Creationism Vs. Evolution & Big Bang

[iglak]

Evolution is both fact and theory. The phrase "only a theory," in science terms, is an oxymoron, since theory is the pinnacle (vice hypothesis or conjecture) and requires a large amount of supporting evidence.

mutation is a fact.

survival of the fittest is a fact.

therefor natural selection is a fact.

 

natural selection causing all observable evolution is, however, a theory

 

<edit> Sayo requested that i change "recorded" to "observable," and i did because that is a better choice of words

[Sayonara]

I'd like to petition that you change "recorded" to "observable", then I'll agree

[swansont]

VendingMenace said in post #74 :

 

I suppose that all hinges on what you take the definition of fact to be. I belive that most people would hold that if something is a fact, then it is objectively true. Does this seem reasonable? In such a case, we find that evolution cannot be fact. It can never be proven objectively true. In science, we cannot prove things true, we can only prove them false. What we do then is advance theories that will survive as long as they are not disproven. Thus, evolution is only a theory. And it will only be accepted as a thoery until it is proven inccorect.

 

...

 

Now i hope that you do not feel that i think that evolution is a poor theory. Actually, i happen to think that it is a good theory. It explains many things around us. Furthermore, i think that it is obvious that evolution (as described by the theory) does appear to occur. We definately see that gene frequencies change in a population over time. Thus, evolution occurs.

 

Evolution occurs, as you say. Thus it is a fact.

 

The fact of evolution (it occurs) and the theory (the explanation of why it occurs) are two different things.

 

It would be incorrect to say that evolution in the past is a fact - that has to be inferred from the evidence.

 

 

The pinnacle? WHat about scientific law? As in the LAW of gravity? Would that be held higher than a theory?

 

 

Theories don't "grow up" to be laws. A law is merely a fairly simple mathematical relationship that has been observed to be valid under some set of conditions.

 

The law of gravity (F=GmM/r²) is, if fact, "wrong" in the sense that it is less complete in explaining behavior than the general theory of relativity. It's not the "law of relativity," because you can't write it out as a simple equation.

 

Hooke's law is only valid under certain conditions (no deformation of the spring). Ohm's law has exceptions. Having something named a theory or law doesn't have the implication that one might infer from the lay terminology. Science terminology tends to have very specific definitions. To a scientist, speed and velocity are not interchangeable as they are in common use. There is no such thing as e.g. deceleration or de-evolution, if you are rigorous about the scientific definitions.

 

So when people who have little training in science start arguing these points, there is going to be confusion if you don't understand the definitions. But "theory" is often interpreted as "guess" and it just isn't so.

[VendingMenace]

Evolution occurs, as you say. Thus it is a fact.

 

lol. it appears as if i have defeated myself here. That is funny.

 

Let me see if i can redirect this somewhat. Evolution occurs. We have observed that evolution has occred in many different populations, but not all of them. Evolution is the idea that gene frequencies within a population change over time. Implicit within this statement is that this holds for all populations of all organisms. Unfortunately we will never be able to make observations of all populations of all organisms, thus we cannot ever prove evolution to be true, that is it can never be a fact. What we can say is that evolution within certain populations is a fact. And really we can only say that for the time in wich we made our observations. Thus, stating that evolution is a fact is incorrect, as it implies that we know this is the case for all populations at all times. Therefore, we find that evolution is not fact, but rather theory.

 

The fact of evolution (it occurs) and the theory (the explanation of why it occurs) are two different things.

 

ok, i will give you that for our specific observations we have obseved changes in gene frequency. But what does that tell us? Merely that over the course of a given time, gene frequencies changed in this one population? That is a fact. HOwever, as i said above, extending this to include all organisms at all times (at the theory of evolution intends to do) the observations move from fact to theory.

