What do people think of Creationism?

[Collingwood pro]

But not proven fact. Hence taking evolution as definitive fact requires an element of faith.

You really don't know what a theory is do you. Let me also point out that until anything else with credible evidence comes out that evolution will be considered fact since there is no other viable alternative. However if their is a major breakthrough and conclusive evidence is found for another theory then evolution will be dropped harder than a bag of bricks, also if evolution is proven to be wrong then the same thing will occur as the previous line stated.

 

[tesseract]

again, you're wrong.

There is the fact of evolution, and then there is the theory that explains it. you’re conflating the two.

Given this thread is about creation, the context of 'evolution' is specifically wrt human evolution. Human evolution isn't fact.

 

[Freo2012]

Of course I was created very specially. I create things, I am self-aware - there is no way I will accept that I am just another animal on this planet that happens to have a higher evolved thinking brain than most other animals - thus i am not an animal but a very special living being and naturally there has to be an afterlife for me when i die.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL - dust to dust, ashes to ashes - we stop existing and our atoms become part of something else (as all the ones we continually shed do so throughout our lives) - self-awareness and reasoning has a lot to answer for - it makes humans so "needy" and so easily manipulated by others for their power plays.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Given this thread is about creation, the context of 'evolution' is specifically wrt human evolution. Human evolution isn't fact.

come on man :/ of course it is. and creationism refers to all of "creation" and not specifically to humans.

there is as much certainty re human evolution as all other evolution. i am not sure who told you otherwise, but they're telling porkies.

 

[tesseract]

Not really - it's not a wide enough gap for a big word like 'faith'.

Faith is faith, and your personal measurement as to how big or small a gap has to be in order to constitute faith or not is arbitrary, and hence meaningless.

Do you understand that NOTHING can ever be proven 100%?

Disagree with "NOTHING".

You cannot 100% prove that all of the molecules in your phone won't travel in the same direction at the same time, causing your phone to jump out of your hand without apparent cause.

You're attempting to make complex a simple question. Did humankind originate by means of evolution? Yes or no. A definitive, 100% certain, can possibly be obtained from such a question. So to say that "NOTHING" can be proven 100% is false.

However the probability of that happening is such that it is not likely to happen during the entire lifespan of the universe.

So, again, it comes back to science being ill equipped to deal in proof, and therefore can't make definitive calls and label anything fact, for it only deals in probabilities and what's the most likely explanation.

We can say that it is fact that it won't happen. Even though it is theoretically possible. You could safely bet your house and your mother's house on this (though I suspect these are one and the same).

You can't therefore reasonably state conclusively that human evolution is "fact" if it isn't proven and that there's still ongoing changes to the theory. Hence there being an element of faith to fill in the gaps between evidence and proof. Those ITT who believe in and are arguing in defense of human evolution and are insisting on calling an unproven theory a "fact" are coming across as dogmatic.

 

[Long Live HFC]

You can't therefore reasonably state conclusively that human evolution is "fact" if it isn't proven and that there's still ongoing changes to the theory. Hence there being an element of faith to fill in the gaps between evidence and proof. Those ITT who believe in and are arguing in defense of human evolution and are insisting of calling an unproven theory as "fact" are coming across as dogmatic.

you still don't seem to understand the issue. im not sure what you're not getting. there's the fact of human evolution. then there's the theory explaining how it happened. the fact that human begins evolved over time, and the scientific theory that this was due to random mutation, natural selection etc.

Einstein’s theory of general relativity has also been “proven”. Scientific theories are the “highest” standard of scientific endeavour. Dismissing scientific theories as “just a theory” completely misunderstands their nature and how they are developed. They are not a hypothesis. They tie together and explain all the facts and make accurate predictions. Your assertion here that theories are not “proven” is nonsense. they become theories because they are “proven”.

Stop talking bollocks.

 

[tesseract]

you still don't seem to understand the issue. im not sure what you're not getting. there's the fact of human evolution. then there's the theory explaining how it happened. the fact that human begins evolved over time, and the scientific theory that this was due to random mutation, natural selection etc.

