Islam's Flat Earth?

[Universe Prince]

I suppose I could have a double standard, but you never asked me about evolution, so how would you know?

The double standard doesn't hinge on whether you personally believe biological evolution is a lie or whether you think the earth is only 6000 years old. The point is, in the U.S. there are plenty of people who do believe these things. You point out the Muslim who believes the earth is flat because the Koran supposedly tells him so, and you derogatorily say "These people want nuclear weapons." Yet with all the folks here in the U.S. who reject similar scientific claims because the Bible supposedly tells them so, I don't see you complaining that the U.S. has and expects to keep its nuclear weapons. And I'm fairly certain we had one of those people, in this very campaign season mind you, give a half-way decent run for the Republican nomination for President.

[Rich]

Okay, so there are Christians out there who don't worship at the alter of evolution. Now, without getting in to a protracted discussion on evolution, I think you would agree that evolution is categorized as a scientific theory. The earth is spherical, that is not a theory. That is a scientific fact. I know evolution is good science, and you can be a Christian and believe in the theory of evolution. In my opinion, and in (dare I say most) people who describe themselves as Christians, evolution does not disprove the existence of God.

Now, you've grabbed on to a tiny thread that I can't unravel. Simply because this one man claims the Earth is flat, doesn't mean Muslim's shouldn't have nuclear weapons. I was generalizing and putting an entire group into box. I shouldn't have. Who knows, the man in question may be the same sort of person as Christians who believe the Earth is 6000 years old. In both cases their religious views may not preclude them from scientific advancement. However, I wouldn't want large groups of either type having the ability to launch nuclear weapons at people who believe the world is round, or the Earth is 4 billion years old.

Happy?

[Universe Prince]

Happy?

Yes.

[Amianthus]

The earth is spherical, that is not a theory. That is a scientific fact.

"Scientific theory" and "fact" go into the same bucket.

[Universe Prince]

Heh. I wasn't going to get into that.

[Rich]

>>"Scientific theory" and "fact" go into the same bucket.<<

If you say so. I do however, think that there's a hole in the bucket big enough for a theory to fit through.

[Amianthus]

If you say so. I do however, think that there's a hole in the bucket big enough for a theory to fit through.

Then you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The word THEORY means something different to scientists than it means to non-scientists.

What most non-scientists consider to be a theory is what scientists call a HYPOTHESIS: a concept that must be tested before it can become a theory.

Once tested, if the results are positive, the hypothesis becomes a theory.

A theory is the best explanation for a given phenomena available to date. Evolution cannot be tested in the same way gravity can: we cannot set up a situation where Planet A has evolution and Planet B does not. We can, however, test gravity by dropping things again and again: in a vacuum, in water, in air at the normal pressure.

Gravity has become something more certain than a theory, it is now considered a law.
Of course, at high velocities and in certain anomalous situations, it does not always work as expected.

Concepts like Creationism are what we can call speculation: I do not think there is adequate evidence to call Creationism a hypothesis.

The idea that the universe is about 6000 years old, is pretty easily to disprove by geologists, astronomers and physicists in a variety of ways. It seems that most people in this country still regard Creationism as fact, though I don't think most have given much thought to more elaborate ideas, such as the 6000-years old Earth idea.

Many DO seem to agree with the statement that the Bible is (a) the word of God, and (b) true. Many believe that is literally true, but such people have generally not dedicated much thought to what "literally true" means. Does the host really change in chemical composition to human flesh miraculously at the moment of Communion? Does the wine (or grape juice) actually change to Jesus' blood miraculously? Could we submit it to a chemical analysis and find that it really is human blood?

Can we all expect to see the holier among us be sucked up to Heaven in the Rapture as if by a Great Holy Electrolux in the Sky anytime soon? I know people who say they believe exactly this, although they disagree that the Rapture should be described using the word "holy electrolux".

[Rich]

I guess not.