 

It seems to me that we are both saying the same thing. We can observe facts, but we can never move a theory into the relm of fact. What i had contention with originally, is that the theory of evolution is often not taught as a theory. My issues with this do not lie in any creation vs. evolution debate, but rather with what i said in my above post. I fear that teaching people that the theory of evoltion is unquestionable is a horrible thing for science. WE need to teach people that sciene is not afraid of probing eyes, that, rather, it welcomes these questions and it will lead eventually to a better understanding of our world.

 

But "theory" is often interpreted as "guess" and it just isn't so.

 

Agreeed, and theory is also often interpreted as "fact" and that isn't so either. End the end theory is just (i dont use "just" as a bilittling word here) the best explination that the scientific community can come up with for a given phenomenon.

[gene]

Well, this is really interesting debate!

 

My point is:

Ok, natural selection is a part of evolution. I would say both need each other and can not do without each other. So, my point comes in here, we have no idea how natural slection works. It is basically letting Nature do its magic. But see it from a different point of view, we do not know exactly who selected the genes.

God or Nature? From evolution's point of view, i would say Nature=God.

Well, i'm sort of a believer of God. (to some extent) Unless, science it able to prove that the universe could exist without God's creation. I would still stick to that belief.

 

Anyway, i find that the bible can not be really trusted. ( No offence)

I meant focus on the part of Genesis only.

The bible is not the thought or mind of God. It is written but Mankind (I think.) Therefore, i believe that Genesis was written by someone who thought the world came to existence like that.

 

Unless God allows us to read his mind. Creationism Vs the evolution and the Big Bang will still be on hot debate.

 

Thanks for reading. I don't really know a lot. I'm probably talking nonsense to some of you

Cheers.

[swansont]

VendingMenace said in post #79 :

Let me see if i can redirect this somewhat. Evolution occurs. We have observed that evolution has occred in many different populations, but not all of them. Evolution is the idea that gene frequencies within a population change over time. Implicit within this statement is that this holds for all populations of all organisms. Unfortunately we will never be able to make observations of all populations of all organisms, thus we cannot ever prove evolution to be true, that is it can never be a fact. What we can say is that evolution within certain populations is a fact. And really we can only say that for the time in wich we made our observations. Thus, stating that evolution is a fact is incorrect, as it implies that we know this is the case for all populations at all times. Therefore, we find that evolution is not fact, but rather theory.

 

But we observe it whenever we look. Same as with gravity - we don't need to measure it everywhere to have confidence that it is present. We've long passed the point where we understand that large masses exert gravitational forces, and that living beings with DNA will evolve.

 

 

 

It seems to me that we are both saying the same thing. We can observe facts, but we can never move a theory into the relm of fact. What i had contention with originally, is that the theory of evolution is often not taught as a theory. My issues with this do not lie in any creation vs. evolution debate, but rather with what i said in my above post. I fear that teaching people that the theory of evoltion is unquestionable is a horrible thing for science. WE need to teach people that sciene is not afraid of probing eyes, that, rather, it welcomes these questions and it will lead eventually to a better understanding of our world.

 

I don't advocate teaching that evolution is unquestionable. But neither is it conjecture. The amount of evidence that supports evolution is staggering. It is irresponsible to teach that it's just a guess (and made up by those Godless scientists who want to topple the church, as is often implied)

[Sayonara]

Nicely put

 

(But just to be really pedantic: "and that living beings with DNA belong to species which will evolve")

[swansont]

Sayonara³ said in post #82 :

Nicely put

 

(But just to be really pedantic: "and that living beings with DNA belong to species which will evolve")

 

Thanks, and mea culpa. Populations evolve, not individuals.

[alext87]

Let's thinking clearly. There must of been a beginning to the universe otherwise there would be infinite history which means that even now we are adding on to infinity. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE! Therefore there must be a begginning!

 

Everything has a cause and that's a fact therefore let's take it back so far that what was the cause of the universe and why is it so special to create the perfect conditions for life? Well, there seems to be two explanations: one is that there was something already here that caused the creation this means it must have a cause or that there is an uncaused cause. This can only be called GOD!

