"Creation"

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Being unsure is just as bad as actively disbelieving. Evolution is so well established that to be unsure of whether the theory is sound is like being unsure of gravity.

Yet there's a *law* of gravity, no? Obviously evolution isn't *that* well established.

I really hope, for your own sake, that you are joking.

Evolution can be observed in real life in any biology lab near you, if it didn't work the way the theory says it works then we'd all be immune to every bacteria and every virus by now (with the possible exception of HIV that is a bit different).

Don't you get it, how the FUCK do you think they develop vaccines for viruses that don't even exist yet... do you think... A. they take a wild guess or B. they cultivate the virus to see how it develops to survive.

For the love of fuck, don't deny evolution as a fact because it most certainly is a fact.

(awaits the macro vs micro evolution debate and before it hits, check out my earlier posts)

There is no doubt what so ever that evolution happens, none, nada, zilch, zero.

It is as much a fact as gravity is. That gravity has a "law" is because it's much less complex than living organisms evolution, i think even you can grasp that.

In a way the law is comparable to the scientific theory of evolutions predictions.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Being unsure is just as bad as actively disbelieving. Evolution is so well established that to be unsure of whether the theory is sound is like being unsure of gravity.

Yet there's a *law* of gravity, no? Obviously evolution isn't *that* well established.

Evolution can't be boiled down to a single, overarching mathematical equation like Newton's Law of Gravitation. Ironically while evolution is incredibly well established, the law of gravity you cite has been proven wrong.

I think i know what you are talking about, is it about the New Hubble sightings that don't appear to follow the law?

I say we arrest them!

Seriously though, is that what you are talking about?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Being unsure is just as bad as actively disbelieving. Evolution is so well established that to be unsure of whether the theory is sound is like being unsure of gravity.

Yet there's a *law* of gravity, no? Obviously evolution isn't *that* well established.

Evolution can't be boiled down to a single, overarching mathematical equation like Newton's Law of Gravitation. Ironically while evolution is incredibly well established, the law of gravity you cite has been proven wrong.

I think i know what you are talking about, is it about the New Hubble sightings that don't appear to follow the law?

I say we arrest them!

Seriously though, is that what you are talking about?

No I'm just talking about Newtonian gravity being supplanted by General Relativity, although the observations you mentioned may be the harbingers of doom for that theory too There are a few anomalous observations lately regarding gravity, things are starting to get interesting.

In any case, gravitational theory is a wonderful example of why we use the word "theory" - we have a big basket of facts (say, that species change over time according to their environment, known facts about DNA mutation, etc) and we use a theory to glue these facts together into something cohesive and internally consistent. The theory can and will change as we amass more and more facts about the world around us, but none of that changes the currently known facts (like, say, that we humans share a common ancestor with dandelions). Of course you tell the creationists that evolutionary theory is likely to change and they will immediately misinterpret what you're saying and freak out.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Being unsure is just as bad as actively disbelieving. Evolution is so well established that to be unsure of whether the theory is sound is like being unsure of gravity.

Yet there's a *law* of gravity, no? Obviously evolution isn't *that* well established.

Evolution can't be boiled down to a single, overarching mathematical equation like Newton's Law of Gravitation. Ironically while evolution is incredibly well established, the law of gravity you cite has been proven wrong.

I think i know what you are talking about, is it about the New Hubble sightings that don't appear to follow the law?

I say we arrest them!

Seriously though, is that what you are talking about?

No I'm just talking about Newtonian gravity being supplanted by General Relativity, although the observations you mentioned may be the harbingers of doom for that theory too There are a few anomalous observations lately regarding gravity, things are starting to get interesting.

In any case, gravitational theory is a wonderful example of why we use the word "theory" - we have a big basket of facts (say, that species change over time according to their environment, known facts about DNA mutation, etc) and we use a theory to glue these facts together into something cohesive and internally consistent. The theory can and will change as we amass more and more facts about the world around us, but none of that changes the currently known facts (like, say, that we humans share a common ancestor with dandelions). Of course you tell the creationists that evolutionary theory is likely to change and they will immediately misinterpret what you're saying and freak out.

*smashes head on the desk* I KNEW THAT, the law of too much complexity strikes again and this time it was my turn... I just took for granted that you meant just that because of your handle.

Of course, that is what a scientific theory is for, attempts to falsify it either verify, change or discards it (although i am not really aware of any theory that has been discarded there are a lot of hypotheises that have been).

As time passes, the facts are gathered more and more and eventually... well eventually noting changes because it'll still be the scientific theory of evolution and the creationsts and ignoramuses will still say "it's just a theory".

Seems like a hopeless endavour, doesn't it, except for one thing, there are fewer creationists for every generation which ironically enough pretty much proves evolution. (i'm half joking)

 

[Schmide]

I'm going to jump in here a give a few reasons why I prefer theory to fact when addressing an active field of study.

Logically, if you declare something as fact, you only need to disprove a very small portion of it to revoke this status as fact. It becomes a house of cards. It is equally hard to use the term fact to describe something that is so broad in scope. People don't like it when facts change and evolve.

It would be nice to give the status of law to evolution, but laws often end up with expecting to see repeatable predictable events. Evolution, while very ordered, is often not predictable. (at least when dealing with future events)

That leaves theory, a broad term that describes the mundane to the robust. For a true scientist everything is a theory built on observations we conveniently label as facts. For them it holds as much credibility as any other term.

The psychology of "just a theory" has its advantages and disadvantages. It may be seen as less than fact in many people eyes. It could be said that because of this it is equally less imposing. If it causes some people to fear it less, good. If it causes a credibility issue, ehh.

I doubt any of this really matters to creationists, for their belief rests in none of the above terms.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Schmide
I'm going to jump in here a give a few reasons why I prefer theory to fact when addressing an active field of study.

Logically, if you declare something as fact, you only need to disprove a very small portion of it to revoke this status as fact. It becomes a house of cards. It is equally hard to use the term fact to describe something that is so broad in scope. People don't like it when facts change and evolve.

It would be nice to give the status of law to evolution, but laws often end up with expecting to see repeatable predictable events. Evolution, while very ordered, is often not predictable. (at least when dealing with future events)

That leaves theory, a broad term that describes the mundane to the robust. For a true scientist everything is a theory built on observations we conveniently label as facts. For them it holds as much credibility as any other term.

The psychology of "just a theory" has its advantages and disadvantages. It may be seen as less than fact in many people eyes. It could be said that because of this it is equally less imposing. If it causes some people to fear it less, good. If it causes a credibility issue, ehh.

I doubt any of this really matters to creationists, for their belief rests in none of the above terms.

Well, that evolution happens is a fact not one human being in this world can disprove, it does, daily and it's observed to happen, daily.

Now that doesn't mean that the theory in itself is perfect, hell, if it was then studying it would be over. But the facts are the facts and the scientific theory is a way to describe HOW it happens.

So yeah, regardless of what you say, evolution is a fact, the scientific theory that explains how it happens is never going to be complete, there is always another test or attempt to falsify it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: shira

Religion was created - by men - to, in part, justify this behavior.

Wasn't science created by man, as well?

No it was discovered by man.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.

So, Darwin is now responsible for the Holocaust. How in the world do people come up with this shite? Better yet, why is the opinion of such people/organizations worth being reported? How many people actually believe this nonsense? Aargh, I hate people.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: shira

Religion was created - by men - to, in part, justify this behavior.

Wasn't science created by man, as well?

No it was discovered by man.

Owned