Theories of Origin

[Dak]

So you have two main theories, Creation and Evolution, and then the other oddball ones floating around like we were seeded by aliens or whatever.

Evolution and Creation are merely theories, neither more or less "scientific" than the other. Neither one can be or ever will be provable because no one can go back in time to witness a beginning.
Evolution is not and has not been witnessed. Some animals developing different colors is NOT evolution. They didn't turn into a new species or anything. Nothing is growing wings or extra legs or eyes etc. Using carbon dating to back up old earth claims is ludicrous. Carbon dating says petrified trees from the Mount St Helens blast were thousands of years old ( They are only 28 years petrified now), if something can be that wrong when we know the true age, how can you trust it on anything else?

I personally believe in creation but I won't claim it is provable. However to claim it would be completely unscientific is ludicrous. The fact that the universe works the way that it does doesn't mean it couldnt have been created. It takes way less faith to believe there is a higher power that created everything than to believe that organic matter has always existed and life won an impossible number of dice rolls over the last several billion years.

I personally challange anyone who is a diehard evolutionist, to put their ass on the line for their beliefs. Live the rest of your life in the middle of the Pacific and if you suddenly evolve gills, you'll have proven evolution. Or maybe generations of the kids you have later evolve gills.....or we could go the other direction lets start pulling every aquatic animal out of the ocean and see which one develops lungs first. Ludicrous arguement? Absolutely. By the way thats part of the evolution theory. It should work right? Its "scientific"

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

You are clearly just not right at all. I can't even fathom why someone would think the way you do. There's just way too much scientific evidence pointing to evolution, none at all pointing to creationism, and I'll believe the side of science, since they've given us way much more informative stuff than Christianity has.

Look...

JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION OR SCIENCE IN GENERAL DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO DUMB DOWN SCIENCE TO YOUR INTELLIGENCE LEVEL THAT IS WHAT CREATIONISM IS

 

[Blind Guardian]

and I'll believe the side of science, since they've given us way much more informative stuff than Christianity has.

Well it does say in the bible that god created earth, how much more proof do you want?! IT'S.ON.PAPER. MOSES.SAID.SO.

 

[no country for old wainds]

lol im yet to find a single creationist in the world who understands what evolution is

 

[Uncreation]

Dakryn, I think you need to look up the actual definition of what a theory is before you continue this arguement any further. Also, it might be worth considering that the theory of gravity is also "just a theory". Unless you want to try and disprove that too.

 

[Dak]

Who says its scientific? You cannot watch evolution in action or reproduce the results. Therefore it isn't scientific. I'm not dumbing it down, I'm refuting junk science. Just because you read something in the science books in your school doesn't make it true.
A long time ago I read some debates between some scientists from the Institute for Creation Research and some evolution backing scientists. Everything the evolutionists pulled out as evidence got shredded or shown how it actually supported intelligent design.
The bottom line is most people WANT to believe in evolution because it absolves them of any eternal reckoning, so they tune out anything that is contrary to what they want to hear.
Edit: At least with gravity, regardless of whether its scientifically provable or not/a theory whatever, if you jump off a building your going down. You won't however suddenly grow wings because you "needed them to survive".
Comparing gravity, something which we are affected by every second of the day, to explaining how the universe came into existance, which we CANNOT even begin to test is beyond apples to oranges.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Here you can read about an experiment creating evolution in action.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;310/5756/1878?ck=nck

 

[Dak]

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances &#8212;often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption :

And in what way does intelligent design not qualify as a theory based on these definitions?

 

[Dak]

Here you can read about an experiment creating evolution in action.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...56/1878?ck=nck

Creating new breeds is not evolution. Its still a bird, its still a fly, regardless of whether its colored differently etc.
To prove there is extreme DNA similarity between humans and chimps is about as surprising of a "breakthrough" as Clay Aiken coming out of the closet. Whoop-tee-fuckin-do. Didn't see that coming [sarcasm]. What I also didn't see anywhere in that article is anything more than speculation as to when we "split" or what caused it.
How about,if you have the same designer some shit is gonna look the same.

Edit: reading back over Id like to point this out

Two races of European corn borers sharing the same field may also be splitting up. The caterpillars have come to prefer different plants as they grow--one sticks to corn, and the other eats hops and mugwort--and they emit different pheromones, ensuring that they attract only their own kind.

Two races of caterpillars, that eat different plants, and emit different pheremones, attract their own kind therefore assuring this continues there [racial] seperation.
There you have it. Complete proof of evolution. Amazing to see this kind of scientific advancement in our lifetime.......

I wish I could meet whoever conducted that study so I could laugh in their face.

 

[AchrisK]

Evolution is the best purely scientific, natural theory we currently have to explain the origin of what we see before our eyes. I don't have a problem with people believing in evolution. As I have stated a million times in the past, I have a problem with it being put forth as fact, when it is not proven to be fact. It is our current best natural explanation. IMO it is misleadingly put forth as fact and there are strong taboos around disagreeing with that assertion.

 

[Uncreation]

A long time ago I read some debates between some scientists from the Institute for Creation Research and some evolution backing scientists. Everything the evolutionists pulled out as evidence got shredded or shown how it actually supported intelligent design.

Surely you mean to say that people like Kent Hovind spew their inane drivell in response to scientific evidence that has been provided to refute their misguided attempts to shoot down evolution and that many asinine people are then swept away by said person's unrelenting wave of ignorance.

