Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[KalMart]

Is it theoretically possible that Einstein's Theory of relativity could be disproven?

Do theists care if it is? Do they know how it could be? Probably not, because there's nothing in relativity that implies something troubling to religion.

It may be 'theoretically' possible to disprove gravity. But the reality is that it is true.

 

[Lighthouse]

Is it theoretically possible that Einstein's Theory of relativity could be disproven?

Yes it can, though by now, it's quite unlikely. A theory that cannot be disproven is useless to science. The Theory of Relativity exists precisely because it disproved some aspects of Issac Newton's theories. That's how science advances.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein

 

[Shemtov]

Spoiler

Just look at that, and tell me we're not related.

Let's look at another science for a second:
Linguistics.
Take two Languages: Japanese and Korean.
Both are agglutinative and follow the SOV Word order.
In many other ways, Their grammars are very similar.
Tell me they're not related!
And yet the idea that they're related is not accepted by all scientists.

 

[KalMart]

Again, you could theoretically find a way to prove that air doesn't exist. But in actual reality, you can't.

 

[Lighthouse]

Again, you could theoretically find a way to prove that air doesn't exist. But in actual reality, you can't.

I'll admit Kal, this statement confuses me a little.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Let's look at another science for a second:
Linguistics.
Take two Languages: Japanese and Korean.
Both are agglutinative and follow the SOV Word order.
In many other ways, Their grammars are very similar.
Tell me they're not related!
And yet the idea that they're related is not accepted by all scientists.

Go far back enough and they are related, since all human languages are related. Or do you also have a problem with the evolution of language?

If you want to be in denial about your own nature. Go for it. Please, don't read up on evolution. Don't look at the fossil records. Be willfully ignorant.

 

[KalMart]

I'll admit Kal, this statement confuses me a little.

Again, the question was asked as an analogy whether you could theoretically prove that relativity is wrong. "Theoretically" it probably can be if you somehow theorize a part of it not to work the way it says it does, etc. But in actual practice, in application, and in evidence, it's spot on. So the question is...what does that hypothetical/theoretical disproof do to diminish the reality and correctness of relativity? Beyond hypothetical speculation, and if it's not used to diagnose a miscalculation...nothing.

So if you drop a ball...again, theoretically, you may think of some hypothetical situation where the ball won't fall to the ground because gravity will fail to exist. But chances are it will..because we know that gravity does exist, and we have no actual real example of it not existing and acting on a falling object the same way. That's why it's a fallacy to question evolution as only being a 'theory'....as if it's hypothetical. No...it NOT existing or happening is what's hypothetical and without evidence...whereas we have plenty of the contrary.

 

[Lighthouse]

I think I see where you are coming from, but I always thought even theoretical talk had basis in reality, because then you could use the term "theoretically" for absolutely anything. Anything "theoretical" is still based on sound scientific laws, are they not? "Theoretically", you could open a wormhole to another part of the galaxy. Now, that's very impractical, and cannot be applied, but it's still based on real science.

To clarify, we make theoretical assumptions not by eliminating or discounting laws and theories, they are made because of them. Like "Based on Einstein's Theory of General and Special relativity, this theoretically could be possible."

 

[KalMart]

I think I see where you are coming from, but I always thought even theoretical talk had basis in reality, because then you could use the term "theoretically" for absolutely anything. Anything "theoretical" is still based on sound scientific laws, are they not? "Theoretically", you could open a wormhole to another part of the galaxy. Now, that's very impractical, and cannot be applied, but it's still based on real science.

Not necessarily, at least not in practical realistic use/application/activity. And yeah, in this sense, the word 'theory' leads some to say 'anything's possible', and attempt it as an argument against it. The 'Theory of Relativity' is still called that, but it is right in anything we've used it to calculate. It's grasping at 'theoretical' straws when it comes to evolution.

 

[enterthemadness]

If Evolution was real, we would see rock people made out of rocks.

*sees a rock move and stand up*

Well I be a monkey's uncle...

 

[Lighthouse]

Not necessarily, at least not in practical realistic use/application/activity. And yeah, in this sense, the word 'theory' leads some to say 'anything's possible', and attempt it as an argument against it. The 'Theory of Relativity' is still called that, but it is right in anything we've used it to calculate. It's grasping at 'theoretical' straws when it comes to evolution.