Einstein’s theory of general relativity has also been “proven”. Scientific theories are the “highest” standard of scientific endeavour. Dismissing scientific theories as “just a theory” completely misunderstands their nature and how they are developed. They are not a hypothesis. They tie together and explain all the facts and make accurate predictions. Your assertion here that theories are not “proven” is nonsense. they become theories because they are “proven”.

Stop talking bollocks.

"Human evolution' isn't fact, it's simply science's current best understanding of humankind's origin. A "theory" by definition doesn't make for "fact". The currently fluid theory of human evolution is open to chop and change as new information comes to light. As Chief said, science doesn't do proven, hence it's also incapable of submitting fact, for the definition of 'fact' is "a thing that is known or proved to be true".

A 'theory' is supposition, and supposition is defined as "a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis". That is why those that believe human evolution to be true take it with an element of faith, especially given that, according to Chief, science doesn't do 100% fact or proven.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

"Human evolution' isn't fact, it's simply science's current best understanding of humankind's origin. A "theory" by definition doesn't make for "fact". The currently fluid theory of human evolution is open to chop and change as new information comes to light. As Chief said, science doesn't do proven, hence it's also incapable of submitting fact, for the definition of 'fact' is "a thing that is known or proved to be true".

A 'theory' is supposition, and supposition is defined as "a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis". That is why those that believe human evolution to be true take it with an element of faith, especially given that, according to Chief, science doesn't do 100% fact or proven.

Do you believe Allah played a role in creation?

 

[Long Live HFC]

"Human evolution' isn't fact, it's simply science's current best understanding of humankind's origin. A "theory" by definition doesn't make for "fact". The currently fluid theory of human evolution is open to chop and change as new information comes to light. As Chief said, science doesn't do proven, hence it's also incapable of submitting fact, for the definition of 'fact' is "a thing that is known or proved to be true".

A 'theory' is supposition, and supposition is defined as "a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis". That is why those that believe human evolution to be true take it with an element of faith, especially given that, according to Chief, science doesn't do 100% fact or proven.

nope. all wrong. again, you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

 

[tesseract]

nope. all wrong. again, you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

Theory is theory. Putting "scientific" before it doesn't change the meaning of 'theory'.

 

[Long Live HFC]

As above. Clearly you dont understand what theory means in the context of science.

Lets try again with a simple analogy.

Basically, youre saying that the 'big bang theory' is "just a theory", therefore its not proven that the universe is expanding (expansion of the universe being one of the FACTS explained by the big bang theory).

Get it? There is the fact of evolution (that species change over time) and the theory that explains this fact. So whether or not YOU feel the "theory of evolution" is proven or not, that has no impact on the FACT that evolution occurs.

Are you following yet?

 

[Geelong_Bisons_#36]

Hey tesseract.
Did you know gravity is just a "theory" too?
It's called 'gravitational theory'.
Maybe if you don't believe in gravity, you can float the f*ck away.

 

[Partridge]

Hey tesseract.
Did you know gravity is just a "theory" too?
It's called 'gravitational theory'.
Maybe if you don't believe in gravity, you can float the f*ck away.

He can disprove gravitational theory in an instant. Go to the top of any skyscraper in any CBD, and jump out of a window. If it's 'just a theory', then there's nothing to worry about.

 

[Partridge]

You really don't know what a theory is do you. Let me also point out that until anything else with credible evidence comes out that evolution will be considered fact since there is no other viable alternative. However if their is a major breakthrough and conclusive evidence is found for another theory then evolution will be dropped harder than a bag of bricks, also if evolution is proven to be wrong then the same thing will occur as the previous line stated.

Precisely, and there is a long line of discredited theories that were adhered to and followed for years, decades, even centuries, until enough evidence was found to disprove them.

1. Lamarckism, or the inheritance of acquired characteristics - this was genuinely believed for a while in the early 19th century. The giraffe has a long neck because it's parents s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d its neck to reach leaves, therefore it's descendents inherited that slightly longer neck. Only trouble was it wasn't supported by experiment, and was demolished by Darwin in 1859.

