Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my opinion, Vansdad, there is no difference at all.
We have each viewed the world around us and, based on our observations, we have formed our own opinions.
In my case, I have no opinion about the Big Bang, but I definitely believe in evolution. I believe there was a non-human female who lived 30 million years ago who was the direct ancestor of you and me and the gorilla we saw at the zoo last week.
Key word, belief. It does come in all shapes and sizes.
I *have* explained this to you before. You either can't understand, or choose to ignore the basics. Any person who utters "only theory" when addressing evolutionary theory CLEARLY does not understand the way science works. Gravity is also "only" a theory. Great Grazing Goat, man, we have been over this before and I am not responsible for your education.
Evolution is a FACT. Evolutionary Theory explains the mechanisms of evolution (the fact). Theories don't require proof unless you are dealing with mathematics. NONE OF THEM. If you state what you state above in bold, it makes you sound like an ignoramus. Evolutionary theory is subject to falsification. Gravitation is also ONLY a theory and subject to falsification. Both theories have been modified, but NEVER FALSIFIED.
The theory of evolution, as you so ignorantly characterize, is NOT merely a guess, no more than gravity is some sort of guess. We can say with virtual certainty that every apple that falls off of an apple tree will fall to the ground, but we cannot PROVE that the very next apple will not float off into outer space. If it did, gravity would be falsified and science would have to dust itself off and look around for another explanation for the attraction of bodies with mass to other bodies with mass.
The same goes for evolution, it has never been falsified and until/when IT IS falsified, it remains a rock-solid explanation for the wide diversity of life we observe on this planet.
DEAL WITH IT! NO FAITH REQUIRED OR NEEDED.
[why am I wasting my time?]
Definitions:
Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Fact: A real occurrence; an event.
Here's an example:
Fact: The earth revolves around the sun.
Theory: The Big Bang.
Do you now understand what is meant by the theory of evolution?
And even if you want to continue believing in it as fact, the fact is it still does not explain how we came into existence.
Definitions:
Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Fact: A real occurrence; an event.
Here's an example:
Fact: The earth revolves around the sun.
Theory: The Big Bang.
Do you now understand what is meant by the theory of evolution?
And even if you want to continue believing in it as fact, the fact is it still does not explain how we came into existence.
In the case of science, your definition of theory is incorrect. While in common parlance, a theory is just a guess based on limited information, in science, a theory has been tested repeatedly and is correct for all observed results. A scientific theory allows us to make predictions. What you describe as a theory is actually a hypothesis in science.
The theory of evolution is a theory in the same sense that the theory of gravity is a theory.
Definitions:
Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Fact: A real occurrence; an event.
Here's an example:
Fact: The earth revolves around the sun.
Theory: The Big Bang.
Do you now understand what is meant by the theory of evolution?
And even if you want to continue believing in it as fact, the fact is it still does not explain how we came into existence.
You are not correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2
In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences.
In the case of science, your definition of theory is incorrect. While in common parlance, a theory is just a guess based on limited information, in science, a theory has been tested repeatedly and is correct for all observed results. A scientific theory allows us to make predictions. What you describe as a theory is actually a hypothesis in science.
The theory of evolution is a theory in the same sense that the theory of gravity is a theory.
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
And the theory of evolution is not fact by any stretch of the imagination. The debate continues because of incomplete facts. The missing link, per ce.
As for gravity there are written theories however it does exist as a fact. The theories are to do with how it works not whether it exists.
"Although many people had already noted that gravity exists, Newton was the first to develop a cohesive explanation for gravity".
"As for the science behind the action, we know that Isaac Newton defined gravity as a force -- one that attracts all objects to all other objects. We know that Albert Einstein said gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time. These two theories are the most common and widely held (if somewhat incomplete) explanations of gravity."
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
And the theory of evolution is not fact by any stretch of the imagination. The debate continues because of incomplete facts. The missing link, per ce.