Einstein's theory is probably the most durable theory in science(except for, surprise, Darwin's theories). It's got mountains of evidence in support of it. My disagreement is on "theoretically" disproving air. I always thought "theoretical" thinking is used with scientific theories and laws, not despite them. I've never heard anyone say "Well if this and this didn't exist, it would theoretically be possible." It's always been "Well based on this theory and this law, this theoretically could be possible."

 

[childeroland]

Let's look at another science for a second:
Linguistics.
Take two Languages: Japanese and Korean.
Both are agglutinative and follow the SOV Word order.
In many other ways, Their grammars are very similar.
Tell me they're not related!
And yet the idea that they're related is not accepted by all scientists.

Yes, but most scientists in this area think they probably are related (they're just not sure how) and the SOV word order and agglutinative are so common in language families that they may simply be natural human linguistic features anyway, not speaking to whether or not any two languages featuring them are related or not. There are usually much deeper ways to tell if two or more languages are part of the same language family.

 

[Piper Maru]

If Evolution was real, we would see rock people made out of rocks.

*sees a rock move and stand up*

Well I be a monkey's uncle...

If we came from rocks then why we still got rocks? Teach teh controversy!!!!

 

[KalMart]

Einstein's theory is probably the most durable theory in science(except for, surprise, Darwin's theories). It's got mountains of evidence in support of it. My disagreement is on "theoretically" disproving air. I always thought "theoretical" thinking is used with scientific theories and laws, not despite them.

You could theoretically disprove it with an 'if/then'...the problem is the 'if' part. Again, the way it was imlpied, analgously and argumentally, was just that way...reaching for a loophole. And the shortcomings in such thinking that you're alluding to also apply to precisely to the initial analogy. i.e. it's only being arbitrary in an attempt to somehow invalidating it.

I've never heard anyone say "Well if this and this didn't exist, it would theoretically be possible." It's always been "Well based on this theory and this law, this theoretically could be possible."

Well, you have now. I didn't propose it...it was asked as an analogy to evolution. The error in this thinking is again, we know relativity actually works despite whatever 'theoretical' issues or dilemmas that one may search out and derive.

 

[Alpha Born]

Evolution doesn't "believe" in spontaneous generation either. Problem solved!

That's what Evolution teaches.

 

[Alpha Born]

Because it took millions of years for it to some about and start as very simple cellular organisms...it didn't just happen in a flash...and bang, a cow. Now you can try to recreate it and wait out the millions of years that it took, just like you can wait out the collection of space debris into what would eventually become a planet...or you can look at the sound, corroborated science that shows that it's not as simplistic as you're trying to make it out to be.

There's certainly more evidence and supporting material for evolution than there is for some sort of magical intelligent design...who itself made it from who knows what. Creationists who spread such ignorance should realize the disservice to humanity that they're propagating.

Cells are not simple organisms. A single cell organism is more complex than a space shuttle.

 

[Dr.]

That's what Evolution teaches.

Again, you need to get your terms right. “Spontaneous generation” is a long-discredited concept dating back to Aristotle. Observing that baby mice "mysteriously appeared" in grain stores (and even dirty laundry!) and that maggots "mysteriously appeared" in rotting meat, it was thought that certain life forms were spontaneously and routinely produced from non-life. Obviously, this is not what’s happening; and no textbook on evolution says otherwise.

 

[Alpha Born]

Again, what exactly is your impression of this so-called 'Spontaneous Generation'....

I already gave it to you. I guess I have to do it again. I'm talking about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis - The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

and what proof do you have of anything outside of evolution?

Which evolution are you talking about? The word evolution has six different and unrelated meanings or stages.

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has anything to do with real science.

And if your stance is against 'something coming from nothing'...what else was it before it became something...the figment of some great designer's imagination? Please.

Where did all the matter in the universe come from if a designer didn't create it?

Evolution is a fact, plain and simple. Some of the exact details of certain aspects are still theoretical...like did something take 4 million or 5 million years, or exactly what climate shifts happened when, etc.. But it did happen.

Evolution is a fact because you say it is.

