Do You Believe In Evolution?

[spideyboy_1111]

Only one of those things is an actual theory, though.

actually both are... God technically is just as much of a theory as evolution is. Truth is we have absolutely no idea what created atoms, or what caused the big bang. we just theorize that it happened. and people theorize that a deity created them.

 

[squeekness]

exactly, squeeks, we should run for joint presidency of the world... we'd totally be the most fair :-P, plus who wouldn't love us with you lookin all cute in your crown, on my shoulder. Plus i'd totally give you a diamond studded hamster ball

LOL, I'm so there...

Only one of those things is an actual scientific theory, though.

Spoiler

I'm a stickler for enforcing the definition of scientific theory, in case you couldn't tell. Too many misconceptions over the word.

Well, since nothing can be absolutely proven either way, I consider them both to be theories, both with sound ideas that deserve merit.

 

[Carcharodon]

actually both are... God technically is just as much of a theory as evolution is. Truth is we have absolutely no idea what created atoms, or what caused the big bang. we just theorize that it happened. and people theorize that a deity created them.

Scientific theory. Read the edit, damnit.

Evolution has been supported over and over again by known evidence. A scientific theory isn't just an idea: it's a model that is created to incorporate and explain the known evidence, and usually it has to be supported over and over again to graduate from mere hypothesis to the status of theory.

God has no such proof...which is fine, that doesn't invalidate the belief in God, but it does mean that as a scientific theory, the two don't compare in the slightest.

 

[Carcharodon]

Well, since nothing can be absolutely proven either way, I consider them both to be theories, both with sound ideas that deserve merit.

Here's my problem with this: there needs to be a distinction made. It's bad enough as it is when about 1% of the population knows the difference between a scientific theory and the laymen definition of theory (the difference between evolution and the existence of God, respectively), but to propogate that false idea?

No, I'm not gonna let that happen when I see it.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Scientific theory. Read the edit, damnit.

hehe i was too fast for ya!

 

[Nirvana]

Of course I believe in some aspects of Evolution. We adapt and evolve as a species all the time.

 

[Franklin Richards]

"Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the *****, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days."

 

[Carcharodon]

"Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the *****, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days."

I should go watch that.

 

[Bubonic]

God certainly isn't as valid a theory as evolution, especially God as most people understand him nowadays.

Agnostics at least admit that although they believe there might be a cosmic force, they don't limit it to an old book of fables like the Torah, Koran, or Bible and any other man-made system of control.

 

[chaseter]

This argument doesn't work anyways when applied to evolution: it's based in the false idea that there was an individual that evolved into the first chicken (bird) from reptiles, when in fact an individual cannot evolve.

Just go with it The first chicken could have very well been born live hence the chicken could have came first.

 

[chaseter]

It'd be awesome to be able to reliably predict evolution mathematically, but the best we could EVER do would have to be some probability model. Even THAT would be nearly impossible. It'll never happen.

It will never happen because we cannot mathematically predict mother nature

 

[chaseter]

It won't happen because there are way too many variables to chart. Weather plays a lot into these things and we can't even predict that, nevermind try to guess how it might effect this or that species.

Yeah, exactly. It's the best of both worlds and answers more of the questions in my opinion. I don't see why there can't be any compromise between the two theories.

exactly, squeeks, we should run for joint presidency of the world... we'd totally be the most fair :-P, plus who wouldn't love us with you lookin all cute in your crown, on my shoulder. Plus i'd totally give you a diamond studded hamster ball

I believe the exact same thing as well You can't run for world presidency...wait...you are the anti Christ

 

[squeekness]

I believe the exact same thing as well You can't run for world presidency...wait...you are the anti Christ

Yeah, I forgot about that, me and the Pope being such best of friends these days.


If the word theory can be defiend as such in Websters :

2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.


...it stands to reason that both Creationism and Evolution and my odd mixture of the two can all qualify as theories, not one over the other.

 

[Majic Walrus]

God certainly isn't as valid a theory as evolution, especially God as most people understand him nowadays.

Agnostics at least admit that although they believe there might be a cosmic force, they don't limit it to an old book of fables like the Torah, Koran, or Bible and any other man-made system of control.

I would say that the word "agnostic" is incredibly perverted as shown by your usage of the word.

Agnostics admit that they do not know one way or another. Because the word agnostic literally means without knowledge.

 

[chaseter]

Evolution is a theory because we can't really hold a scientific experiment over thousands-millions of years. However, it is a very plausible and sound theory.

 

[Carcharodon]

Just go with it The first chicken could have very well been born live hence the chicken could have came first.

All I'm saying is that when it's put in that context it's perpetrating common misconceptions about evolution which, frankly, I'm tired of.

 

[Carcharodon]

...it stands to reason that both Creationism and Evolution and my odd mixture of the two can all qualify as theories, not one over the other.

You're going to make me facepalm, squeek.

When you say that, you're reducing evolution to less than scientific theory. Do you understand how a scientific theory and a scientifically unsupported idea aren't the same?