 

Now God is just a word and therefore is just means a begginning. I believe that the classical concept of God is wrong and God can't be defined. This means we have no purpose but to add on to history. All religions i believe are the brain trying to explain the infinite qualities of the universe and the unexplained! Therefore we have complte spirital free-will but not in community because of restrictions.

[NavajoEverclear]

just about your beginning thing--- what began the beginning? There is a beginning to every beginning, so there is no ultimate beginning.

 

your perception on god seems openminded, but at the same time seems as though it is bound to some programmed obligation. ---however-- if you even understand me, you might want not listen. I often disagree with myself from momement to moment.

[atinymonkey]

This can only be called GOD!

 

 

Idiot.

[NavajoEverclear]

yeah thats what i thought at first. Often i withrdraw my initial impression to be fair or something . . . . but you cant please everyone, i don't know why the hell i try. First step to getting over it : Alex is an idiot!

[Radical Edward]

Let's thinking clearly. There must of been a beginning to the universe otherwise there would be infinite history which means that even now we are adding on to infinity. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE! Therefore there must be a begginning!

there must have' date=' not [i']of[/i].

 

anyway, why must there have been a beginning?

Everything has a cause and that's a fact

actually it is not a fact. virtual particles have no cause.

therefore let's take it back so far that what was the cause of the universe and why is it so special to create the perfect conditions for life? Well, there seems to be two explanations: one is that there was something already here that caused the creation this means it must have a cause or that there is an uncaused cause. This can only be called GOD!

right, so everything has a cause, and then in order to back that up, you then have an uncaused cause. why is your causeless cause so special that it does not need a cause, but "everything else" needs a cause? Your argument is just special pleading, and logically invalid.

[des-esseintes]

The Big Bang theory is not the antithesis of religion. In fact it is the most successful experiment to date at infusing science with mystical, semi-religious ideas. The theory of the Big Bang, in its original form, leaves the door wide open to all sorts of mystical notions. The universe has always existed and will always exist. It has no "beginning" and will have no "end".

[YT2095]

The universe has always existed and will always exist. It has no "beginning" and will have no "end".

may I ask what you base that statement on?

[Dave]

Yes, I'd be rather intrigued to know as well. Personally I don't think there's a problem with believing that science and religion can't be intertwined. I really can't see the problem with it

[admiral_ju00]

Yes, I'd be rather intrigued to know as well. Personally I don't think there's a problem with believing that science and religion can't be intertwined. I really can't see the problem with it

 

you're right. while it's not something i'll (probably ever) embrace, but:

 

Science is a tool

Religion is a tool

 

so a more informative desicion would stem from a combination of both of these. using science and religion in combination may give one answers to some hard questions that may arise. while science generates lots and lots of practical knowledge and info in general, there are some questions that science simply can't answer. i just don't ponder the type of questions or issues that would require me to turn to religious or other paranormal phenomena.

[admiral_ju00]

The theory of the Big Bang, in its original form, leaves the door wide open to all sorts of mystical notions.

 

the same thing can be said about religion.

 

err, now wait, i minute, i DID just say that. duh!

[Dave]

you're right. while it's not something i'll (probably ever) embrace' date=' but:

 

Science is a tool

Religion is a tool

 

so a more informative desicion would stem from a combination of both of these. using science and religion in combination may give one answers to some hard questions that may arise. while science generates lots and lots of practical knowledge and info in general, there are some questions that science simply can't answer. i just don't ponder the type of questions or issues that would require me to turn to religious or other paranormal phenomena.[/quote']

 

Whilst I wouldn't personally say religion is a 'tool', it's certainly a source of energy for some (including me to a certain extent). However I do agree with most of the other stuff you've said.

[des-esseintes]

"may I ask what you base that statement on?"

 

http://www.marxist.com/science/bigbang.html

 

Very long, but mildly put interesting stuff!