2. Phlogiston theory - a strange element that was released upon combustion. Chemists searched (in vain) for it for decades, over a century in fact. Finally Joseph Priestley discovered oxygen, and then Lavoisier demonstrated decisively phlogiston didn't exist.

3. Catastrophism theory - one of many obsolete theories in Geology. All eagerly embraced, all had vigorous supporters. But slowly, each one was superseded until very recently when Plate Tectonics was proposed. And unlike the others, this gives the best explanation of all known geologic processes.

If you want to find real, genuine superstardom in science (e.g. Darwin, Einstein), it comes from overthrowing the existing paradigm, not going along with everyone else. You disprove evolution there's a Nobel prize waiting for you. Problem is it's difficult to achieve, because in layman's terms - it's a fact. Get over it.

 

[Partridge]

Get it? There is the fact of evolution (that species change over time) and the theory that explains this fact. So whether or not YOU feel the "theory of evolution" is proven or not, that has no impact on the FACT that evolution occurs.

Are you following yet?

And the best part is, the Theory of Evolution, like Plate Tectonics, like Gravitational Motion (and all other scientific theories), is only provisionally accepted. It's tentative; always subject to revision, always subject to further analysis, and always available to be disproved in an instant.

One of the smartest things Darwin did when he wrote Origin of Species was to actually list the flaws in his own theory. There's an entire chapter devoted to it - "Difficulties on Theory", and he clearly outlines what would disprove evolution (guess how many have turned up in 155 years - none). In 1859 the fossil record was pretty paltry, which he freely acknowledged. He acknowledged the lack of transitional fossils. Then, one year later, the first specimen of Archeopteryx was discovered. That pretty paltry record has become embarrassingly rich (just go to Melbourne Museum right now, they have a cast of Ambulocetus Natans, an extinct whale with these curious appendages called arms and legs).

I can't wait to see the next great theory emerge. I can't wait to see previous knowledge overturned. But only due to sufficient evidence, and not because scientific illiterates like to have sky-fairies to believe in.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Precisely, and there is a long line of discredited theories that were adhered to and followed for years, decades, even centuries, until enough evidence was found to disprove them.

1. Lamarckism, or the inheritance of acquired characteristics - this was genuinely believed for a while in the early 19th century. The giraffe has a long neck because it's parents s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d its neck to reach leaves, therefore it's descendents inherited that slightly longer neck. Only trouble was it wasn't supported by experiment, and was demolished by Darwin in 1859.

2. Phlogiston theory - a strange element that was released upon combustion. Chemists searched (in vain) for it for decades, over a century in fact. Finally Joseph Priestley discovered oxygen, and then Lavoisier demonstrated decisively phlogiston didn't exist.

3. Catastrophism theory - one of many obsolete theories in Geology. All eagerly embraced, all had vigorous supporters. But slowly, each one was superseded until very recently when Plate Tectonics was proposed. And unlike the others, this gives the best explanation of all known geologic processes.

If you want to find real, genuine superstardom in science (e.g. Darwin, Einstein), it comes from overthrowing the existing paradigm, not going along with everyone else. You disprove evolution there's a Nobel prize waiting for you. Problem is it's difficult to achieve, because in layman's terms - it's a fact. Get over it.

Science, historically, has rejoiced in the status quo being uplifted through discovery. Organised religion historically has arrested, discredited and suppressed people who threaten the status quo.

 

[dalt]

What I find interesting about our evolution is that out of all the millions of species to inhabit this planet, we are pretty much the only ones known to develop complex languages and thought processes.

 

[madmug]

What I find interesting about our evolution is that out of all the millions of species to inhabit this planet, we are pretty much the only ones known to develop complex languages and thought processes.

Oh really!

Man is another animal. Our brain has developed in a similar way to other mammals. We have certainly developed better higher functional capacity due to our brain size, but we are remarkably similar in anatomical design to other animals. Our genetic make up is surprisingly similar to other primates.

