Evolution vs Creation

[bb356]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Is that picture real or photoshopped?

Real

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Your statement proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

Take a close look at this graphic. It explains in simple terms what a hypothesis is and what a theory is. It describes the scientific method.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Well, I can't tell you what your colleagues would think of you if you told them the definition of theory is proof, I imagine they would be somewhat disappointed, and I can't tell you what you should be doing for a living, but it seems I understand the meaning of a theory better than you do.

The theory of relativity and the theory of gravity are in fact assumptions, but remember, not all assumptions are incorrect, however some theories are in fact incorrect, which means theories are not proof!


Definition of theory:

hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition

Definition of proof:

evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation

Can you see the difference?

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Exactly, in your statement you differentiate between theory and proof, two totally different words which cannot be interchanged and expected to have the same meaning.


I could really care less if someone believes in a God or not, but for someone to claim that without proof there cannot be a God, while denying the fact that there is no proof there is not a God, is being hypocritical. Get it?

Saying there is no God because there is no proof is the same as saying there is a God because there is no proof. Without proof, they are both just theories but some don't like to admit it.

You're still missing what a theory actually is.

A theory is not a guess, it's not a hypothesis and it's not conjecture.

A scientific theory is a means of explaining facts.

You have your example backwards. Without proof (evidence) there can be no theory on which to base it.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by alta270

Take a close look at this graphic. It explains in simple terms what a hypothesis is and what a theory is. It describes the scientific method.

Really? C'mon. That's grade school.

[Talking moose]

Here I thought I was the loneliest guy on the forum....I was wrong!!!!

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Here I thought I was the loneliest guy on the forum....I was wrong!!!!

God not on your side?

[Bub]

Can't believe this thread is still going. Or can I?

I wanted to stay away, but the amount of ignorance, or misinformation if you will, is rediculous (and I only read about three or four pages, including the last one).

You guys are talking about science. There is nothing to argue about, really. There are very strict definitions that can be easily found via Google.

Whatever you Kurt had posted as definitions of theory and proof are not, in fact, definitions, but merely synonyms and not really good ones either.

Theory is definitely not a proof. However, it is not a simple assumption either. Theory is not a hypothesis! In science, words have meaning and they are not always interchangeable. Isn't it a thing we all learned in grade school? The thing called a scientific method? (Stole a picture from Wikipedia)



I will keep my other thoughts to myself in regard to the original topic and try to continue staying away from this thread. But I am amazed, truly, at how people can argue about something that has a strict definition.

P.S. Newview, what is the "new view" in your handle refers to?

EDIT: OK, I will not take a break next time in the middle of typing a post

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

God not on your side?

I'm an oilers fan.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by alta270

Take a close look at this graphic. It explains in simple terms what a hypothesis is and what a theory is. It describes the scientific method.

I know and understand what a theory is, but I also know and can admit what a theory isn't. Can you?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

I'm an oilers fan.

Maybe it's the whisky, but LOL.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

I'm an oilers fan.

21 pages ... best post in the thread lol


If being an Oil fan didn't turn me to prayer nothing will

[Bub]

^ Amen!

[bb356]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

I'm an oilers fan.

oh.... a dreamer

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Bub

Whatever you Kurt had posted as definitions of theory and proof are not, in fact, definitions, but merely synonyms and not really good ones either.

Listen Bub......

Just kidding, I always wanted to use that line.

FYI, those were exact words copy and pasted from the definitions, not just synonyms I came up with.


Recap:

My thoughts are that both creation and evolution are at play here.

To believe that without proof there is no God, but not admitting that without there being proof there could be a God, is hypocritical.

A theory is an assumption, not proof.

[raab]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Flip it around. Show proof there is a God. Should be simple. As simple as proving a negative.

Again you didn't answer my questions. Bueller Bueller.

Check out what holds the human body together... Laminin.

[Bub]

Kurt, you are making it hard for me to stay away

A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask.

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

And so on. Specifically,

The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

An important part of scientific theory includes statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

Taken from here.

Theory is not an assumption. Like I said previously, words have specific definitions and are not interchangeable. There cannot be another meaning or understanding since that meaning is narrowly defined. It is not a law, in legal terms, that is open to interpretations. "Things" are specifically defined in order to have a certain meaning that can be communicated and generally accepted in scientific community, not only at a local college or a university, but more so internationally.

P.S. Anything can be copied and pasted. What you provided previously is a set of words, but not a definition by any stretch.

