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.
1. contemplation or speculation.
2. guess or conjecture.
________________________________________
[Origin: 1590–1600]
—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
the•o•ry n. pl. the•o•ries
1. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
It means that the THEORY of Evolution has not been proven and it never will because it did not happne this way. A ton of scientists now believe in "Intelligent Design" because they realize this theory (this concept, this wild guess of Drawin's imagination) is a bunch of bull.
Does everyone realize the THEORY of Evolution is mere fiction, not based on facts at all?? It is a mere wild guess!
I generally make it a point to stay out of this type of subject, but IMO the Theory of Evolotion is just as much a religion as the Creationist's viewpoint. There is little evidence to support macro evolution. It takes just as much faith to believe in one theory as the other. In fact, it would take more faith to believe in the theory of evolution being as they keep having to take things back. I believe that they created a whole ape-man "Nebraska Man" out of a single tooth they found. They had to take that one out of the history books being as it was a grasp at straws.
Also, the "science" that I was taught in school was that Pluto was a planet, all of a sudden that is not so. So "science" is just as much a belief system used as a reassurance as believing in a higher power is.
Think about it. If the theory of macro evolution is the truth, then we have no one to answer to, and who is going to care if we go around screwing people over our whole lives. What is the point of doing good if there is no one to answer to ultimately.
I have heard the arguement that the biblical Christians sometimes use which is. What will happen if I was wrong, nothing, I will die, go in the ground, rot and never think of anything again. But what if they aren't wrong...
I generally make it a point to stay out of this type of subject, but IMO the Theory of Evolotion is just as much a religion as the Creationist's viewpoint. There is little evidence to support macro evolution. It takes just as much faith to believe in one theory as the other. In fact, it would take more faith to believe in the theory of evolution being as they keep having to take things back. I believe that they created a whole ape-man "Nebraska Man" out of a single tooth they found. They had to take that one out of the history books being as it was a grasp at straws.
Also, the "science" that I was taught in school was that Pluto was a planet, all of a sudden that is not so. So "science" is just as much a belief system used as a reassurance as believing in a higher power is.
Think about it. If the theory of macro evolution is the truth, then we have no one to answer to, and who is going to care if we go around screwing people over our whole lives. What is the point of doing good if there is no one to answer to ultimately.
I have heard the arguement that the biblical Christians sometimes use which is. What will happen if I was wrong, nothing, I will die, go in the ground, rot and never think of anything again. But what if they aren't wrong...
Just something to ponder.
If you would have payed better attention in science class you would have realized that science does not proclaim anything as fact. They put them as theories because they are continually finding new information.
So, unlike your creationist world view which denies the continuing growth of evidence against it... science embraces new information and adapts its theories with the new, current information. Science takes little faith because it is based off of knowledge. Specifically, knowledge that you can research and recreate on your own.
As far as Pluto goes, you should not use that to disprove evolution namely because they are not the same. The attempt to even do so seems to be an attempt at a straw-man. Naughty you.
Pluto is no longer a planet because of up-dated definitions of what it is to be considered a planet. These current standards deny Pluto to be a planet.
Do some research on it and you'll agree.
Think about it. If the theory of macro evolution is the truth, then we have no one to answer to, and who is going to care if we go around screwing people over our whole lives. What is the point of doing good if there is no one to answer to ultimately.
Human morality is not solely based on religion. If that were so then the Germans could not have possibly committed the acts they did in WWII.
What is the point in being moral? Creating a better world for you, me, our children and future children. We can be moral without a god because our world could become hell if we do not watch what we do.
If you need something to fear, think about that concept. Maybe then you won't need a supposed omnipotent being to make you a moral person. If you want fear, there is fear enough in the world around you.
If you would have payed better attention in science class you would have realized that science does not proclaim anything as fact. They put them as theories because they are continually finding new information.
So, unlike your creationist world view which denies the continuing growth of evidence against it... science embraces new information and adapts its theories with the new, current information. Science takes little faith because it is based off of knowledge. Specifically, knowledge that you can research and recreate on your own.
As far as Pluto goes, you should not use that to disprove evolution namely because they are not the same. The attempt to even do so seems to be an attempt at a straw-man. Naughty you.
Pluto is no longer a planet because of up-dated definitions of what it is to be considered a planet. These current standards deny Pluto to be a planet.
Do some research on it and you'll agree.
Think about it. If the theory of macro evolution is the truth, then we have no one to answer to, and who is going to care if we go around screwing people over our whole lives. What is the point of doing good if there is no one to answer to ultimately.
Human morality is not solely based on religion. If that were so then the Germans could not have possibly committed the acts they did in WWII.