And in what way does intelligent design not qualify as a theory based on these definitions?

Because not all those definitions mean the same thing. A scientific theory is very specifically the first definition you listed. I should have been more specific as far as that particular aspect is concerned, I apologise. Creationism does not fit that criteria

Evolution is not and has not been witnessed.

You have never witnessed your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grand parents. So, by your logic, they never existed.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Evolution is the best purely scientific, natural theory we currently have to explain the origin of what we see before our eyes. I don't have a problem with people believing in evolution. As I have stated a million times in the past, I have a problem with it being put forth as fact, when it is not proven to be fact. It is our current best natural explanation. IMO it is misleadingly put forth as fact and there are strong taboos around disagreeing with that assertion.

Theory is fact as far as we currently know. I don't think that suddenly scientists will just randomly find evolution to be wrong after hundreds of years of studying how things evolve.

 

[AchrisK]

@Dakryn - I think that ID does not fail as a theory, it fails as a scientific theory, based on the Scientific Method. It fails the falsifiability test. There is no way to disprove it.

Of course, the scientific method was put forth by science, and although it is great for dealing with the natural, it has no way to deal with the supernatural, and thus it assumed the supernatural does not exist.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

It's a good assumption to make, since there is no evidence for the supernatural that can be defined using science, and given that known science is the basis for human knowledge about almost everything that occurs in our world everyday - minute and obvious, including gravity, natural disasters, etc. - I have very very much logical grounds to believe it over the supernatural idea of things occurring.

BTW Ack I am really impressed with your assertions so far in this thread. They really demonstrate coping with the existence of evolution while still injecting your own personal beliefs into the idea, which is by no means bad. As long as people realize evolution IS scientific, it HAS been proven through evidence...I have no problem with people who think God has played a hand (i.e. RECONCILE creation "science" with empirical science). They are not the problem. The problem is those, who, despite clear and blatant evidence in the other direction still claim that their opinion is the right one and that we should all believe a god created the universe because "it would be crazy for all those dice rolls to generate humans".

 

[no country for old wainds]

And in what way does intelligent design not qualify as a theory based on these definitions?

i have a theory that you're gay

 

[AchrisK]

Theory is fact as far as we currently know. I don't think that suddenly scientists will just randomly find evolution to be wrong after hundreds of years of studying how things evolve.

I still disagree that it should be called fact. We know gravity is a fact, but do we understand how it works? We have theories. We know we exist, but do we really know how we got here? We have theories. I agree that evolution will not suddenly be proven false. We will continue to evolve the theory to fit the findings, and as science advances, we will have new places to look.

 

[Uncreation]

One thing that the creationists in general seem to be neglecting/ignoring is that creationism pertains to the origins of life. The theory of evolution pertains to the diversity of life and does not mean that there was not a creator at some point. There is no real reason whatsoever to deny evolution due to religious beliefs.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I still disagree that it should be called fact. We know gravity is a fact, but do we understand how it works? We have theories. We know we exist, but do we really know how we got here? We have theories. I agree that evolution will not suddenly be proven false. We will continue to evolve the theory to fit the findings, and as science advances, we will have new places to look.

Theory = fact in scientific terms. I think you might be struggling with the semantics?

Uncreation: AGREED! I can really see no reason why religious people can't assume both creation and evolution are true...what if God willed evolution?! What is wrong with thinking this?

btw ack we do understand how gravity works. There is a theory of gravitational force that explains how we know and what we do know. Theory = the best possible scientific explanation at any given time. For all intents and purposes, it is fact, since there is no one offering any other option for us to consider with all of the evidence but different results.

It really frustrates me that religious people constantly say "omg they teach gravity as a fact in school when it's only a theory!" What is a fact but an unchallenged proof that is founded on fundamental evidence and data collection? I don't see anyone teaching an alternate idea of gravity using the same mathematic measures. That's why it's a fucking fact, ldo.

 

[AchrisK]

It's a good assumption to make, since there is no evidence for the supernatural that can be defined using science, and given that known science is the basis for human knowledge about almost everything that occurs in our world everyday - minute and obvious, including gravity, natural disasters, etc. - I have very very much logical grounds to believe it over the supernatural idea of things occurring.

BTW Ack I am really impressed with your assertions so far in this thread. They really demonstrate coping with the existence of evolution while still injecting your own personal beliefs into the idea, which is by no means bad. As long as people realize evolution IS scientific, it HAS been proven through evidence...I have no problem with people who think God has played a hand (i.e. RECONCILE creation "science" with empirical science). They are not the problem. The problem is those, who, despite clear and blatant evidence in the other direction still claim that their opinion is the right one and that we should all believe a god created the universe because "it would be crazy for all those dice rolls to generate humans".

Thanks. I learned a lot through our discussions on here in the past, and in reading some books and reading the talkorigins.org web site. Truthfully I am a creationist, but I hate arguments from ignorance and just repeating "things I heard", so I wanted to know what evolution asserts, and how creationism and ID relates to science.

 

[Dak]

I completely agree that you cannot prove Intelligent Designas an event. But to claim overwhelming evidence to justify moving evolution from theory to fact is wrong. I still have yet to be shown any "proof" of evolution that makes me even remotely question Intelligent Design.
I have no intention of changing someones mind who believes in evolution, but asserting that it is fact not theory and that I am ignorant for supporting a different theory is what I take issue with.