Missing link revealed.

[Jaydelart]

Originally Posted by KikiBunny23

i didn't know there was a theory of gravity...i thought it was just 'there' XD but then again...im not really into theories

It's still considered a theory because of it's nature. Like you said, Kiki: it's just there.

This is common ammunition for evolutionists, because it proves the validity of some theories. Which is completely understandable. It can also support creationism, but I'm not going to delve into that right now.

However, as it's extremely difficult - if not impossible - to sample, test, and manipulate gravity like we can with other things, we can't exactly put it in writing that we fully understand gravity. Hence, it remains a theory; a perfectly valid, incomplete book.

[KikiBunny23]

Originally Posted by Jaydelart

It's still considered a theory because of it's nature. Like you said, Kiki: it's just there.

This is common ammunition for evolutionists, because it proves the validity of some theories. Which is completely understandable. It can also support creationism, but I'm not going to delve into that right now.

However, as it's extremely difficult - if not impossible - to sample, test, and manipulate gravity like we can with other things, we can't exactly put it in writing that we fully understand gravity. Hence, it remains a theory; a perfectly valid, incomplete book.

ahhhh, ok. then lol. so its there, just not proven HOW its there?

edit::wait, that makes no sense...cus aint it the earths rotation that causes gravity? erg, i just confused myself XD

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Jaydelart

It's still considered a theory because of it's nature. Like you said, Kiki: it's just there.

This is common ammunition for evolutionists, because it proves the validity of some theories. Which is completely understandable. It can also support creationism, but I'm not going to delve into that right now.

However, as it's extremely difficult - if not impossible - to sample, test, and manipulate gravity like we can with other things, we can't exactly put it in writing that we fully understand gravity. Hence, it remains a theory; a perfectly valid, incomplete book.

Evolutionists don't need ammunition from gravity. It is just a way of explaining that when we say "theory" in science it doesn't mean "guess", which is what creationists wold have you think.

[ozkai]

Like I said, everyone needs proof and results to confirm reality.

I guess in theory, the word is the best possible explanation if proof does not exist.

[Jaydelart]

Originally Posted by MMM

and the other was a scientific theory that was yet to be disproven.

... or proven, for that matter.
I have yet to see an evolving creature.

Don't confuse this with me saying "evolution is false." I can never truly say evolution is false. I am saying, however, that since the process of evolution happens over millions of years, how do we observe it? I'm pretty sure we can't... and observation plays a fundamental role in the scientific method... so I'm left unconvinced.

Originally Posted by MMM

Evolutionists don't need ammunition from gravity. It is just a way of explaining that when we say "theory" in science it doesn't mean "guess", which is what creationists wold have you think.

I spotted this assumption in one of your earlier posts.
I'm more creationist, and I can say, right here and now, that 'theory' doesn't necessarily mean ''guess".

Originally Posted by KikiBunny23

ahhhh, ok. then lol. so its there, just not proven HOW its there?

edit::wait, that makes no sense...cus aint it the earths rotation that causes gravity? erg, i just confused myself XD

You're right. That much is known. lol
... but that doesn't explain what gravity is.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Jaydelart

... or proven, for that matter.
I have yet to see an evolving creature.

Don't confuse this with me saying "evolution is false." I can never truly say evolution is false. I am saying, however, that since the process of evolution happens over millions of years, how do we observe it? I'm pretty sure we can't... and observation plays a fundamental role in the scientific method... so I'm left unconvinced.

Either you are reading my posts or you aren't. Theories are most often never proven in science. Most often they are disproven. If they cannot be disproven, they are considered, essentially, fact. Again, think of the scientific meaning vs. the layperson meaning.

Originally Posted by Jaydelart

I spotted this assumption in one of your earlier posts.
I'm more creationist, and I can say, right here and now, that 'theory' doesn't necessarily mean ''guess".

I didn't say you said that. I am saying there are creationists who use this "loophole" to make an argument that is based on, basically, a falsehood.

[KikiBunny23]

Originally Posted by Jaydelart

... or proven, for that matter.
I have yet to see an evolving creature.

Don't confuse this with me saying "evolution is false." I can never truly say evolution is false. I am saying, however, that since the process of evolution happens over millions of years, how do we observe it? I'm pretty sure we can't... and observation plays a fundamental role in the scientific method... so I'm left unconvinced.


I spotted this assumption in one of your earlier posts.
I'm more creationist, and I can say, right here and now, that 'theory' doesn't necessarily mean ''guess".


You're right. That much is known. lol
... but that doesn't explain what gravity is.

true...hey who knows, maybe there's some giant magnet in the center of the earth in the middle pf the core magma/lava junk XD

[Jaydelart]

Originally Posted by MMM

Either you are reading my posts or you aren't. Theories are most often never proven in science. Most often they are disproven. If they cannot be disproven, they are considered, essentially, fact. Again, think of the scientific meaning vs. the layperson meaning.

Sorry, I'm mainly only reading what's being directed at me.

I understand what you mean. The problem is you can't disprove a deity or divine force either. If you find something on this planet and present it as evidence, it can be considered a product of said deity or divine force. Remember, anything responsible for the existence of the physical world is not necessarily limited by it's laws. That's why these kinds of debates always take place. What causes reality? Another potential stalemate.

Originally Posted by MMM

I didn't say you said that. I am saying there are creationists who use this "loophole" to make an argument that is based on, basically, a falsehood.

Thanks for clarifying.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Jaydelart

Sorry, I'm mainly only reading what's being directed at me.

I understand what you mean. The problem is you can't disprove a deity or divine force either. If you find something on this planet and present it as evidence, it can be considered a product of said deity or divine force. Remember, anything responsible for the existence of the physical world is not necessarily limited by it's laws. That's why these kinds of debates always take place. What causes reality? Another potential stalemate.

And you cannot prove the existence of a deity either. That's why religions are called "faith-based". That's where they creationist argument crumbles in a way in my eyes because creationists hold scientists to a higher standard than they hold their own faith. And, sadly, that is where the discussion ends.

[ivi0nk3y]

Originally Posted by MMM

And you cannot prove the existence of a deity either. That's why religions are called "faith-based". That's where they creationist argument crumbles in a way in my eyes because creationists hold scientists to a higher standard than they hold their own faith. And, sadly, that is where the discussion ends.

The discussion ends when you realise that your faith in science should have far less faith than in anything else. It is erroenous views like this which lead to arrogance against faith in a creator.
Seriously, science? Something man made and finite that is constantly being updated and added to?
At the end of the day science only goes to "discover" what is already there. We use our own initiative to create new alloys and whatnot but that is all we can really do.. we will never create something from scratch.
They can find all the permutations and combinations of particular chemicals and elements, yet it already exists.
That itself gives more weight to a creator and everything to do with religion, than any theory that science could come up with.

As far as Evolution goes and the constant bleating of certain people about how antibiotics and such are proof of it.. go back to some of the threads where it is said that mutations are a specific process of bacteria and not anything else.