Creationism vs. Evolution

[ZNFYRH]

It seems terribly simple.

In science, what you see doesn't prove a hypothesis.

A hypothesis seeks to explain what is observed.

[Jack]

Nice and concise.

Then scientists take that explanation and "predict" how other experiments will turn out if this explanation "holds water". If that explanation can be used to predict the outcome of other experiments, and a better (one that makes even more accurate predictions possible) explanation hasn't been offered, that explanation will stand as the "best" explanation we have currently.
It's all about trying to understand.

[Century 25]

Humanity.. like water.. will always be at the lowest level. Just as a chain being as weak/strong as it's weakest link.. so too are we.

Our World.. our lives.. are tremendously hobbled by the ignorance of people. War.. greed.. all made possible by the same ignorance that we see from corrupt & greedy "governments" controlling the masses by fear.. and ever constant dumbing-down..

A life is a terrible thing to waste hoping for some utopia presided over by a deity that promises.. ?? "Heaven" ..so sad..

[gallo]

Quote by: ZNFYRH It seems terribly simple. In science, what you see doesn't prove a hypothesis. A hypothesis seeks to explain what is observed.

BINGO! We have a winner!

Beyond that, an hypothesis that has been strongly tested is called a theory. A scientific theory doesn't prove, it explains. As I mentioned, there is always the presumption that additional evidence may be discovered that may cause a theory to be altered or even rejected (hollow earth, flat earth, geocentric universe, immutable species, etc.).

But, of course, you obviously have some knowledge of what science is and how it works. Once you invest the effort to learn the basics, the concepts are quite simple. It is all based on simple logic and a process of investigation.

I apologize for my flippant answer. I didn't mean to slight your prescient response. My enthusiasm upon encountering someone who actually understands what science is and how it works carried me away.

As I have mentioned before, it becomes tedious to have to explain over and over again to wave after wave of scientific illiterates what science is and how it works. What is dismally sad is to encounter someone who claims to have taken several AP science courses, biology among them, who still doesn't know what evolution is, what science is, or the how either of them work. How can someone actually pass such courses and still be scientifically illiterate?

[Jack]

How can someone actually pass such courses and still be scientifically illiterate?

Unfortunately, it's not just science. Look at the number of forum members who claim to have graduated college yet can't type very well, spell very well or both. There are so many times I have to really resist the urge to be a language nazi. A few times I couldn't resist. I'm not really sure if I'm penitent or not.
At a time when information has become thousands of times easier to access than ever before in history too few people take advantage of it.

[ZNFYRH]

gallo

That other difference makes sense as well.

A hypothesis is an attempt to explain.

A theory is nothing more than a hypothesis that has held up to tougher scrutiny.

That's the thing that gets me when people say that science has "proved" something. It really hasn't.

And I don't want what I'm saying to be mistakenly associated with support for either side of the argument above.

The Theory of Evolution hasn't been proven... that would be a mistake of language. It's just been supported by repeated observations.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the difference between saying, "This observation is proof that the theory is correct," and, "This observation supports the theory."

Too many people get "proof" confused with "support." In science, there is no such thing as proof. As I tell others when I teach these things:

"Proof is for logic and math to reach unchangeable conclusions. Science is for the best explanations based on current technology's ability to observe."

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Isherwood Unfortunately, it's not just science. Look at the number of forum members who claim to have graduated college yet can't type very well, spell very well or both. There are so many times I have to really resist the urge to be a language nazi. A few times I couldn't resist. I'm not really sure if I'm penitent or not. At a time when information has become thousands of times easier to access than ever before in history too few people take advantage of it.

I was a Communications major and can't type worth a crap. My mind goes faster than my fingers and I invert letters, plus I have to look at the keyboard, so I can't see what hits the screen.

I'm getting better at editing though...

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: ZNFYRH gallo That other difference makes sense as well. A hypothesis is an attempt to explain. A theory is nothing more than a hypothesis that has held up to tougher scrutiny. That's the thing that gets me when people say that science has "proved" something. It really hasn't. And I don't want what I'm saying to be mistakenly associated with support for either side of the argument above. The Theory of Evolution hasn't been proven... that would be a mistake of language. It's just been supported by repeated observations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the difference between saying, "This observation is proof that the theory is correct," and, "This observation supports the theory." Too many people get "proof" confused with "support." In science, there is no such thing as proof. As I tell others when I teach these things: "Proof is for logic and math to reach unchangeable conclusions. Science is for the best explanations based on current technology's ability to observe."

Evolution is pretty much an established fact. Creation is accepted by the majority of people as myth.

Religion can and does do alot of good in the world, but allowing it to squelch scientific progress is just wrong.

[gallo]

Quote by: Mozart1220 I was a Communications major and can't type worth a crap.

So, as a communications major, you are saying that you can't communicate worth a crap? We knew that.

