Quote from Dark_Sage

Quote from Kaioh

Oh, and Dark_Sage, gravity was proven to exist along time ago, mostly by Issac Newton (Although a bunch of Johannes Kepler's work on Celestial Objects and their orbits, and the various laws he created to govern them did in turn provide some foundation for Newton's law of Universal Gravitation).

Although his theory has been superseeded many times since, his theory is stil used in modern calculations, most notably Einsteins theory of General Relativity, which has been used, in turn, in various theories of Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Gravity, String Theory, and M-Theory.

Of course, all these theories really mean nothing as they are just theories. Without hard evidence, alot of people will not believe it.

Oh, and also, Dark_Sage, Hypothesis are what lead to Theories. The whole of science is one large guessing game. People hypothesize, study, then theorize.

WELCOME TO MIDDLE SCHOOL.

Gravity is still a theory. It is not proven to completely and utterly exist as a law, but it's pretty damn close. Regardless, it's NOT a law, so don't try to treat it like it is one.

Try not to patronize me, kid. I know what hypotheses are (yeah, that's what the plural of hypothesis is. 😉). A hypothesis is an "educated" guess. Theories have evidence behind them. Oh, and just FYI the scientific method is: Observe Something, Make a Hypothesis, Test Hypothesis With Experiment, Analyze, Conclude, Report Results. You can't just study something, you have to create an experiment. 🙂

Gravity is only still a theory because we cannot see it to prove it exists. The force of gravity is still there, however. It does have a Law, I mentioned it in my other post (Which you clearly just skimmed over), it's Issac Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Oh, and I apologize, I typoed a word (That happens to everyone).

I also apologize for not clearly stating what I meant. I assumed you were a person of some intelligence. Hypothesize, study, then theorize is the basic structure.

Studying covers a wide variety of things, whether it be reading to learn more, or conduct physical experimentation.

Scientific studying methods start with observation. When you observe something to study, you're wondering how it works, and study to learn how it does. Before actual experimentation, you go through the reasoning process and come up with accurate observations and data to experiment with. These actually lead to hypothesis, which lead other's to be interested and form their own hypotheses, which lead to theories.

If you want to talk about patronizing, then what are you doing to me right now?

Until you show some actual intelligence aside from information you've gotten from Wikipedia, and treat others with a certain amount of respect, you've no right to accuse anyone of being patronizing.

If you want to talk about education, then allow me to brag. I graduated high school at sixteen. I further continued my education on my own (That involved alot of reading, libraries are wonderful resources). How about yourself?

You talk about my lack of intelligence, yet you never responded to anything else I mentioned, like String Theory, for example. If you were truly intelligent, you'd know what that is. Or does Wikipedia not cover that well enough?

If you'd like to have an intelligent conversation on theories, laws, hypotheses, and so forth, we can.

But if all you're going to do is sit there and call me names, then I think you're the child here.

As a final thought, my name is Kaioh. If you chose to call me something else, I will consider it name calling, as you never asked me to allow you to do so. Care to break any other rules today?

Welcome to Manga-Updates!
If you're new, please read the rules.
If you're returning, please follow them.

Personally, I am sort of curious, but I can also be off without knowing. We exist now, that's all it really matters. Sure it's fun to know how we originated, but it's probably not gonna change anything much.

Dear me, this is quickly turning into one big argue fight at this rate. Dark_Sage and Kaioh, mind take it else where? Like, make a new topic perhaps?

Last note: Science are all one major genarlization, for example, say, acid reacts with base. Well, sure it always has/had happened up till now, but there's no saying that the next one you do or the infinite time you can do after this time will always behave the same way. (Not direct quote, but quote from my science teacher.)

Don't worry, this topic will not get hijacked.

If Dark_Sage wishes to continue the conversation, he can simply message me. However, he will most likely reply here. There are various reasons I believe that, which you may call a theory. However, now that I have mentioned that, if Dark_Sage has any intelligence at all, he may consider the fact that I am trying to trick him into messaging me, instead of replying here.

That is, of course, if he is intelligent, which so far, I honestly question (Especially after reading the topic in regards to God).