Other animals 'think' & 'communicate'

I'm sure if we let evolution continue unabated, other species will change & develop to perform at a higher level. Thats if man or a bloody big meteor doesnt kybosh the planet first!

 

[The Coup]

As above. Clearly you dont understand what theory means in the context of science.

Lets try again with a simple analogy.

Basically, youre saying that the 'big bang theory' is "just a theory", therefore its not proven that the universe is expanding (expansion of the universe being one of the FACTS explained by the big bang theory).

Get it? There is the fact of evolution (that species change over time) and the theory that explains this fact. So whether or not YOU feel the "theory of evolution" is proven or not, that has no impact on the FACT that evolution occurs.

Are you following yet?

Gravity molecules have never been observed (from what I understand) either, so that one is a theory too right?

Still pretty sure I've observed gravity. It's what keeps Melbourne at the bottom of the ladder.

 

[dalt]

Oh really!

we are remarkably similar in anatomical design to other animals. Our genetic make up is surprisingly similar to other primates.

Intriguing, how we share so many similarities, and yet so many differences.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Precisely, and there is a long line of discredited theories that were adhered to and followed for years, decades, even centuries, until enough evidence was found to disprove them.

1. Lamarckism, or the inheritance of acquired characteristics - this was genuinely believed for a while in the early 19th century. The giraffe has a long neck because it's parents s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d its neck to reach leaves, therefore it's descendents inherited that slightly longer neck. Only trouble was it wasn't supported by experiment, and was demolished by Darwin in 1859.

2. Phlogiston theory - a strange element that was released upon combustion. Chemists searched (in vain) for it for decades, over a century in fact. Finally Joseph Priestley discovered oxygen, and then Lavoisier demonstrated decisively phlogiston didn't exist.

3. Catastrophism theory - one of many obsolete theories in Geology. All eagerly embraced, all had vigorous supporters. But slowly, each one was superseded until very recently when Plate Tectonics was proposed. And unlike the others, this gives the best explanation of all known geologic processes.

If you want to find real, genuine superstardom in science (e.g. Darwin, Einstein), it comes from overthrowing the existing paradigm, not going along with everyone else. You disprove evolution there's a Nobel prize waiting for you. Problem is it's difficult to achieve, because in layman's terms - it's a fact. Get over it.

How do your examples clarify the issue? Each theory was held to be facts at the time. How do we know whether our current paradigms are "facts" or will one day be discredited and become obsolete theories?

 

[Collingwood pro]

How do your examples clarify the issue? Each theory was held to be facts at the time. How do we know whether our current paradigms are "facts" or will one day be discredited and become obsolete theories?

We dont, they could be completely on the money or completely wrong, it just depends on the evidence that appears later.

 

[Catastic82]

Intriguing, how we share so many similarities, and yet so many differences.

Our ability to see pattern recognition is what helped us evolved as a specie and develop our type of intellengence.

Who to say how other animals species will evolve in the distant future.

 

[The rabbi]

A non-Fundamentalist short essay on "Evolution as a Scientific Theory" can be found here by Dennis Venema.

Dennis Venema is a professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia.

http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-basics-evolution-as-a-scientific-theory

 

[General Soreness]

Right up there with people who believe that the moon is made of cheese*









*It's not.

Almost!

"I have said that, in my opinion, all was chaos, that is, earth, air, water, and fire were mixed together; and out of that bulk a mass formed – just as cheese is made out of milk – and worms appeared in it, and these were the angels. The most holy majesty decreed that these should be God and the angels, and among that number of angels there was also God, he too having been created out of that mass at the same time, and he was named lord with four captains, Lucifer, Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. That Lucifer sought to make himself lord equal to the king, who was the majesty of God, and for this arrogance God ordered him driven out of heaven with all his host and his company; and this God later created Adam and Eve and people in great number to take the places of the angels who had been expelled. And as this multitude did not follow God's commandments, he sent his Son, whom the Jews seized, and he was crucified."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cheese_and_the_Worms