Evolution vs Creation

[RandyBoBandy]

rock-paper-scissors

[Salmon Slayer Lenny]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

There are two answers to this, I think.

There's a difference between blind faith and deferring to experts in a field - and science allows us to defer to experts who are constantly tested by other experts. If I'm unfamiliar with a subject, it's entirely reasonable to listen to those people who have spent their lifetime studying it.

Second, there's no secret or hidden knowledge in science. If I truly want to understand a subject, there are a multitude of people willing (and often excited) to explain it in as much or as little detail as I would like.

I don't disagree with you, for the most part.

First point you made assumes 'blind faith'. I don't think that most people of faith blindly believe, they believe for a reason - probably something that has convinced them to believe in what they do.

Second point, many atheists don't want to truly understand people of faith or to understand the subject. Many just as blindly reject it from the outset.

Ask any person to explain why they believe what they believe about something. Doesn't have to be related to religion but ask someone that is a Christian why they believe what they believe, we'd probably realize we all have a lot more in common and that they have reason to believe what they do. You don't have to agree with it.

Just my humble opinion.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by alta270

Good grief man, do you have any idea what a theory means to science? You clearly do not understand science, just through your use of the term in the way you have.

Here's short quiz. Tell us what you understand is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory in science?

Are you suggesting I'm a simpleton because I don't believe a theory to be proof?

Your avatar seems fitting.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Are you suggesting I'm a simpleton because I don't believe a theory to be proof?

Your avatar seems fitting.

Thanks for the personal shot. That's a great way to get a thread to be shut down.

You clearly do not understand what the word "theory" means in scientific terms. I repeat the question, do you understand what the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is in science.

It is a critical question, that will go a long way for anyone to understand science.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by alta270

Thanks for the personal shot. That's a great way to get a thread to be shut down.

You clearly do not understand what the word "theory" means in scientific terms. I repeat the question, do you understand what the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is in science.

It is a critical question, that will go a long way for anyone to understand science.

I take offence to you implying I'm a simpleton, I responded accordingly.

To answer your question, a hypothesis is your best guess, a theory's nothing more than an assumption.

Do you know what happens when you assume something?

[bb356]

Originally Posted by MrLeahy

rock-paper-scissors

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Are you suggesting I'm a simpleton because I don't believe a theory to be proof?

Theories are proof. They can change and broaden but are really good working models.

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

To answer your question, a hypothesis is your best guess, a theory's nothing more than an assumption.

Do you know what happens when you assume something?

Scientific theories are far more than that.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Salmon Slayer Lenny

I don't disagree with you, for the most part.

First point you made assumes 'blind faith'. I don't think that most people of faith blindly believe, they believe for a reason - probably something that has convinced them to believe in what they do.

Second point, many atheists don't want to truly understand people of faith or to understand the subject. Many just as blindly reject it from the outset.

Ask any person to explain why they believe what they believe about something. Doesn't have to be related to religion but ask someone that is a Christian why they believe what they believe, we'd probably realize we all have a lot more in common and that they have reason to believe what they do. You don't have to agree with it.

Just my humble opinion.

I think the atheist camp does tend to lump all believers into the fundamentalist science-denier category, and that's probably not fair to a lot of people.

I can understand a person wanting to believe from an emotional or personal experience. I can't understand letting that belief get in the way of understanding how the world works.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Big Thumper

Theories are proof.

Lol, ok.

[Freddy]

What are the mathematical odds our earth can support life?
http://www.reasons.org/articles/prob...-life-on-earth
Now take this number 10-388
10 to 388 power or 10 with 388 zeros behind it and times this number with the odds that live evolved out of primordial soup.
Well hard to figure out the odds. But they have put a figure on the number of years it would take to get life. http://www.originthefilm.com/mathematics.php
Well again the estimated life of the universe is substantially younger.
A screen shot from the above article.
Using this science and mathatical probabilities,you need more faith to believe in Darwinism then to believe Intelligent design.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Big Thumper

Scientific theories are far more than that.

No, they aren't. The basis of which a theory is developed may include some facts, but is NOT proof, just an assumption. Proof cannot be proven wrong, theories can.

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Using this science and mathatical probabilities,you need more faith to believe in Darwinism then to believe Intelligent design.

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.

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

No, they aren't. The basis of which a theory is developed may include some facts, but is NOT proof, just an assumption. Proof cannot be proven wrong, theories can.

Your statement shows your lack of formal scientific education.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by MrLeahy

rock-paper-scissors

I see your rock-paper-scissors and raise you lizard-spock!!!