Listen to me very, very carefully: I'm NOT saying that the belief in God is invalid, or that your particular beliefs are invalid, OR that one is somehow "more" than the other, when I say that the two aren't comparable.

I AM saying that the lines of reasoning and evidence (or lack thereof) make these two ideas uncomparable with respect to the nature of the word theory.

 

[Carcharodon]

When you say that, you're reducing evolution to less than scientific theory.

Listen to me very, very carefully: I'm NOT saying that the belief in God is invalid, or that your particular beliefs are invalid, OR that one is somehow "more" than the other, when I say that the two aren't comparable.

Poor choice of words, not quite how I meant it. I should say OTHER THAN scientific theory.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Evolution has been supported over and over again by known evidence.

That so-called "evidence" has yet to conclusively prove that the cosmos originated from an explosion of nothing. You'd think after 150 years, folks would throw out the evolution theory, and replace it.

A scientific theory isn't just an idea: it's a model that is created to incorporate and explain the known evidence, and usually it has to be supported over and over again to graduate from mere hypothesis to the status of theory.

And even then, it's still an unprovable scientific idea. If humanity could 100% prove evolution, beyond a shadow of a doubt, it wouldn't be called a theory anymore...it'd be a fact. But that hasn't happened, and there's a reason for it: it's false.

God has no such proof...which is fine, that doesn't invalidate the belief in God, but it does mean that as a scientific theory, the two don't compare in the slightest.

This always amuses and puzzles me at the same time. How are humans supposed to prove the existence of a spiritual being, relying soleley on science as a method? You cannot approach a spiritual subject without a matching approach; that'd be like trying to explain colors to a blind person...it just doesn't work, because there's no proper frame of reference.

 

[squeekness]

You're going to make me facepalm, squeek.

When you say that, you're reducing evolution to less than scientific theory. Do you understand how a scientific theory and a scientifically unsupported idea aren't the same?

Listen to me very, very carefully: I'm NOT saying that the belief in God is invalid, or that your particular beliefs are invalid, OR that one is somehow "more" than the other, when I say that the two aren't comparable.

I AM saying that the lines of reasoning and evidence (or lack thereof) make these two ideas uncomparable with respect to the nature of the word theory.

Not really. Since neither can be absolutely proven, how am I reducing evolution to less than a scientific theory? Both cannot be said to be absolute so they are both still theories. One may have more scientific backing than the other at present, but both are still theories just the same.

 

[Carcharodon]

That so-called "evidence" has yet to conclusively prove that the cosmos originated from an explosion of nothing. You'd think after 150 years, folks would throw out the evolution theory, and replace it.

That's not even what evolution is. You're clearly not qualified to talk about it...you don't even know what evolution attempts to explain.

Here, let me help you: evolution is a theory that solely attempts to explain the diversity of organisms.

It doesn't even ATTEMPT to explain the origin of life.

It doesn't even ATTEMPT to explain the origin of the universe.

In short: you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

And even then, it's still an unprovable scientific idea. If humanity could 100% prove evolution, beyond a shadow of a doubt, it wouldn't be called a theory anymore...it'd be a fact. But that hasn't happened, and there's a reason for it: it's false.

Fractured logic FTW!

This always amuses and puzzles me at the same time. How are humans supposed to prove the existence of a spiritual being, relying soleley on science as a method? You cannot approach a spiritual subject without a matching approach; that'd be like trying to explain colors to a blind person...it just doesn't work, because there's no proper frame of reference.

Actually, I agree with this. No argument here. Then again, you're kind of stating the obvious.

 

[Carcharodon]

Not really. Since neither can be absolutely proven, how am I reducing evolution to less than a scientific theory? Both cannot be said to be absolute so they are both still theories. One may have more scientific backing than the other at present, but both are still theories just the same.

You could have saved a lot of time and debate by saying: "I'm just going to ignore existing definitions and make up my own."

Then I would know not to bother.

It's pointless, so I'm out. Later.

 

[Danalys]

squeek according to the definition you brought up they are still incompatable.

2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

a scientific theory would be the well established proposition that it is in contrast to.

 

[Carcharodon]

actually both are... God technically is just as much of a theory as evolution is. Truth is we have absolutely no idea what created atoms, or what caused the big bang. we just theorize that it happened. and people theorize that a deity created them.

One more thing: we actually do have an idea where atoms came from.

I'm just going to stop posting in this thread, I think. It's hard to repeat the same arguments over and over to people who insist upon making assertions that are either outright false or grounded in pseudoscience. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it gets pointless after a while.

 

[squeekness]

You could have saved a lot of time and debate by saying: "I'm just going to ignore existing definitions and make up my own."

Then I would know not to bother.

It's pointless, so I'm out. Later.

From Websters:

THEORY:

–noun, plural -ries. 1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.6.contemplation or speculation.7.guess or conjecture.


How do these definitions make my point invalid? Because you think a religious idea can't be a theory? By these rules, it can be unless proven absolutely otherwise.....