Quote by: Mozart1220 My mind goes faster than my fingers and I invert letters, plus I have to look at the keyboard, so I can't see what hits the screen.

As I see it, your fingers must be really, really slow. You're a communications major and you can't spell and you can't type.

Quote by: Mozart1220 I'm getting better at editing though...

That's not evident.

[gallo]

Quote by: Mozart1220 Evolution is pretty much an established fact. Creation is accepted by the majority of people as myth.

Sadly, creation is accepted by the majority as absolute truth. Please don't try to lead the faithful astray by pointing out the lack of evidence to support a literal reading of the Bible.

Quote by: Mozart1220 Religion can and does do alot of good in the world, but allowing it to squelch scientific progress is just wrong.

I'm not sure that the religiously motivated good wouldn't happen anyway. I'm not sure it actually has anything to do with religion. Of course, science has nothing to do with religion unless religion is the government, in which case, science will have to conform with the reigning christian cult. Sadly, there are too many Americans who would accept a christian Taliban in this country.

[chaplainson]

I would just like to point out that almost all of Science is theory and not fact. I.E. Gravity is a law, why, becasue we can test it in the present with current technology and don't have to rely on anctient evidence.

However evolution and the origons of life are all theories, they are ideas. Evolution is a theory just as much as Creationism is. My problem is that many scientists nowadays are presenting evolution as a fact, but cannot give real proof to show it. We can look at fossils and ASUME that they evolved, but you can't in any way prove it. Just like we cannot prove that God/god/whatever created the world and created life, you cannot prove that evolution is true.

If people would just be a little more open minded about it, it would all be ok, but scientists refuse to teach creationism or intelligent design or whatever to students, saying it's not science, well why the heck not, it has it's mechanisms just like evolution does, and it's just a theory, not a fact, just like evolution. It has scientific evidence through items like irreducible complexity, just as evolution does.

So we can debate which idea is right, just like we can debate whose god is God, but we cannot use only, pure scientific evidence to prove either idea, something must be believed in or taken by faith, whether it is God in creationism or belief in the unproven system of evolution, something must be taken by faith.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: gallo So, as a communications major, you are saying that you can't communicate worth a crap? We knew that. As I see it, your fingers must be really, really slow. You're a communications major and you can't spell and you can't type. That's not evident.

Insults instead of substance. How very Republican of you. I admit hat after 35 years I can't type well, and you attack. Nice.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: chaplainson I would just like to point out that almost all of Science is theory and not fact. I.E. Gravity is a law, why, becasue we can test it in the present with current technology and don't have to rely on anctient evidence. However evolution and the origons of life are all theories, they are ideas. Evolution is a theory just as much as Creationism is. My problem is that many scientists nowadays are presenting evolution as a fact, but cannot give real proof to show it. We can look at fossils and ASUME that they evolved, but you can't in any way prove it. Just like we cannot prove that God/god/whatever created the world and created life, you cannot prove that evolution is true. If people would just be a little more open minded about it, it would all be ok, but scientists refuse to teach creationism or intelligent design or whatever to students, saying it's not science, well why the heck not, it has it's mechanisms just like evolution does, and it's just a theory, not a fact, just like evolution. It has scientific evidence through items like irreducible complexity, just as evolution does. So we can debate which idea is right, just like we can debate whose god is God, but we cannot use only, pure scientific evidence to prove either idea, something must be believed in or taken by faith, whether it is God in creationism or belief in the unproven system of evolution, something must be taken by faith.

There is tons of evidence for evolution, with more coming every day. Do you have ANY evidence for Creation, other than a book of questionable authorship?

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: gallo Sadly, creation is accepted by the majority as absolute truth. Please don't try to lead the faithful astray by pointing out the lack of evidence to support a literal reading of the Bible. I'm not sure that the religiously motivated good wouldn't happen anyway. I'm not sure it actually has anything to do with religion. Of course, science has nothing to do with religion unless religion is the government, in which case, science will have to conform with the reigning christian cult. Sadly, there are too many Americans who would accept a christian Taliban in this country.

Talk to most Christians, or Jews for that matter, and many of them will tell you that they don't take the Bible literally. I only know of one, and he thinks that the Grand Canyon is proff of the great flood. ("there is NO WAY a river did that in only 6,000 years")

The "majority" of Americans DO NOT accept creation as absolute truth", but do keep trying. Science doesn't "conform to the Christian government". But they do get squelched by it often.

The Bible is a GREAT book, full of lessons on how to treat each other. Too bad it's too often used as a weapon to stifle the truth and persecute people.

[ZNFYRH]

chaplainson

Welcome.

I think the problem is in the language.

People see the word "law" and think it means it is inviolable and can't be broken.

In a recent thread about burning salt water, someone paraphrased the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. Yet if you go beyond the simpler resources, one can see that there are plenty of circumstances that "violate" the law.

