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.
To a point, but that weakens the theist or anti evolution case, not strengthens it.
What you are essentially pointing out is that we can never really know anything for sure, something that is actually built into the foundations of science. And because of that uncertainty... this some how lends credibility to something someone somewhere simply made up out of nowhere.
Our uncertainty in knowing anything for sure does not add credibility to the notion there is a god, it removes from it, if there were any to be removed. Do we make assumptions at the foundations of things like science? Absolutely. But they work. They build civilisations, technologies, even the system through which we are having this discussion. We are not just making assumptions, we are verifying to the furthest degree our limited abilities allow that those assumptions are warranted.
The assumptions built into the core of the god argument, or the creationist canard, however are in no way validated. It is a false equivalence you attempt to build by pointing to our uncertainty in other areas in order to make them equivalent to the vast ones in that area.
Science is not about claiming certainties. It does not operate in certainties. It operates in the creation of hypotheses and then Theories based to unify and qualify the facts we have at hand. Evolution is held as "true" in science because the vast substantiation for it holds it to be as likely to be true as anything gets.
The ideas of creationism are just fanciful notions made up out of nowhere and based on no substantiation at all. The difference could not be starker despite the false equivalence of certainties people attempt to build up around them.
I weep for our future. I hope that these deluded creationist aren't teaching this hooey (I'd prefer a stronger language here but it would just get cut) to their children.
I really think evangelical creationists need to look to the majority of their theist brethren. There is a reason that most of the educated world sees evolution a fact. That reason is sound evidence across a wide spectrum of sciences. Over the centuries the Bible has not trumped scientific findings, and it fails to do so now. Believe god is the instrument behind evolution, fine but it's still a scientific fact. Like it or not.
Moderator cut: deletedTheory is not fact...
Last edited by june 7th; 12-03-2013 at 07:38 AM..
Reason: Insulting towards member.
NOPE. STILL faith...STILL belief. It ALWAYS is nothing but. You can never "KNOW".
You need Faith in your Belief the information the evidence is based upon is correct...it might not be.
NO information, NO evidence, is infallible.
That the conclusion might not be accurate is why you need faith in the belief you have that they, and the evidence they are based upon, is correct.
Declarations of "Evidence/Facts/Proof" = Enhanced Faith that your Belief it's correct is true.
"Theory", in scientific terms, is not the colloquial sense of "Something I dreamed up that sounds good to me and has no basis in fact". That would be, in scientific terms, a "speculation". The next level would be a hypothesis which is a speculation that is testable and falsifiable. By the time it gets to the level of theory it has been tested, it has not been successfully falsified, and it has been shown to be consistent with all known facts. There is actually no higher level than that, because science is based on falsification and skepticism, so it can never enshrine anything as unassailably and forever capital-t True. Everything is subject to change, should new or better information become available.
Hence you have, say, the theory of gravity, which is a theoretical framework for how gravity works, totally accepted and proven, with zillions of practical everyday real-world applications and not likely to change in any big way. But it's still called a theory because it is still subject to falsification or refinement, like anything in science. Maybe, for example, someday someone will discover a massless spin-2 particle (graviton) that the theory of gravity provides a hypothesis for, and how to generate or negate them, and the theory will have to be modified to accommodate that new knowledge.
Hence, that evolution is a "theory" doesn't at all mean that it is not established and proven and accepted fact. To the contrary -- it speaks to it having reached the highest level of validation within science.
People who decry evolution as "just a theory" are either ignorant or deliberately misleading the ignorant. It would be like calling the Constitution of the United States "just a legal document".
I've said it before, tell that to the Theory of Gravity
Not exactly a good analogy. The current theory(s) of gravity may or not be correct as to how gravity works, but the point is well made that the theory of evolution tries to describe how something that undeniably happened works.
Stop debating like a toddler. If you have issues with ToE please point to the findings you have issue with. You fail to poke holes in the Theory if you don't take it apart piece by piece. You're just afraid if you did you'd get schooled in any number of subjects.
Your childish tactics are better suited for the comment sections on youtube or yahoo.
"Theory", in scientific terms, is not the colloquial sense of "Something I dreamed up that sounds good to me and has no basis in fact". That would be, in scientific terms, a "speculation". The next level would be a hypothesis which is a speculation that is testable and falsifiable. By the time it gets to the level of theory it has been tested, it has not been successfully falsified, and it has been shown to be consistent with all known facts. There is actually no higher level than that, because science is based on falsification and skepticism, so it can never enshrine anything as unassailably and forever capital-t True. Everything is subject to change, should new or better information become available.
Hence you have, say, the theory of gravity, which is a theoretical framework for how gravity works, totally accepted and proven, with zillions of practical everyday real-world applications and not likely to change in any big way. But it's still called a theory because it is still subject to falsification or refinement, like anything in science. Maybe, for example, someday someone will discover a massless spin-2 particle (graviton) that the theory of gravity provides a hypothesis for, and how to generate or negate them, and the theory will have to be modified to accommodate that new knowledge.
Hence, that evolution is a "theory" doesn't at all mean that it is not established and proven and accepted fact. To the contrary -- it speaks to it having reached the highest level of validation within science.
People who decry evolution as "just a theory" are either ignorant or deliberately misleading the ignorant. It would be like calling the Constitution of the United States "just a legal document".
Do you ever get the feeling you're playing "Whack-a-Mole?"
Do you ever get the feeling you're playing "Whack-a-Mole?"
More like talking to a brick wall. But there are people lurking about who have genuine questions, genuine curiosity about reality, and genuine doubts about theism -- and they deserve to be answered for the record.
I've said it before, tell that to the Theory of Gravity
Theory is not fact, prove otherwise...
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.