Do you believe that land masses move and planets form over millions of years? You'd have to wait a long time to see that proven as well. You have to realize that the burden is on you to step up and understand it...not for it to reduce to your level or whatever ignorance you're clinging to. Otherwise, you could be 'waiting' your entire life.

Basically what you're saying is that I don't believe in evolution because I'm just too stupid to understand it.

 

[Alpha Born]

Not accepting evolution because of something that has been rejected by evolutionists since 1850.

So evolutionists don't even believe in their own theory.

 

[Alpha Born]

Ok, you have to be trolling. There is no way you just ignored every refutation of this argument literally posted on the same page and post the "just a theory" point.

 

[Marvolo]

So evolutionists don't even believe in their own theory.

Ok you need to read up on an elemntary textbook because clearly you missed this basic info. Spontaneous Generation that existed up until 1864 hasnt been accepted since 1864. Not by any scientist anyways. It stated that organic matter could just pop up from literally nothing. Something from nothing.

The current models of abiogenesis state that organic matter can only come from the combination of elements present on the early earth. To test this in 1952, in the*Miller-Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life. Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2),hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. As for why we dont see this process today, "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." Charels Darwin

In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

So to sum up:

The model of Spontaneous Generation accepted up until 1864 has been known to be false since 1964. It states that organic material can arise from nothing.

The current model of abiogenisis states that organic material such as the building blocks of life can ONLY come from elements already in existence and only under specific conditions. These elements such as carbon were born through natural processes during the forming of the planet, solar system, galaxy, and universe.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Sure, why not?

In reality though I think some higher power put us all here and evolution co-exists with religion. I'm not one of those "either / or" guys.

 

[KalMart]

Cells are not simple organisms. A single cell organism is more complex than a space shuttle.

And evolution doesn't propose that they just popped up, fully-formed, out of nothing. It took a long time to get there. Hello?

I already gave it to you. I guess I have to do it again. I'm talking about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis - The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

And again, the reason why that's long dismissed as an 'argument' is that it ignores so much that we know about chemistry, microbiology, and the time required for compounds and proteins etc .to eventually form organisms. You need to find better and newer tools, instead of beating a long dead horse 'again'.

IWhich evolution are you talking about? The word evolution has six different and unrelated meanings or stages.

The one that we know happened.

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has anything to do with real science.

I don't think you have a grasp on what real science is. Evolution of life and species isn't hypothetical.

Where did all the matter in the universe come from if a designer didn't create it?

Where did it come from if a designer did?

Evolution is a fact because you say it is.

No, it's because science says and shows it is through evidence and sound analysis/calculation...just like many sciences that even you may accept but don't see as an ideological or religious conflict.

Basically what you're saying is that I don't believe in evolution because I'm just too stupid to understand it.

I don't know what your true potential is, but you're obviously choosing to be either ignorant or in denial of it.

 

[Alpha Born]

Again, you need to get your terms right. “Spontaneous generation” is a long-discredited concept dating back to Aristotle. Observing that baby mice "mysteriously appeared" in grain stores (and even dirty laundry!) and that maggots "mysteriously appeared" in rotting meat, it was thought that certain life forms were spontaneously and routinely produced from non-life. Obviously, this is not what’s happening; and no textbook on evolution says otherwise.

Oh really? This is from a school Science textbook.

The theory is that the planet Earth began as a molten mass of matter a few billions years ago. It cooled off into solid, dry rock. Then, it rained on the rocks for millions of years, forming great oceans. Eventually, this "prebiotic rock soup" (water + rock) came alive and spawned the first self-replicating organic systems.

That's spontaneous generation.

 

[KalMart]

Oh really? This is from a school Science textbook.

The theory is that the planet Earth began as a molten mass of matter a few billions years ago. It cooled off into solid, dry rock. Then, it rained on the rocks for millions of years, forming great oceans. Eventually, this "prebiotic rock soup" (water + rock) came alive and spawned the first self-replicating organic systems.

And what about that do you find so hard to grasp? It took billions of years just to get started and gain momentum.

Hilarious that creationists will somehow find this implausible, but have no problem pointing to something as fantastical as an 'all powerful' designer who one day on a whim decided to just create/design something called life. One can't sit there and try to scrutinize real and applicable science when you have no scientific ground whatsoever to claim otherwise.