The creation

This is my last post here:

Mr critic The FACT that the earth is spherical in shape is not at all a scientific theory. It is rather, well, a scientific fact. O yes you can use google again to look that up and maybe it can help to explain the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory because clearly you seem to be confused about the two .This confusion can be observed throughout your latest comment (Note the ignorance therefore.)


Brysing I am not going to argue with you. You are more experienced so I'll just take notes. But I wouldn't say that the idea that humans are key to creation is 'rubbish'. In fact I think the statement made by Theloneon did not by any means intend to imply that 'planet earth was created by humans'

And please note I did state that I was sharing my VIEWS.

Technically, as someone in the scientific community, everything in science, proven or otherwise is a theory, because our knowledge advances constantly.

The earth was not created by humans, more the earth created humans, this can be shown through the genetic history of our species.

At some point there were no species on this planet, and then due to a shift in chemicals and conditions, single cells formed and the rest is a rolling ball.

We know how species lived before the oxegenation of the planet, we know how they came to survive on land, we know how they developed and diverged into different species, they are still considered theories but that is only because in scince everything is a theory.

Humans even have teleost fish in our long, latin name. We know that every species: reptile, amphibian, mammal, came from the teleost fish, which goes to show that we did not create the Earth, the Earth created us.

You know lucid, I am quite surprised you can go around insulting other users for their spiritual 'views' but when you spout nonsense and people throw science in your face you hide behind the argument 'it's my view!' Kind of hypocritical.

H2O, Again just the problem of not knowing the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact.

Nekoshema sorry but scientific 'theory' can not by any means disprove any of the points expressed in my original post. So, views or not views my ideas aren't at all intimidated by any of the science 'thrown in my face'.

You clearly do not understand science...

Everything in sicence is considered a theory whether it is proven or otherwise.

How much more ignorant can you be? I disagree with your statement. I studied analytical chemistry at tertiary level. Here's a simple example:

Moisture increases the rate at which the inorganic element known as iron oxidises to the ferrous ion.

The above is a scientific fact but was once a scientific theory... I bet some of you will disagree with this. Oh and my reference is a science textbook not a web page.

Scientific theory is not hypothesis. Theory is still testable. There is evidence to support scientific theory.

Lucid, if you studied a hard science as you claim, then you know this. You are still trying to use the word 'theory' in a scientific context as hypothesis.

Evolution is an excellent example of this: It cannot be mathematically predicted, but through the fossil record, we have literally billions of years of evidence of the development of different forms of life. Adaptation of traits, passed on, eventually develops something into something else. We have observed both covergent and divergent evolution: Different species which develop similar traits, or one different groups of one species developing differing traits to meet the demands of somewhat different environments, respectively. Evolution, though a proven fact, is considered a theory. But it is scientific fact.

This is opposed to aspects of chemistry and physics, which are mathematically constant. They can be predicted with a very high rate of success. These are scientific laws.

What you are calling theory is no more than hypothesis. A hypothesis can still be tested, through evidence and experimentation. If the hypothesis is disproven, someone may still cling to the idea, but as a belief. If it is proven, it can be advanced as a theory or possibly a law, but in order to be considered as much is must pass rigorous scrutiny.

Your belief is disprovable. We can, via the known rate of atomic decay, calculate the age of at least parts of the earth. We can, thanks to knowing the speed of light, being able to measure using parallax effect, and other aspects, measure distance to stellar bodies, and know how long it has taken the light from there to reach us. We can, thanks to the Doppler effect, measure the direction and rate of travel of other stars and galaxies, even the rates of spin of distant galaxies. All of this is thanks to scientific law.

We can, thanks to the fossil record, and the known rate of isotopic decay, carbon date remains; we know at least roughly when the portion of our ancestral branch of primates forked from that of other apes. That is, again, scientific law.

Thanks again to scientific law, we can date the age of the earth, through speculation based on something you seem very much to despise: evidence. And all of it is thanks to scientific law. And sometimes, a collaboration of scientific law results in the formation of a theory -- which is frequently, if not constantly, being scrutinized and tested.

But we do know that humans did not exist until billions of years after the formation of the earth.

But go ahead and keep ignoring facts, and calling people names for not ignoring facts.