We now officially live in a theocracy

[big_sur]

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/j...0.html?cnn=yes

great, our national park service is now selling books on how the grand canyon was created by noahs flood. i love this administration.

[nismo2491]

cute. though I don't think this makes us a theocracy. I think its just that since no-one can be 100% sure how it was created this way is just another theory.
KEvin

[L3it3r]

Originally Posted by nismo2491

cute. though I don't think this makes us a theocracy. I think its just that since no-one can be 100% sure how it was created this way is just another theory.
KEvin

whatever, that's the most ridiculous, simple-minded 'theory' I've ever heard. If people HONESTLY believe everything they read in stories.. they've got problems.

[nismo2491]

its a theory. I never said I subscribed to it. I believe 100% in evolution, and that it was formed by erosion not noah's flood. just saying that we live in a land where everybody can freely express their beliefs and there is no 100% factual basis for either of those 2 theories. there is a lot of evidence supporting one and not the other, but there is no indefinite proof.
KEvin

[XiaoNio]

It is not a theory. What people don't realize is that theories in science are as close to fact without being able to completely prove it. The great quantity of proof/evidence/experimentation/research that goes into the formulation of a theory is tremendously large. That's why dismissal of evolution as being just a theory shows great ignorance of the meaning. Similarly, calling intelligent design or creationism a theory is a gross missuse of the word. It's okay though, because now you can be taught these concepts in science class.

More directly related to the point, Lyell and Hutton hypothesized more than 150 years ago that geologic processes occur either gradually over the span of millions of years or rapidly through great tumult, but differentiation can occur. For 150 years, this has been shown to be correct. To have a book refuting this through non-scientific faith based means on sale from a suppposed unbiased government source saddens me more than slightly.

Sorry bout the rant. Thank you red states, thank you.

[MD318is]

quite interesting and quite odd... i think faith based ideas/theories are unfounded and therefore obviously dont hold as much signicifance.. but people have their views.

[L3it3r]

Originally Posted by MD318is

i think faith based ideas/theories are unfounded and therefore obviously dont hold as much signicifance..

[nismo2491]

definition of theory:

a set of assumptions and the conclusions derived from those assumptions put forward as an explanation for some phenomena

therefore anything can be a theory. Shit I subscribe to the theory that when i flush the toilet little green men build boats out of my shit. does it mean its true? no, does it mean its logical? no, can it be disproven? well yeah that one can. but prove to me that 6000 years ago somebody didn't just snap there fingers and create earth. you can't. thats why its still a theory. never said I agreed with it or believed in it though.
KEvin

[XiaoNio]

Clearly, you missed my point. Colloquially, that is what a theory means ie. an educated guess. But before something can be proclaimed a theory within the science community, it must undergo rigorous testing. Until then it is still a hypothesis or conjecture. Of course we cannot disprove that someone snapped their fingers to create the earth, but that "theory" is based off of a whole different series of assumptions. In science, until something is proven a theorem (ie. Pythagorean) meaning there are no breaks in it, it remains a theory. Really, all I was getting at was that making creationism and evolution on the same level because they are both "theories" is a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. While both can potentially be disproved by the other, the burden of proof is on science and not faith which is why they are not the same.

[nismo2491]

ok I see where you are coming from. they are both theories though not nescessarily scientifically speaking as there is no major evidence to support creationism.
KEvin

[EastCoastE30]

Originally Posted by XiaoNio

Clearly, you missed my point. Colloquially, that is what a theory means ie. an educated guess. But before something can be proclaimed a theory within the science community, it must undergo rigorous testing. Until then it is still a hypothesis or conjecture. Of course we cannot disprove that someone snapped their fingers to create the earth, but that "theory" is based off of a whole different series of assumptions. In science, until something is proven a theorem (ie. Pythagorean) meaning there are no breaks in it, it remains a theory. Really, all I was getting at was that making creationism and evolution on the same level because they are both "theories" is a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. While both can potentially be disproved by the other, the burden of proof is on science and not faith which is why they are not the same.

This guy knows what he's talking about.

[bizlur]

there was a great flood though. all cultures talk about a great flood somewhere if you study them enough. i don't think they should refer to it alone as noah's flood though.

If you have taken biology or anything semilar in college you learn that a theory is not what a lot of people think it is. Evolution is a theory, most people think that it is a theory as in it is just what people beleive. A theory is science is something that has been researched and has a ton of evidence backing it. Scientists might still have their religion but they do not hold it as a theory because there is no evidence and no tests that can be done to prove it.

[Neo]

“For years,” Vail explains, “as a Colorado River guide, I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary time span of millions of years. (Most geologists place the canyon’s age at some six million years). Then I met the Lord. Now I have a different view of the Canyon, which according to a biblical time scale, can’t possibly be more than a few thousand years old.”

I'm not saying I believe this thought, but if what this man is saying is true, that someone who has worked somewhere for years, telling millions of people the same factual and scientific explanation of something, can be persuaded into believing something so utterly inconcievable, then God must be the best sheister from alpha to omega.

[Siphus]

theres more and more relgion introduced into this goverment all the time...

[skd2k1]

why cant both of these theories be true at the same time, just different aspects of the same truth? kinda like how the big bang theory sounds like a really technical way of saying some god created the universe.

Originally Posted by XiaoNio

Lyell and Hutton hypothesized more than 150 years ago that geologic processes occur either gradually over the span of millions of years or rapidly through great tumult, but differentiation can occur.

another example of basically saying what has been said for thousands of years in many different cultures in modern terminology. but like someone said earlier, we will never know for sure cause we werent there to witness it. also remember that humans are biased, and i think many scientists nowadays are biased against religion. ever heard of piltdown man? if not, do yourself a favor and do a google search.