As for gravity there are written theories however it does exist as a fact. The theories are to do with how it works not whether it exists.
"Although many people had already noted that gravity exists, Newton was the first to develop a cohesive explanation for gravity".
"As for the science behind the action, we know that Isaac Newton defined gravity as a force -- one that attracts all objects to all other objects. We know that Albert Einstein said gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time. These two theories are the most common and widely held (if somewhat incomplete) explanations of gravity."
My link on gravity was a satire on the whole theory debate.
There is NO missing link. The whole missing link thing is a misunderstanding of how evolution works. There are many links and there are no missing ones. Despite the use of the term here, the fact is that there are plenty of fossils and that the fossil record is incomplete for many reasons that don't have to do with such links.
I agree totally. Coercion does not equal free will. Genuine free will would include the choice to reject god's offer *without* consequences.
I have discussed this aspect of free will numerous times and it is not from the aspect of choosing gawd or not. That is just the theists rote chanting their mantras.
In secular life, free will does not exist. ALL your choices in life are governed by external influences outside of your control.
To illustrate, a brief biography.
I was born in Livingstone Zambia in 58 and we left soon after independence in 65. No choice I was a kid.
I grew up in Bulawayo Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and all of those experiences there were as a result of the move in 65. That country too went independent and I left in 81 mainly because South Africa presented a more modern lifestyle to a young person and my folks had already moved to SA.
I got involved with drugs and eventually ended up back with my folks where my dad got me a job because he was in recruitment at the power station he worked at.
I met my wife here. She made a trip by train to come visit her cousin who was also working in the town we stay in and her cousin managed to organise her a job through friends of hers who had a vacancy for a PA.
Our home towns are 3000+km apart and where we met up was like in the centre but not really a place one would expect to actually go to as a first choice to settle down. Neither of us "chose" to come to this town, it was circumstances outside of our control, the only common factor was we were both unemployed on arrival and had family ties with connections.
Every single decision I have made in life, I was not in control of the external influences.
You do not even have free will to choose when to urinate or have a bowel movement, that is governed by the needs of your body and when you gotta go you gotta go.
Sit down and think of your past and try and determine where you actually had "free will" to determine your destiny.
Had my father chosen to emigrate to Australia from Livingstone when he had the opportunity, job lined up, boat trip already paid for by the company etc. My destiny would have been entirely different and I would have never met my wife.
Now I have to go get me some coffee b/c my brain is telling me I am thirsty and I am a caffeine addict to boot.
Yes. Dads. You misunderstand the idea of a scientific theory. You accept the 'fact' that the earth evolves around the sun - why? Because science tells you so. The way it looks to you - make that all of us - is as it did to the ancients - including those who write the Bible. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. We still use the term today but, because of the persistent investigations of science we have changed that view and you now call it a 'Fact'. For centuries of course, it was denied, principally by the church, who insisted that the sun revolved around the earth.
Nobody here has actually seen the earth do this. It is in a real sense a 'scientific theory; -an explanation backed up be more and more facts until even Vansdad an say it is a fact.
Evolution is exactly the same sort of theory backed up with ever more facts and evidence - even if nobody has ever seen evolution between species happen. But we have seen it happen within species and that fact is accepted even by creationists. So when you say that there is no evidence to support it, that is totally incorrect. The denial is that this process which is accepted as FACT even by Creationists as 'micro -evolution' could even lead over time to changes which would transform one creature into one that looks very different. The fossil evidence is that that is exactly what happened and the DNA evidence confirms it.
Do you see, dads, how your objections are totally misunderstood, irrational and plain foolish? You are wrong even with this:
"And even if you want to continue believing in it as fact, the fact is it still does not explain how we came into existence." Of course it does. That's exactly what evolution theory does. And it has facts to back it up.
Of course you are reverting to the 'abiogenesis' line of defence. If evolution from the fossil pre-cambrian formations through sea- insects,fish, amphibians,reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals, primates and hominids is fact, then it is a bit perverse to deny that the obvious conclusion is that the same process started it all off.
