) mass. Combining these notions with those of Thomas Townsend Brown, it is relatively easy to conceive how field propulsion vehicles such as "flying saucers" could be engineered given a suitable source of power.
    * LeSage gravity, proposed by Georges-Louis LeSage, based on a fluid-based explanation where a light gas fills the entire universe.
    * Nordström's theory of gravitation, an early competitor of general relativity.
    * Whitehead's theory of gravitation, another early competitor of general relativity.

Recent alternative theories

    * Brans-Dicke theory of gravity
    * Rosen bi-metric theory of gravity
    * In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), Mordehai Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's Second Law of motion for small accelerations.
    * The new and "highly controversial" Process Physics theory attempts to address gravity
    * The Self creation cosmology theory of gravity in which the Brans-Dicke theory is modified to allow mass creation.
    * The satirical theory of Intelligent falling

[snapback]279343[/snapback]

lol...so wut i'm getting from this iz that my definitionz arent correct, and my statement of wut a law versus a theory iz, isnt true.  well, if actually knowing wut the meaning of those wordz are makez me a dumba$$, then i guess i am.

gravity iz a law...accepted by all...or maybe you dont.  there iz no question in this.  so if all you're gonna do iz sit here and pull crap off the internet and try to be-little everything i say, then just realize you're making yourself look like a total jacka$$.  mr. princton, i could give a ::Dolphin Noise:: if you're pullin stuff off anyone website in the world...you still cant deny wut i'm saying.  so if tryin to shoot down your oppositionz every statement (even if their statement has no fault) makez you sleep better at night...then sweet dreamz maricon.

[carterhawk]

but dont you see!
we are debating!
we are debating what a theory is, which is underlying debate to evolutionary theory.

[Roger]

but dont you see!
we are debating!
we are debating what a theory is, which is underlying debate to evolutionary theory.

[snapback]279349[/snapback]

We're not debating on what a theory is...

We're debating on how much of a smart*** you're being...

I say we either get back on topic or I see a closing coming soon, as there is a mod looking at the thread right now.

[carterhawk]

@loco:

...systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

The britannica, one of the most respect encyclopedias that exists.

scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Encarta. granted its not britannica, but its used in a lot of homes and schools.


--------------

Since you both have some complaint about the information ive presented, let me put it in context: Lil Loco is wrong about what a theory is and what a law is.

--------------

The problem is that loco based his argument on a falsehood, that evolutionary theory is a wild and unproven guess, the common usage, rather than a way of explaining emperical observations, the scientific usage.

[Lil Loco]

lol, evolution iz an explanation, i never argued against that.  I told you that gravity was A LAW.  AND IT IS.

so pull your head outta your a$$.

[carterhawk]

lol, evolution iz an explanation, i never argued against that.  I told you that gravity was A LAW.  AND IT IS.

so pull your head outta your a$$.

[snapback]279354[/snapback]

Newtons law of Gravitation is not the same as the theories of gravity. Gravitation is a law, we see it and can measure and observe it. Gravity is extremely unknown. we dont know what causes it, how it spreads, what its range is, or a lot of other things.

i think there was a miscommunication somewhere...

[Roger]

lol, evolution iz an explanation, i never argued against that.  I told you that gravity was A LAW.  AND IT IS.

so pull your head outta your a$$.

[snapback]279354[/snapback]

Newtons law of Gravitation is not the same as the theories of gravity. Gravitation is a law, we see it and can measure and observe it. Gravity is extremely unknown. we dont know what causes it, how it spreads, what its range is, or a lot of other things.

i think there was a miscommunication somewhere...

[snapback]279355[/snapback]

Look...you're basically saying that there's no proof that gravity exists.  That's why you're looking dumb.  Gravity exists.  Otherwise, we'd all be floating.

Now.  Show me the definite proof that evolution happened/is happening.

There is none.

[Lil Loco]

http://www.jimloy.com/physics/gravity.htm
*cough*

alright...at this point...i aint riskin gettin suspended cuz of you.  so if you wanna flex your ego, regardless of whether other people are right, then go ahead with someone else cuz i'm tired of your ::Dolphin Noise::.  i'll be back when this crap actually getz back on wut itz supposed to be about.  later.

[ssj4gogita4]

I see we arent in the "Bible" stages anymore but just completely gone to only science?

[carterhawk]

lol, evolution iz an explanation, i never argued against that.  I told you that gravity was A LAW.  AND IT IS.

so pull your head outta your a$$.

[snapback]279354[/snapback]

Newtons law of Gravitation is not the same as the theories of gravity. Gravitation is a law, we see it and can measure and observe it. Gravity is extremely unknown. we dont know what causes it, how it spreads, what its range is, or a lot of other things.

i think there was a miscommunication somewhere...

[snapback]279355[/snapback]

Look...you're basically saying that there's no proof that gravity exists.  That's why you're looking dumb.  Gravity exists.  Otherwise, we'd all be floating.

Now.  Show me the definite proof that evolution happened/is happening.

There is none.

[snapback]279357[/snapback]

Nooo.....im saying that we dont fully understand gravity. there are many theories about gravity, the best one being a part of einsteins theory of relativity.

Gravitation exists. Gravitation, but so far our best scientists have been unable to identify any specific particle or energy that is responsible for gravitation. such a find would explain what the force is that causes gravitation. if we understood *what* gravity was, then we would have flying cars and artificial gravity on the space station.

-----------

I can easily reverse your question, since you are so firm in your belief that gravity is a law, show me what gravity is. what causes it? how does it work? and cite your sources.

-----------

To more directly respond to the topic: This fellow is a winged dinosaur. Part bird, part lizzard. Saw him on a show on PBS some time ago.

[Roger]

I can easily reverse your question, since you are so firm in your belief that gravity is a law, show me what gravity is. what causes it? how does it work? and cite your sources.

To more directly respond to the topic: This fellow is a winged dinosaur. Part bird, part lizzard. Saw him on a show on PBS some time ago.

[snapback]279363[/snapback]

Are you an idiot?  Do you REALLY Need proof that gravity exists?  How about the fact that you're not floating off into space?  My source?  Life.

Ah yes...show a picture of something that's supposed to be half-something, half-something.  That makes no sense as far as evolution is concerned...look at the duckbill platypus.  It has a duck's bill and feet, a beaver's tail, and an otter's body.  I guess it evolved from something else?

Ah and as for human evolution.  If we evolved from apes...then why do apes still exist?  If something evolves, it's not supposed to exist in its old form any more.

[carterhawk]

i do not want proof that gravity exists, duh it exists, i want you to explain what it is and how it works

--------------------------------------------
to your other point:
i think i saw a website not to long ago that answers that question...

If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

This is the simplest explination ive seen. i think fark linked to it a while ago...

[Roger]

Okay...forget it.  I'm done with you.  You make up these debates, then you drag them to the point where nobody WANTS to debate with you because you don't make sense or you get too technical.

Anyway....you didn't answer my question about the duckbill platypus.  But I'm not replying any more.  I have proven that you are indeed unworthy of any more of my time.

[joseph]

These are the defininitions as I was taught them of the stages of the scientific process.

Hypothesis: An idea formed from observation that hasn't been tested much yet.

Theory: An idea that has been tested but not enough data is present to make it unquestionable.

Law: An idea that has been tested for many years and has been confirmed consistently by the data.


By these definitions it can be said that both ideas are theories and theories only. Since they are contesting theories I think they should be taught in classes so that students can make a choice as to which they believe. Also teaching them together will help teach rational organized thought to the students which is something that is invaluable.