Dear Falkoner:
Umm, Falkoner, new species don't just "pop up" in evolution. Competition creates niches. Small changes and differences happen constantly in genes, and when they are inheritable, they are part of evolution. You look a bit like your mom and dad, and maybe a bit of your grandparents, right? Genes are inheritable, that's the first foundation of evolution. Changes happen to those genes, that is the second foundation of evolution. Before we can continue, do you not accept either of these as true?

And what's with the emphasis on theory? Again, I reiterate, a theory in science has a different definition.

---

Dear Dracolich:
>>> "Proof" of a theory does not exist in science. Proof only exists in mathematics. Experimental observation of the predictions made by a hypothesis or theory is called validation. <<<

---

Dear Vi3t-X:
This is a fallacious play on words. One word, "theory", and two very different meanings.

>>> The word "theory" in "the theory of evolution" does not imply doubt in mainstream science regarding its validity; the words "theory" and "hypothesis" are not the same in a scientific context. While "theory" in conventional usage tends to denote a "hunch" or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles which, via logical induction, explains the observations in nature. The same inductive inferences can be made to predict observations before they are made. Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity. <<<

---

Dear BeDazed:
About proof, refer to above point to Dracolich. As for what FaZ said, it was quite relavant to the discussion at hand. Unless you're psychic or a moderator, you are in no position to predict when this thread will end.

I don't get how people could still argue about evolution after wikipedia writes a FA that's very clear on the matter.

I don't like how you quote on me. I know scientific theories are facts, the point that I mentioned theories is that there are people who don't take it as facts, not me. Please don't neglect what I'm saying.

What? That doesn't make sense.

Don't you mean "I know the difference between scientific theory (The General theory of relativity) and scientific fact (objects fall towards the earth)"

Scientific theories are not facts. In fact there are some popular scientific theories, such as string theory that I don't even believe are true.

EDIT: Also @ everyone. Stop saying "evolution" when you mean "natural selection." They mean very different things.

Dear KrayZee:
Theory is the structure, facts are the data. Two separate things, though evolution is both. I linked to an article that covers this subject of difference very well: Evolution as theory and fact.

---

I KNOW that. I'm the one supporting Evolution. You're not getting the point.

There seems to be a misunderstanding between Hercanic and Krayzee. In Hercanic's older post (the one where he first links the wiki article), he was clarifying the difference for everyone between a scientific theory and the layman's definition of the word theory. Falkoner either didn't read Hercanic's older post or didn't understand it. In his response to Falkoner, Hercanic linked him back to that older post (in which he quoted Krayzee) instead of linking Falkoner straight to the article. Krayzee seems to believe that Hercanic was accusing Krayzee of misunderstanding the difference between the two definitions of theories because his quotes appear in Hercanic's older post.

So in short: Krayzee, he's trying to make it clear to Falkoner that there's a difference between the definition of 'theory' as he seems to understand it and 'scientific theory.' He wasn't (initially) accusing you of not knowing that. Reacting strongly is likely to make Hercanic think that you don't understand. Although I think you might've mis-worded your response to Hercanic's link of the older post.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 23 2008, 10:38 pm by Doodan.

Stop posting these retarded pictures, we're not on 4chan..

My main point is that I see no reason why such a vast number of species would have simply evolved over time, when all we see today is the disappearance of species, it seems to me that having a Creator make all these species, makes more sense, as from what we can see today, they die a lot faster than they reappear.

I'm not denying that certain parts of Evolution are fact, but many parts of it are still theories, as they cannot truly be tested, so you cannot say that Evolution as a whole is not a theory.

Belief in god is based on faith. The bible is meant to inspire you. Nobody is forcing you to believe in god. History textbooks should also be read in order to avoid the mistakes of the past, but that's totally irrelevant to your example.

Evolution doesn't prove that god doesn't exist or that the events of the bible are false, as they could have been written metaphorically instead of literally.

In fact, there are a bunch of examples where the bible predicted scientific theories centuries before people discovered it themselves. For example, the bible states that the Earth is a sphere. Here are a dozen other examples.

It's also impossible for you to prove that god doesn't exist.

What a crock. 90% of wars have nationalistic causes, not religous. How many lives has patriotism or nationalism ruined? I don't see anybody making a fuss about that. Never mind the millions of Christians & Muslims who stayed at home and did their duty to improve the world. Being the bigots that we are, let's just label them all as "religious nutjobs" and blame the world's problems on them.

It's not remotely ironic. You seem to be hung up on the idea that all theists are opposed to science, when in fact, even the bible encourages such things. Go educate yourself before making such claims.

What IS ironic is the fact that even according to science, it's illogical for the universe to exist. The big bang was an expansion of space & time from a singularity. A singularity is a point of infinite density and zero radius. But a fireball didn't just randomly appear in the sky, because there was no space during or before the big bang. In fact, science doesn't know what happened before the big bang. A logical conclusion is that "goddidit". But we can never know.