Welcome to Manga-Updates!
If you're new, please read the rules.
If you're returning, please follow them.

well this is turning into a nice discussion

@aurablaze- as for the evidence against evolution, this is a little fact that stuck with me from the few creationist seminars i went to at my christian high school. which is probably gonna make this sound less credible. At certain points in the geneological spectrum that scientists have broken up into having been from different ages, there are some anomolies. In some areas there are upright follisized trees and even whales going through multiple "ages" of rocks, which atleast lead to the credability of the "worldwide flood" mentioned in the bible. Since obviously the whales wouldn't stand upright for millenia waiting for the ground to rise up around them, what else but a quick flood could've done it? atleast that's what i remember
(i'll post a source if i can find one)
Edit: just google "geological strata petrified tree" and plenty of relevant results

stratigraphy isint static though, there can be certain events that can disturb the fossils so that they are found in weird positions that don't make sense in relation to when they died (like the whale fossil mentioned). for example earthquakes or human construction of farming can affect the soil below the area causing those weird annomalies. when looking at those kinds of fossils, you have to take this into account (<<from my archeaology class)

btw this is not to say that the anomaly theory of creationists is wrong. personally, im a mix of both creationist and evolutionist

[img]http://i17.tinypic.com/7wh7xx1.jpg[/img]

Quote from daed

In some areas there are upright follisized trees and even whales going through multiple "ages" of rocks, which atleast lead to the credability of the "worldwide flood" mentioned in the bible. Since obviously the whales wouldn't stand upright for millenia waiting for the ground to rise up around them, what else but a quick flood could've done it? atleast that's what i remember
(i'll post a source if i can find one)
Edit: just google "geological strata petrified tree" and plenty of relevant results

There are some evidences of a really big flood somewhere in the region of Mediterranean. Something about 10 thousands years ago? I don't remember. The flood has nothing to do with evolution. At least, it won't ever be a proof good enough to stand against many proofs stating that evolution is a fact.

Strange location of some fossils? Usually it's caused by tectonic movements, folding and methamorphism of rocks. Palaeontologists know how to deal with it.

[img]http://img.userbars.pl/69/13603.gif[/img]
Still the [color=red]bad[/color] cop.

I don't get the question but i guess sort of :/ semi semi, half half.

R-18 below
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32718267/aot.jpg[/img]
Detective Horror Series

Tracker BakaBT

The origin of humankind matters quite a bit to me, but then again on a side note I have seriously thought of switching to a theology major. The reason that such a thing matters to me is a bit contrived. For instance if the standard of what I believe was wrong who is to say it wouldn't all be wrong. I am not a person who picks and chooses what I believe based on how I like it. The reason I believe in a deity creating the universe is because I'm a Christian, but if there was incontrovertible proof that said deity didn't exist I wouldn't be able to hold onto my beliefs blindly as some people claim that all theists do.

All in all I believe in the God of the Bible. But personally even I'm wrong about which religion I am part of I still believe that there is a god even if that isn't the god that I worship (even though I fervently believe that I am correct).

"Don't worry about the fine print. The soul consumption clause is never exorcised

Intellectually, yes, but mostly just to satiate my curiosity and solve the whole evolution-god thing once and for all (it does get kind of old).

If I wasn't curious about it, then I probably wouldn't care at all.

But has anyone heard of anything about the evolution of sexual reproduction? Because I haven't heard anyone try to explain how it evolved, which makes me think that creationists would jump on it as a talking point, but they seem to ignore it, too... In short, I'm a bit confused about it.

And I can agree with Nis to a certain point: science is a giant generalization. But it normally doesn't just ignore an experiment in which a certain established law was broken. Instead, scientists study it and normally scrap the original law/theory and replace it with a more accurate version (or, in some cases, just add bits and pieces to the original theory to make it accurate). While you can't say that something will DEFINITELY happen a certain way in science, the probability of it acting a certain way is extremely high based upon past laws/discoveries.

Quote from xObscurexOmenx

Intellectually, yes, but mostly just to satiate my curiosity and solve the whole evolution-god thing once and for all (it does get kind of old).

If I wasn't curious about it, then I probably wouldn't care at all.

But has anyone heard of anything about the evolution of sexual reproduction? Because I haven't heard anyone try to explain how it evolved, which makes me think that creationists would jump on it as a talking point, but they seem to ignore it, too... In short, I'm a bit confused about it.

And I can agree with Nis to a certain point: science is a giant generalization. But it normally doesn't just ignore an experiment in which a certain established law was broken. Instead, scientists study it and normally scrap the original law/theory and replace it with a more accurate version (or, in some cases, just add bits and pieces to the original theory to make it accurate). While you can't say that something will DEFINITELY happen a certain way in science, the probability of it acting a certain way is extremely high based upon past laws/discoveries.