What is the point in being moral? Creating a better world for you, me, our children and future children. We can be moral without a god because our world could become hell if we do not watch what we do.
If you need something to fear, think about that concept. Maybe then you won't need a supposed omnipotent being to make you a moral person. If you want fear, there is fear enough in the world around you.
You make a mistake in assuming that I follow one theory or another. I have made no claims to a specific viewpoint. Also, I did pay attention in my science class, I did wonderfully as I did in all other classes.
I have not made it a point in my life to try to out-smart everyone else in an effort to make myself feel better about myself. I just enjoy playing devil's advocate every once and a while.
My reference to Pluto wasn't an evolution comment, but a science comment. Science is constantly changing and editing itself. Everyone claims to have the ultimate answer, but really no one knows and everyone is just clinging to something, because we all need to believe something. Whether it is evolution or the belief of one God or many gods.
I don't think that people who believe in God/gods do it out of fear, it's just like being a child who wants to make their parents happy, they do it out of love. Those people are very strong people and go through quite a bit of redicule from the supposedly "open-minded" who push their anti-higher power beliefs on anyone who will listen.
You did point out that something (certainly the universe and life itself) cannot come from nothing. If so, what do you think created it?
The current belief is that two parallel universes collied, thus causing the Big Bang that created our universe.
Still doesn't explain where the parallel universes came from.
The truth is that no-body knows, but scientists are the only ones with the brains to admit that.
Religious folks will claim that God always existed, and always will exist. So with that there is no need to ask, "Well, then where did God come from?"
It is interesting to note that from a scientists perspective (understanding), matter is neither created nor destroyed (I am talking about on a molecular level here) so basically the atomic foundations that come together to create everything have always existed and always will.
Now, as far as the question regarding evolution, yes I do believe in it. However, I am not quite sure if I believe that it all started out in the primordial sludge per se, I just can't rationally accept any creationists version of how it all begun.
My reference to Pluto wasn't an evolution comment, but a science comment. Science is constantly changing and editing itself. Everyone claims to have the ultimate answer, but really no one knows and everyone is just clinging to something, because we all need to believe something. Whether it is evolution or the belief of one God or many gods.
I can't think of one scientist who has ever claimed to have THE answer. All current theories and laws are open to interrogation and subject to change. All (non-religious) scientists understand and accept this. It is part of the scientific process and no-one will ever claim that what they discovered is the be-all end-all answer; it is just an idea that has been proven with support from many different experiments based on our current understanding of how things work/are right now. Ten, twenty, a hundred years from now new scientific discoveries could arise that will completely falsify what is currently known/accepted. Like I said, scientists expect this. That is what makes science different from faith.
I was more referring to fear of punishment to the result of some form of morality in religion.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge, correct? So, if you're always looking for the truth how can anything be definite? If science were to hold to original theories it would be much like Christianity. You cannot expect a study that is in the pursuit of knowledge to stay with definite answers; it would deny the purpose and goals of science to do so.
So, using the fluidity of science to try and disprove it is silly, if not ignorant.
Science claims no ultimate answer, again, that would go against what it truly is: the pursuit of knowledge.
I was more referring to fear of punishment to the result of some form of morality in religion.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge, correct? So, if you're always looking for the truth how can anything be definite? If science were to hold to original theories it would be much like Christianity. You cannot expect a study that is in the pursuit of knowledge to stay with definite answers; it would deny the purpose and goals of science to do so.
So, using the fluidity of science to try and disprove it is silly, if not ignorant.
Science claims no ultimate answer, again, that would go against what it truly is: the pursuit of knowledge.
It is when one needs to resort to putting another down that makes me generally stay out of this type of discussion.
Now if the study is in the pursuit of knowledge, wouldn’t you stop looking if you found the answers? The fact that science is constantly changing and yet societies base so much on this science that is never constant is just circular reasoning. It’s like saying there are ABSOLUTELY no ABSOLUTES.
Hmmm… makes sense to me! If only I could use that logic in day to day life.
I love an intellectual conversation. Whether or not you think me silly or ignorant for questioning the search for knowledge (which, correct me if I’m wrong) involves questioning everything.
I should also point out that it is primarily biologists who believe in the Theory of Evolution. Maybe some quantum physicists as well, but quantum physicists will probably be able to someday 'prove' the existence of God, although most religious folk probably won't dig what they have to say.
The "primordial soup" belongs to abio-genesis; not evolution.
They are two completely different subjects of study.
Thanks Panda God Clay, the ocean, what ever....it did begin somewhere
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.