Prove it.

Here's a video right back at 'cha: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZfocZ_LDQc

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Dec 26 2008, 6:34 pm by Aedus.

It's impossible for you to prove that I don't have my magical fairy unicorn next to me, spellchecking what I type.
*according to modern understanding of physics
Science "doesn't know" anything. Science is a method, not a book.
A logical conclusion is that we lack sufficient data or have too poorly utilized present data to make assumptions.

If you have evidence for the magical fairy unicorn spellchecking what you type then you can by all means believe in it. I have evidence for a god. I don't have evidence for a magical fairy unicorn.

Ok then. From now on I'll word my posts more specifically to avoid getting into semantic arguments with nitpickers.

That's not a conclusion. Saying "I don't know" doesn't explain how the universe was created or what happened before the big bang.

My typing tends to have fewer mistakes than average.
There must be a reason for this.
All humans are humans and thus should make similar numbers of mistakes.
The obvious logical conclusion is that our number of mistakes is in direct relation to the amount of magical fairy unicorn we have checking what we do.
It doesn't have to explain.
You don't know what I look like ( assuming you've not happened across a particular post in a particular thread... ) .
What image would be logical for you to assume I conform to, with no error? There is none.

Also, I looked at that "Scientific Bible" website you linked, and frankly, it's ludicrous.

If this place had mods, "funny" images wouldn't be allowed ITT...

They really aren't good at explaining points, they just make it easier for two people to talk past each other.

Doesn't that fit with the enormous amount of evidence showing that the Earth isn't 6000 years old? Species evolve to fit better to their particular area, over a vast number of generations. For example, native Africans have dark skin for increased sun tolerance. Species are only dying faster currently because of human interaction. Species certainly became extinct in the past, but that mass death wasn't accelerated by us. It's seems likely to me that mankind has also lowered the ability for speciation to occur, simply by occupying land everywhere.

How does religion explain colored skin at all? If we descended from Adam and Eve then I don't see how the Earth could have Asians, Blacks, Whites, and all of the other races. For that matter, Adam and Eve at first had only two kids, and one of them was killed. How did Cain reproduce at all? The only possibility is that he slept with a sister. If we're all descended from that, genetic flaws would have destroyed humanity long before today.

The bible says that the earth is a circle, not a sphere. The fact that there was no Hebrew word for sphere doesn't alter the definition of circle, no matter how much religious apologetics want it to. Any of the "facts" revealed by the bible from that link that I have any basic knowledge about I can dismiss, and I assume someone more knowledgeable could likewise counter the others.

(Assuming Catholic) Besides the bible, what evidence for your god do you have that I don't have for a magical fairy unicorn?

If there is not sufficient data to make a conclusion, the correct conclusion is "I don't know." Would you prefer science attempt to make something up, as religion has?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 26 2008, 8:22 pm by FaZ-.

Where does the bible say the earth is a circle? That was just some idiotic idea made up by medieval churches.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV).

This place does have mods. I wouldn't call the images "funny" as much as I would call them "sad". However, I do find them effective and acceptable. The one about monkeys evolving from the bible is the only image that I would find under consideration for deletion. In any case, you haven't reported any of the posts so clearly you don't really have an issue here, right?

This is a metaphoric description of the Lord our God and the authority he has over us, nothing more.
People back in their times describe things based on what they perceive. However, the common misconception people have is that just because they wrote these books based on what they perceived at the time doesn't mean that their views are the strict universal unchanging rules (I'm sure just about everyone realizes this but seems as though some deliberately choose to disregard this in their desperate attempts to belittle the Bible.) This also applies to the whole women's rights, clothing, man sleeping with other man, and all those cultural things which sparked some controversies in today's societies.

That's not evidence, it's logic. Again, I have evidence that god exists. Evidence combined with logic makes belief in god perfectly valid.

By itself it doesnt, but you were replying to this:
I put forth god as a possible explanation. You put forth "I don't know" - that's not an explanation.

Maybe. But it was mainly intended for the OP's benefit.

Science is not a method, it is the study of the physical world. The scientific method is a method.

Physics is a branch of science. In addition, the Big Bang theory has facets of chemistry as well, so just saying "modern physics" is technically incorrect.

I've read that the church mistranslated the word for "sphere" into "circle", because they believed that the Earth was flat. However, I don't know Hebrew, so I'll take your word for it.

I didn't come here to discuss that. However, some of my "evidence" does include personal experience.

And what's wrong with the bible? If it can be proven to be historically accurate then it's perfectly valid evidence.

Science puts forth possible explanations & fills in holes all the time. There are plenty of theories for the creation of the universe created via mathematics. There are mathematical proofs for god as well. Therefore scientific hypotheses are no more logical or illogical than "goddidit".

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Dec 27 2008, 1:40 am by Aedus.