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Big Thumper

Theories are proof.

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

[bb356]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Lol, ok.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLmUJCCKBTk

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by bb356

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLmUJCCKBTk

Zactly

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

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

Well, that would be a shock to my colleagues, I'll likely no longer be working in my chosen field

You seem to want to argue and yet you don't even understand the meaning of a theory.
Do you really think that the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity, etc are just assumptions?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

I think the atheist camp does tend to lump all believers into the fundamentalist science-denier category, and that's probably not fair to a lot of people.

Whoa, back up the boat, that's not fair. I was born and raised Catholic, jumped ship and became an agnostic - just in case. I threw in the towel when I went on an honest search.

The problem I have with people that push Creationism - is that it's too easy. People don't understand the "Big Bang" because they don't know where to look or they simply don't want to look. Many people think "big bang" came out of nowhere, just an explosion in space for no reason. One needs to take that quantum leap in order to understand what big bang is, one needs to try to understand multiverse. Mathematically, multiverse has been predicted to exist - now it needs to be proven. I don't claim to understand the math - but it makes alot of sense.

100 years after Einsteins math "predicted" gravitational waves and black holes - well...

There is so much out there that we don't know, predictions that are waiting to be proven - but it's going to be interesting. Wish I could live for another couple of hundred years just to see what transpires.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

a theory's nothing more than an assumption.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

No, they aren't. The basis of which a theory is developed may include some facts, but is NOT proof, just an assumption. Proof cannot be proven wrong, theories can.

Scientific theories are far, far more than assumptions.

Theories are structured sets of ideas used to explain and interpret facts. They are supported by evidence.

While theories can be superceded by new theories when new evidence is presented, these new theories must also be supported by the existing evidence.

Claiming "It's just a theory" is essentially claiming "It's just a broad set of ideas used to interpret all available evidence".

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by bb356

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLmUJCCKBTk

Where did you dig that up from lol

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Whoa, back up the boat, that's not fair. I was born and raised Catholic, jumped ship and became an agnostic - just in case. I threw in the towel when I went on an honest search.

The problem I have with people that push Creationism - is that it's too easy. People don't understand the "Big Bang" because they don't know where to look or they simply don't want to look. Many people think "big bang" came out of nowhere, just an explosion in space for no reason. One needs to take that quantum leap in order to understand what big bang is, one needs to try to understand multiverse. Mathematically, multiverse has been predicted to exist - now it needs to be proven. I don't claim to understand the math - but it makes alot of sense.

100 years after Einsteins math "predicted" gravitational waves and black holes - well...

There is so much out there that we don't know, predictions that are waiting to be proven - but it's going to be interesting. Wish I could live for another couple of hundred years just to see what transpires.

Don't read too much into that line, it was just a reminder that there are some religious folks out there who don't let it interfere with their understanding of the universe.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Big Thumper

Well, that would be a shock to my colleagues, I'll likely no longer be working in my chosen field

You seem to want to argue and yet you don't even understand the meaning of a theory.
Do you really think that the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity, etc are just assumptions?

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?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Don't read too much into that line, it was just a reminder that there are some religious folks out there who don't let it interfere with their understanding of the universe.

No sweat. You may want to change your wording though. Theory is more of a guess or uncertainty. Much of the so-called theory surrounding the universe is actually mathematical predictions.

[silverdoctor]

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?

Oh my, caught up on a word. The theory of relativity is actually a series of mathematical predictions Kurt - many have been proven. Can we achieve the speed of light? Won't be proven to be true or false in our lifetime.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Oh my, caught up on a word. The theory of relativity is actually a series of mathematical predictions Kurt - many have been proven. Can we achieve the speed of light? Won't happen in our lifetime.

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.

[bb356]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Where did you dig that up from lol

Just remember it ... that it just kinda fit ... no offence ment to anyone .. but a crack at this clown

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by bb356

Just remember it ... that it just kinda fit ... no offence ment to anyone .. but a crack at this clown

Is that picture real or photoshopped?

[silverdoctor]

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.

No worries Kurt. The idea of God won't disappear because of a thread on AO.

Even if the technology existed tomorrow that proves the big bang correct - and they could take a picture of a parallel universe - the vast majority of the 7.5 billion people on the planet won't believe it - or they will claim that God must have created it. That's not theory, not a prediction, that is a fact.

God is a belief - God is something you choose to believe in or not. Look around the world, the vast majority of the human race do believe in a God or multiple Gods - it may not be your God, but a God nonetheless.