Castanet

Necro wrote:evolution is not a theory, it's a fact.

Like Steven says, "a theory strongly supported by scientific evidence", but still an incomplete theory with some gaping holes and plenty of unanswered questions.

As apposed to creation,no evidence and no questions answered.
Just one big hole of a theory.

Evolution is a fact because it is a historical accuracy that species are related through common ancestry. It is a fact in the same way gravity is a fact.

jennylives wrote: It is a fact in the same way gravity is a fact.

Sorry jenny. Not even close. There are multiple theories to explain common ancestry as suggested by DNA research (I'm assuming that's where you were going - one of the stronger sources of evidence for evolution). Don't get me wrong. I believe evolution is the best present explanation given the overwhelming scientific and archeological evidence that supports that theory but I still recognize the conditions of what constitutes scientific theory. There is still room for plenty of refinement in this theory (far much more than gravity). Maybe this is just an argument of semantics, but for me I will defer to the definition and understanding as provided by science and academia. Again, I support the theory. I just don’t confuse it with fact.

As for theories of creation, It would be presumptuous to dismiss all explanations based on the knowledge of just one or two religious ones. There is still so much we do not know, and it is those who continue to make the discoveries that already understand that.

I gotta theory I better get going, See ya

Agreed. In the absence of definitive proof there are no right or wrong answers. To simply dismiss a possibility just because we don't like the possible permutations that go with it is more than a little close-minded.

I know of many different creation theories. There are thousands of them all over the world. If taken as fact, they seem bizarre at best. The ancient stories of creation were handed down from primitive people who, for the most part were illiterate and could not imagine the complexity of modern technology or language. Creation myths, if taken metaphorically or allegorically, can spark the imagination. But to take them literally, insults the critical human mind.

Evolution is a theory, not fact, simply because science is still in its incubation stage. It can only measure and speculate on those measurements in physical reality. It cannot function with the unseen realities that make up our whole. There is far more to our reality than what is perceivable to our 5 physical senses and science is far from being able to go there. Quantum physics and mechanics show hope of bridging the gap between spirituality and science, but it is still a very young science.

jennylives wrote:Evolution is a fact because it is a historical accuracy that species are related through common ancestry. It is a fact in the same way gravity is a fact.

Good example as gravity, like evolution, is something that is known to exist but lacks an explanation beyond the theoretical.

steven lloyd wrote:Sorry jenny. Not even close. There are multiple theories to explain common ancestry as suggested by DNA research (I'm assuming that's where you were going - one of the stronger sources of evidence for evolution). Don't get me wrong. I believe evolution is the best present explanation given the overwhelming scientific and archeological evidence that supports that theory but I still recognize the conditions of what constitutes scientific theory. There is still room for plenty of refinement in this theory (far much more than gravity). Maybe this is just an argument of semantics, but for me I will defer to the definition and understanding as provided by science and academia. Again, I support the theory. I just don’t confuse it with fact.

As for theories of creation, It would be presumptuous to dismiss all explanations based on the knowledge of just one or two religious ones. There is still so much we do not know, and it is those who continue to make the discoveries that already understand that.

I gotta theory I better get going, See ya

An entire branch of medicine is devoted to evolution. It's why we get flu shots. We have observed it occurring (Lenski E. coli experiments). Besides that though, we can trace common ancestry through genomes now. http://www.morphobank.org/ The mechanics are being hammered out still, no question. The fact that all species share common ancestors is not. Evolution is a fact. Now we are studying the how part of it.

nickd wrote:As apposed to creation,no evidence and no questions answered.
Just one big hole of a theory.

As Steven pointed out I think there are many disputes here that stem from semantics. One doesn't need to believe in gods to believe there is a purpose to the universe. Believing in a purpose just suggests that the universe is not a cosmic fluke void of meaning. That being said, the theory of evolution presents no evidence whatsoever against a universe with an underlying purpose. However, it's good at explaining how the physical universe evolves.

On the surface most of the arguing seems to stem from a religion vs. science standpoint in the aspect that the "creation" story many are up in arms against is the biblical account that man and beast appeared in their current form at the behest of some all-powerful cosmic conscientiousness. Admittedly that account stretches belief beyond the breaking point for any reasonably informed thinking person. But to look at "creation" as something much more basic, something predating evolution, going right back to the first collection of molecules in the primordial ooze thatcame together to constitute life and the "argument" takes on a different hue. We come to a point there where there really can be no argument as there is no basis other than hypothesis. Guesses. Shall we discuss the futility of arguing that one guess is better than another?

I was referring to the biblical fire and brimstone creation.
Which the Christian has to believe in.No?
As to a Prime Moverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_movens (a fuse lighter)
I don't know.

Steven demonstrates that he in fact has no idea about what a theory is. It IS based on facts - and in the case of evolution a plethora of factual observations. There ARE no theories of Creation, because ideas of Creation are not based on observations - there is no site where we can see fossils in an association that would demonstrate the existence of a Garden of Eden, etc., etc., etc. Instead, Creation ideas are myths,likely based on hallucinations or campfire stories - but no matter what, they are religious myths. Upon exiting his pompous diatribe Steven says he has to go because he has a theory, when in fact, all he has is a notion or a speculation. Do not, and I repeat, DO NOT confuse a Scientific Theory for a religious myth, or a scatter- brained notion.

-fluffy- wrote:On the surface most of the arguing seems to stem from a religion vs. science standpoint in the aspect that the "creation" story many are up in arms against is the biblical account that man and beast appeared in their current form at the behest of some all-powerful cosmic conscientiousness. Admittedly that account stretches belief beyond the breaking point for any reasonably informed thinking person. But to look at "creation" as something much more basic, something predating evolution, going right back to the first collection of molecules in the primordial ooze thatcame together to constitute life and the "argument" takes on a different hue. We come to a point there where there really can be no argument as there is no basis other than hypothesis. Guesses. Shall we discuss the futility of arguing that one guess is better than another?

Shall we discuss the futility of putting boundaries around scientific inquiry simply because you personally cannot imaging any way those problems can be addressed? I for one would say that I don't want my knowledge of the universe to be held captive by your lack of intellect.

Evolution is a fact, however, the theory of evolution (ie. all life came from a single point) is not.

nickd wrote:I was referring to the biblical fire and brimstone creation.
Which the Christian has to believe in.No?
As to a Prime Moverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_movens (a fuse lighter)
I don't know.

I've never met a Christian who believes in the literal creation mentioned in the bible although they do exist. This discussion however shouldn't even revolve around religion however, as it's not required to believe in one or the other, and one can believe in both creation and evolution without even being religious. Personally, I find it much easier to scientifically fathom an outside force starting everything in motion than nothing starting it, and that intelligent design is a more likely explanation for the complexed and diverse life on Earth than a chance happening. It's odd that we've come a tremendous way technologically in the last hundred years to the point of almost being able to create life ourselves, yet some won't believe an intelligence that's billions of years ahead of us or infinite could so.