[rez]

Quote by: ZNFYRH chaplainson Welcome. I think the problem is in the language. People see the word "law" and think it means it is inviolable and can't be broken. In a recent thread about burning salt water, someone paraphrased the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. Yet if you go beyond the simpler resources, one can see that there are plenty of circumstances that "violate" the law.

Bad rebuttal. I mean, what you said was true..but you give chaplainson more of an argument then he deserves.

Chaplainson, simply does not know what a theory is. He thinks he knows, but really he doesn't.

FYI, theory and laws are pretty much the same thing. A theory can be made up of laws too.

evidence of evolution: you - AKA Cell Reproduction

how about...Mitosis or Meiosis.

I mean, you throw out evolution then you throw out Biology....

[chaplainson]

FYI, theory and laws are pretty much the same thing. A theory can be made up of laws too. evidence of evolution: you - AKA Cell Reproduction how about...Mitosis or Meiosis. I mean, you throw out evolution then you throw out Biology....

Hold up there rez my friend, a scientific law and a theory are not anywhere close to eachother. Like a stated earlier, there is a law of gravity, it can be proven by dropping a hammer here, on the moon or whereever the heck you want to drop a hammer.

But cell reproduction is not evidence of evolution, it takes DNA to carry the proteins that cause reproduction, and it takes proteins to make the DNA to make the proteins that organize the DNA to make the proteins etc. It's worse than the chicken and egg question. You must have each for the other to continue. Without DNA there are no proteins that are vital to even the simplest organisms, but without the proteins, there would be no organized DNA.

I mean, you throw out evolution then you throw out Biology....

Sorry to requote but Biology has a lot more to it than evolution. You can take out the unanswerable question of the origons of life, and still study life itself.

The Bible is a GREAT book, full of lessons on how to treat each other. Too bad it's too often used as a weapon to stifle the truth and persecute people.

Well look who's persecuting who. The first sentece is great by the way, but the second. I don't see teachers in school waving a Bible saying this is the truth and there is no other way. You must accept creationism and that kind of thing.

What I do see is a teacher waving around a text book and saying evolution is the absolute truth. My teacher has told me there is no other way you must believe in this. Kids these days aren't being brainwashed into Creationism, but into evolution, so look who's being persecuted in schools.

Evolution is pretty much an established fact.

Like I've stated earlier, there is evidence that leads to evolution, but not irreputable evidence such as dropping a hammer and saying gravity exists. It takes some faith to believe in evolution, just like it does to believe in Creationism.

[rez]

Quote by: chaplainson Hold up there rez my friend, a scientific law and a theory are not anywhere close to eachother.

I am sorry, but you are incorrect. Did you learn that in your Creationism class where you study the Bible to gain knowledge about reality?

Like a stated earlier, there is a law of gravity,

Are you talking about Newton's "law" of gravity? Newton developed his theory 300 years ago. It is not a law, and I do not know why people claim it is a law. There is a new theory of gravity called General relativity.

it can be proven by dropping a hammer here, on the moon or whereever the heck you want to drop a hammer.

You are talking about a very general concept of gravity. It is so much more complex then that, and therefore, there are problems within the Theory of Gravity itself - just like evolution. Gravity is a Theory just like Evolution is. You are arguing against yourself.

But cell reproduction is not evidence of evolution, it takes DNA to carry the proteins that cause reproduction, and it takes proteins to make the DNA to make the proteins that organize the DNA to make the proteins etc. It's worse than the chicken and egg question. You must have each for the other to continue. Without DNA there are no proteins that are vital to even the simplest organisms, but without the proteins, there would be no organized DNA.

I am talking about the fact that cells can mutate and change. Cells can duplicate themselves forming more cells.

Sorry to requote but Biology has a lot more to it than evolution. You can take out the unanswerable question of the origons of life, and still study life itself.

Another common misconception. Evolution is not the study of the origins of life. Abiogenisis is the study of how life originated.

Well look who's persecuting who. The first sentece is great by the way, but the second. I don't see teachers in school waving a Bible saying this is the truth and there is no other way. You must accept creationism and that kind of thing. What I do see is a teacher waving around a text book and saying evolution is the absolute truth. My teacher has told me there is no other way you must believe in this. Kids these days aren't being brainwashed into Creationism, but into evolution, so look who's being persecuted in schools. Like I've stated earlier, there is evidence that leads to evolution, but not irreputable evidence such as dropping a hammer and saying gravity exists. It takes some faith to believe in evolution, just like it does to believe in Creationism.

Take a step back and self-reflect.

You have a problem with a particular Theory in science because it contradicts your spiritual sensibilities.

Just to let you know, Evolution is not the only Theory in science that contradicts your god. So start figuring out how you can disprove all the other Theories in science too.

[ZNFYRH]

A Law is a Theory with even more observational evidence.

[Jubloz]

Double post, sorry.