[raab]

Originally Posted by Big Thumper

Its been stated in this thread time and time again that evolution does not explain the origin of life yet its keeps getting posted as a proof of creationism.

What was the name of Darwin's book again?

[Unregistered user]

Has anyone here taken the time to read The origin of species?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by alta270

That has been posted at least 7 times now, but for some reason, creationists do not read it, do not want to read it, or stay with their previous conceived ideas due to complete and utter indoctrination from childhood on.

Evolution is ONLY about speciation, not the origin of life. Please understand that!

You have got to be kidding me Kevin. I have stated many times that the premise of the thread was the origin of life.

Evolution is real. Micro yes, macro no.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Bub

P.S. Newview, what is the "new view" in your handle refers to?

EDIT: OK, I will not take a break next time in the middle of typing a post

Good question.

There is no answer to that question.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by raab

What was the name of Darwin's book again?

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Origin of species, not origin of life.

To actually quote from that book:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved."

[bytchtyts]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Listen Bub......

Just kidding, I always wanted to use that line.

FYI, those were exact words copy and pasted from the definitions, not just synonyms I came up with.


Recap:

My thoughts are that both creation and evolution are at play here.

To believe that without proof there is no God, but not admitting that without there being proof there could be a God, is hypocritical.

A theory is an assumption, not proof.

By your definition there is:

A) the theory of God existing and,

B) the theory of evolution

The difference between the two is that there is plentiful evidence to back up the theory of evolution (fossil record, genetics, virus research and medical applications, so-called "micro evolution", etc.) and very little evidence to back of the theory of God.

[Newview01]

Some things I will add,

1) There is a misconception that Creationists are "anti-science" or hate science or something along those lines. My experience has been anything but that. Science fascinates pretty much everybody I know.

2) A lot of pro-Creationist people are in fact scientists with more degrees than I can count. They write peer reviewed articles. A great magazine that I subscribe to is Acts and Facts - it has a lot of information that backs up the creation theory. Unfortunately the majority of you will denounce it as a biased, unscientific rag without reading a single piece from it - your loss. The reality is that as mentioned, all articles published are biased - no scientist comes into the debate without trying to confirm their beliefs. Evolutionist scientists have made up their fare share of outlandish claims...

[alta270]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Really? C'mon. That's grade school.

Details, details, details.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I know and understand what a theory is, but I also know and can admit what a theory isn't. Can you?

Kurt, everything you have posted indicates you do NOT understand what a theory is in the scientific world. You use it in the vernacular, where it means "a guess", where as science uses it as a definition of where the evidence leads it, and what that evidence indicates.

Once you truly understand that, then a realistic debate can be had. But if you keep calling an apple an orange, we are not communicating.

[KegRiver]

In the end, will it really matter? We are born, we live, we die.
What we believe will not change that.

There is some benefit to keeping an open mind, we may learn new ways to live that will make life easier or longer.

Holding to one belief or another shuts out possibilities that may exist.

I see both sides shutting out possibilities. But not everyone on either side, just the most vocal.

Some renowned scientists believed in creation, many scientists believe in God.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b057d7d7c7a1e5

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Newview01

You have got to be kidding me Kevin. I have stated many times that the premise of the thread was the origin of life.

Evolution is real. Micro yes, macro no.

And what do you think a succession of micro evolutionary steps make in the end?

It's the same as what a number of inches add up to eventually. Miles.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Salmon Slayer Lenny

I responded to this statement earlier and you ignored the question. I'll ask it again, "what evidence could be sufficient that would convince you that there is a god?" So, from your perspective, what evidence could be presented to you that would cause you to believe?

If there is a God he would have to reveal himself to me.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

In the end, will it really matter? We are born, we live, we die.
What we believe will not change that.

There is some benefit to keeping an open mind, we may learn new ways to live that will make life easier or longer.

Holding to one belief or another shuts out possibilities that may exist.

I see both sides shutting out possibilities. But not everyone on either side, just the most vocal.

Some renowned scientists believed in creation, many scientists believe in God.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b057d7d7c7a1e5

I think most atheists would say they do not believe in a god, as there is no evidence of such an entity existing. Is there a possibility such an entity exists? Yes, there are many things that may be possible (ghosts, vampires, faeries, etc.) but there is no evidence for them.

Think of it this way, there have been thousands of gods humans have believed in over the eons. Most religious people on this forum reject all of them because there is no evidence, or their faith teaches them otherwise.

Atheists don't believe in only one less gods than those of faith believe in.

It's that simple.