Well specifically it will become more accurate based upon how accurate the previous discoveries or laws were and how little that the new one assumes and the more it it based directly on observations. But yes that is completely true of science in an ideal world, sadly humans are flawed and there is always that small opportunity to be wrong no matter how accurate observations seem to be.

"Don't worry about the fine print. The soul consumption clause is never exorcised

Quote from TwilightDrgn

Well specifically it will become more accurate based upon how accurate the previous discoveries or laws were and how little that the new one assumes and the more it it based directly on observations. But yes that is completely true of science in an ideal world, sadly humans are flawed and there is always that small opportunity to be wrong no matter how accurate observations seem to be.

True. There's also the chance that a superfluous law might be created just because of a few mistakes made, which could result in a time of chaos.

Quote from xObscurexOmenx

Quote from TwilightDrgn

Well specifically it will become more accurate based upon how accurate the previous discoveries or laws were and how little that the new one assumes and the more it it based directly on observations. But yes that is completely true of science in an ideal world, sadly humans are flawed and there is always that small opportunity to be wrong no matter how accurate observations seem to be.

True. There's also the chance that a superfluous law might be created just because of a few mistakes made, which could result in a time of chaos.

-What tends to peeve me is when someone uses universal statements in association with the sciences, which by their very nature strive to be as accurate as possible but never claim to be infallible.
-An example of such a thing is like saying that dinosaurs are extinct. Now we all can conclude that the chances of there being live dinosaurs around is slim but in order to truly say that they are completely extinct would require near omnipotence in order to verify such a claim to a true 100% accuracy.

"Don't worry about the fine print. The soul consumption clause is never exorcised

i doubt evolution can be disproved, lol, the fact that we can observe it on a life span (bacteria...and other short life spanned organisms all show evolution)

however, what is up to dispute is the drive force of evolution. is it nature? or competition? or even god?

"Rule No. 1 is, don't sweat the small stuff. Rule No. 2 is, it's all small stuff." - Robert Eliot, Writer

"Oh boy, here we go...again." - Israfel

I'm getting too old....

Quote from Israfel

i doubt evolution can be disproved, lol, the fact that we can observe it on a life span (bacteria...and other short life spanned organisms all show evolution)

however, what is up to dispute is the drive force of evolution. is it nature? or competition? or even god?

May I be inquisitive for but a moment? How does bacteria or any other short life-spanned organisms show evolution? No offense but from what I've heard evolution means the adding of additional bodily functions and as far as I know adding different circumstances to short lived organisms only slims down function (ie. when a bacteria becomes immune to a chemical it isn't that it became immune to it but that it never was able to produce the chemical the other bacteria could, that would in turn kill it if it could produce said chemical).

"Don't worry about the fine print. The soul consumption clause is never exorcised

Quote from TwilightDrgn

Quote from Israfel

i doubt evolution can be disproved, lol, the fact that we can observe it on a life span (bacteria...and other short life spanned organisms all show evolution)

however, what is up to dispute is the drive force of evolution. is it nature? or competition? or even god?

May I be inquisitive for but a moment? How does bacteria or any other short life-spanned organisms show evolution? No offense but from what I've heard evolution means the adding of additional bodily functions and as far as I know adding different circumstances to short lived organisms only slims down function (ie. when a bacteria becomes immune to a chemical it isn't that it became immune to it but that it never was able to produce the chemical the other bacteria could, that would in turn kill it if it could produce said chemical).

evolution is not necessarily the adding of body functions. it simply is any changes that allows an organism to better survive in order to reproduce and pass on its genes.

so, a bacteria that becomes immune to a chemical will become more likely to pass on its genes. that fact that is is immune unlike others is a change. the question is, where did that immunity come from? A random mutation that happens to allow this one to survive and reproduce later generations? Or an internal response to form new changes? Or even a (god)?
Changes doesn’t have to be functions. changes in appearance that allow for better reproduction is a very simple and apparent one. It provides no additional function, but it is a change for the better transfer of genes.

"Rule No. 1 is, don't sweat the small stuff. Rule No. 2 is, it's all small stuff." - Robert Eliot, Writer

"Oh boy, here we go...again." - Israfel

I'm getting too old....