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.
One way you should address that is to better understand the meaning of "THEORY" as used in science, which is different from the common vernacular usage. Presumably your emphasis on that term implies that evolutionary theory is a wild guess, speculation, or just an idea. That is not correct. By the time something gets to be a "theory" in scientific terms, it is about as close to established fact as we can get... supported by such overwhelming evidence that no new evidence (even as we continue to learn more), is likely to change the basic understanding. That is where we are at with our understanding of evolution. There are no credible scientists ("world renown" or otherwise) who reject the basics of evolution, even if they argue about the mechanistic nuances and details. On that background, another way you "should address that" is to be happy that our kids are being taught about how the world really works.
In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
One way you should address that is to better understand the meaning of "THEORY" as used in science, which is different from the common vernacular usage. Presumably your emphasis on that term implies that evolutionary theory is a wild guess, speculation, or just an idea. That is not correct. By the time something gets to be a "theory" in scientific terms, it is about as close to established fact as we can get... supported by such overwhelming evidence that no new evidence (even as we continue to learn more), is likely to change the basic understanding. That is where we are at with our understanding of evolution. There are no credible scientists ("world renown" or otherwise) who reject the basics of evolution, even if they argue about the mechanistic nuances and details. On that background, another way you "should address that" is to be happy that our kids are being taught about how the world really works.
In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
Or, are you saying the it's not a Theory but it's fact?
I know discussion on this topic is not a whole lot appreciated by the mods here but how funny, I talked about community of world renown scientists rejected in the "THEORY of HUMAN evolution:, yet you replied with scientists not believing in the "basics of evolution".
Two totally different subjects.
BTW, you can search "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" to see some names and scholars of our era.
There is no one way to define or describe God. He works in as individual of ways as our own DNA. And how we tend to be "wired" will also determine whether we want to sense / seek him out or not.
In the end, it's entirely a personal matter. No one has to prove or defend his existence to anyone else. You own determination of his existence or not - and what/who exactly he would be - resides entirely with yourself. This isn't a community decision or agreement.
No, I don't see the issue. Other than you continuing to conflate and/or misapply terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Or, are you saying the it's not a Theory but it's fact?
Ditto. I clarified that by the time something gets labeled a theory in scientific parlance, it has been supported by an overwhelming body of knowledge following multiple lines of evidence, and comes as close to established fact as we can generally get. Other examples include the "theories" that the earth and other planets revolve around the sun, that gravity keeps humans and rocks from floating off into space, that the earth's surface has undergone considerable remodeling over millions of years, that living things are made of cells, and that germs cause disease. If you want to argue that evolution is "just a theory" (and therefore pure speculation), you might as well argue that the sun orbits the moon, that you are held to the ground by stickum on your shoes, or that my headcold was caused by alien ray guns.
Whether you want to call those conclusions Scientific Theory or Fact, the point is we know how these things work, with an extremely high degree of confidence. They are not hunches, educated (or uneducated) guesses, or speculation. And that applies to evolution perhaps more than any other "theory."
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
I know discussion on this topic is not a whole lot appreciated by the mods here but how funny, I talked about community of world renown scientists rejected in the "THEORY of HUMAN evolution:, yet you replied with scientists not believing in the "basics of evolution".
Two totally different subjects.
Why are they different? Apparently I missed that HUMAN evolution is the important qualifier? Sorry, but any comments about evolution in general apply equally to human evolution, which followed (and continues to follow) the same processes and pressures as the evolutionary pathways for other living things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
BTW, you can search "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" to see some names and scholars of our era.
I said credible scientists, and that their broad agreement was to the fundamental theory of evolution. The Discovery Institute is best known for pseudoscience, and is a long ways from "credible."
There is no one way to define or describe God. He works in as individual of ways as our own DNA. And how we tend to be "wired" will also determine whether we want to sense / seek him out or not.
In the end, it's entirely a personal matter. No one has to prove or defend his existence to anyone else. You own determination of his existence or not - and what/who exactly he would be - resides entirely with yourself. This isn't a community decision or agreement.
I disagree with what I bolded for one reason -- if you go around publicly proclaiming it, then back it up.
^ People all around us, every day, proclaim ideas, without a requirement to then prove them. So what you're asking for is impossible by the nature of humanity.
I never ask anyone to prove anything, and that includes those of atheistic thought. I'm only interested in what I perceive, sense, and acknowledge. Every one else has the freedom to do their own thing. But we are certainly free to share our ideas here, even if no one agrees.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 12-07-2021 at 10:41 AM..
That is a fair question for the sake of debating. Well, quite a few definitions of "God" have already been imposed in the dictionaries: a) "...a supernatural being considered divine or sacred." b) "a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity."c)"...the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." There sure will be more definitions of " God to come. In the meantime, for a definition of "God", one can rent one of the above ones, or conceive one's own to satisfy or justify their religious beliefs just like "Shirina" said in his/her comment.
If one analyzes in depth each of the definitions of "God" given above logically, one may find some irregularity either in the formatting or the context of it. For instance, definition(a) and (b) say respectively "...Asupernatural being..." and "A superhuman being or spirit..." which doesn't seem to be referring to a specific being such as the One and only Almighty God, "the creator and ruler of the universe..." as specified in definition c). We know God is not human; He's a Spirit and there are many spirits whom God made exist. And we were also told that Satan, formerly Lucifer, is a powerful spirit created by God who rebelled against God and whom many humans worship as their god (Notice here I write god in lowercase)
So, when one says, "define God", I wouldn't know exactly if I must define the "word" or the "being". But when I look at the spelling of "God in the question with a capital "G". I would assume it's the supreme being and upgrade my human definition of "God" to match what my intellect and/or belief has as a definition of the "Almighty God", or literally echo what definition c says. If one asked me to define " President", I would define the term rather than the person; Biden, or Trump, or Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc... Just like there are many individuals who bear the title of president, there are also many beings with the title of god given to them by humans. And each one of them would have a different definition attributed to them personally. Even God Himself cautioned His people from worshiping other gods. when God said that, He never insinuated that there were other Gods beside Him. He simply meant that there is no other God but Him. And God defines Himself as the Creator, the Architect of the Universe, the Most High, the Almighty, the Holiest, the Eternal, the Alpha and Omega, the One and only true Living God, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent who has no beginning and no end. And this is whether or not you believe in Him.
One of the counter arguments non- believers have is that those who believe in God, are more inclined to promote their belief system onto others. This could be, to have some sort of say in politics, building churches, knocking at doors, some potential influence in schools etc, and such approaches may effect non-believers or create a nuance for them.
How should we address that?
I think believers may have a counter argument along the same lines, for example, we may not want our young kids taught the THEORY of human evolution in schools in such a powerful and intimidating way that their young brains have no choice left but believe in it? Should the school kids also be taught that there is a large community of world renown scientists who have rejected this THEORY based on their this this and this research and these arguments?
How should we address that?
Looked who has stopped by?
Hello stranger.
That is a very good point you made here. Sounds like the diversity of beliefs and concepts of God breaks the society and drive people apart in isolation which makes living in fraternity and unity under one God a hard task to achieve.
How really to address that? Well, in the meantime, it has to be "Everyone for himself and God for all of us", I think.
Thanks for sharing your view.
That is a cute, decent answer; neat and simple. But would need more arguments.
Thanks for your participation.
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.