While there is in fact no real evidence to support a theory of abiogenesis, there are a number of plausible explanations. They are hypothetical, but it is silly to claim that it simply could not happen. And if it could, it just denialist to insist that there can be no alternative to goddunnit. If you are prepared to listen I can set out the research and facts that support the abiogensis hypothesis.
Dads, you really have no case at all and I am at a loss to understand why you can't face facts. The fact being that the evidence for evolution is compelling. If you accepted that you wouldn't even need to give up your Faith. God could still have arranged all that to happen, though not quite as described in genesis, but then who but the most rabid of inerrantists insists that every word of the bible has to be taken as literal fact?
Come on, Vansdad. You have a chance to be reasonable and stop bashing you brains out and making your self look foolish by denying evidence with half -baked nonsense.
We believe what we believe. We believe what makes sense to us.
And a terrible methodology that is too. Quite a lot of true facts do not "make sense" and quite a lot of falsehoods do. If your sole criteria for belief is to look for what "makes sense" then this explains many of the errors and unsubstantiated beliefs you hold on to.
The human mind is not evolved to "make sense" of the universe at very large and very small levels. It is solely constructed to function in the "middle" area where we live. Our science learns more and more each day about the very large and small and as a scientist who studies these things often I can assure you very little of it "makes sense" to our limited human capabilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad
Belief does require faith but so does the theory of evolution and the big bang.
You willfully ignored by post where I pointed out the difference here however. In the case of Evolution for example the beliefs are substantiated. In the case of your god, it is not. It is just made up and you believe it for no other reason than you believe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad
So you also comprehend how the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are only theories and not facts.
You really are not a scientist are you. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a Theory. They are not the same thing. Gravity is a fact. Gravitational Theory is a Theory. They are also not the same thing.
If you are going to pretend to talk about science then start by learning what the terms mean first son.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad
And it is quite clear you do not understand the word proof.
Neither do you it seems. In Science "proof" means "to test". This is a different to the vernacular meaning of "to show to be undeniably true".
In science when we say we want to "prove" something we mean we want to test it rigorously and attempt to falsify it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad
Definitions:
Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
You are using vernacular definitions and applying them to science situations. This is wantonly disgingenuous and dishonest. "Theory" in science does not mean the same as the vernacular definition you just lifted from a dictionary. It means something else entirely. In science Theory is something that has been substantiated and tested to the limits of our capabilities and has been shown to be true in the face of that and every attempt at falsification.
If you want to continue to use vernacular definitions in scientific contexts you are going to achieve nothing at all save to put a big sign over your own head saying "This user knows literally nothing about Science or the Scientific Method".
So when we use the word "Theory" in "Theory of Evolution" we are not merely saying it is a hypothesis. We are saying it is a system of claims that are well substantiated, have passed all the rigors of science, and we have every reason to think them true and no reason to think them false.
No insult but I did think it was funny. We don't share the same sense of humour and probably we don't share the same belief. But if you are looking for an explanation of my beliefs as to not leave you in the dark here it is:
1. God is a living Being, as we are living beings however He is much more superior to us and His limitations are a lot less, but He does have limitations.
2. He works within the laws of nature which He created, which is His limitations I mentioned.
3. He can communicate to us, through many different means, like other people or written words for example.
4. I do not believe God judges us as we see judgement. Therefore no heaven and hell. We all meet God, Our Creator, when we die and are enlightened about our life.
5. Not everyone is meant to believe in God, atheists can provide objective reasoning.
But I do believe that in the End we meet our Maker, per ce as I already mentioned. We all do as far as I believe.
There are a few. There are things I don't know, I'm only human. I'm sure not the religious/Christian outlook you were expecting.
I see nothing which passes for a reason to believe in this list. I see lots of statements of faith, but still have no idea why you accept these and reject other equally [un]reasonable claims from other religions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
