[milanya]

There is a difference between fact and theory.

it is a scientific fact that water boils at a certain temp, in certain conditions, and I can go into a lab and perform experiments to prove it. Repeated experiments.

Theory is when I observe things and make inferences about them. That is what evolution is, it is based on observations and inferences that come with it.

People try to pass evolution off as a fact, when it is a theory.

[Death]

>Theory is when I observe things and make inferences about
>them. That is what evolution is, it is based on observations
>and inferences that come with it.

I like the way you omitted the word 'scientific from that definition' as Evolution is a scientific theory, please go and lookup the definition of a Scientific theory, then you can post that particular definition, as opposed to what you have above.


>People try to pass evolution off as a fact, when it is a
>theory.

Who are these people? Please point out names? Evolution is a Scientific theory, and I doubt anybody has stated otherwise. However I would like to remind you again, that a scientific theory is not an 'opinion' or 'guess work'. To put this into perspective, let me ask you this:

Have you ever flipped a light switch convinced that once you do, the room will light up? If so, please understand that simple mechanism was designed and produced light based on scientific theories. In other words, you trust and rely on 'scientific theories' in a number of aspects in your everyday life...so please don't try to discredit the entire notion of scientific theories simply because you don't like what one says.

[milanya]

Just out of curiosity, why did u name yourself death?

So, y'all base your existence on a theory? Just to be clear?

Life's not a garden so don't be a hoe

[ATLian]

>There is a difference between fact and theory.

Milanya,

I agree.


>it is a scientific fact that water boils at a certain temp, in
>certain conditions, and I can go into a lab and perform
>experiments to prove it. Repeated experiments.

Again, I concur.



>Theory is when I observe things and make inferences about
>them. That is what evolution is, it is based on observations

Yes. And they are observations that have been observed by numerous people in different settings, which is what gives the theory scientific credibility. If you took the evidence at hand and researched on it, you'd arrive at the same conclusions.



>People try to pass evolution off as a fact, when it is a
>theory.

The only people I've heard say this is people who have no idea what evolution is. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.



>So, y'all base your existence on a theory? Just to be clear?

EVERYBODY bases their existence on a theory since nobody KNOWS where we came from. Christians base their existence on the theory of Biblical creation, evolutionists on the theory of evolution, etc. The major difference between those two theories is one is empirical and one isn't.

[Points]

I am amazed at how some of you take the time to "correct" others on what theory is then they make the mistake to confuse theory and fact. I wonder why, except to manipulate for your own ends, you want to distort anything. Theory is what it is: a theory. I hate to use simple analogies but I have to so some of you can understand. UFO phenomena is a theory, so is evolution, so is creationism, and so is the reason why is mechanism of HIV nuclear import. Facts include: presence of chlorophyl in green plants, plants need light for growth. See there is no overap anywhere. You note that if you have knowledge of any of the above theories, you will realize that there are true/facts about them, but that doesn't mean that the bigger picture is supported by those facts necessarily. Now, it may come to be proven, but it remains a theory till then.
We religious people win overwhelmingly anyway. You ask us where everything came from and we say GOD! God was there before time, space anything, and He created all things that you would like to talk about today. Now, you are caught in a trap because you are bound by your science in that you can go however far back in creation you want but you are still left with the conundrum of CREATION OF MATTER! See, we are all taught how you cannot create or destroy matter, but here you are trying to undermine foundations of Physics and chemistry by telling us that the world begun by CREATING MATTER. As if that is not enough, you want to convince me that this science (which creating matter is a BIG no no) created the perfect and most daring/intelligent/amazing/magnificent matter if you think about even the complexity of a seemingly simple particle such as a virus.
Give me a break!

[Zelda]

evolution and belief in creation could very easily coexist; it's a question of apples and oranges. they serve very different functions for human needs. they don't have to be opposed to each other. with some reflection, its possible to see how the two theories are similar, and perhaps how one theory can lead to a better understanding of the other.

theories of evolution, and science for that matter, do not argue that god does not exist. they try to explain how things work at the level of "natural" laws. whether or not god exists is something entirely outside their purview (unless you want to go into quantum physics and the like). whether or not god exists, you can still collect the evidence, analyse it and try to describe relationships between the various facts. studying biology, chemistry, physics, history and philosophy gives us the opportunity to examine knowledge, work with it, manipulate it. you do not have to accept the premises of these disciplines, but you are advised to at least understand them. that way, if you reject them, then you're rejecting them for reasons that are clear to you.
if you want to introduce god as a factor in a scientific theory, then you create problems, not just from the scientific point of view, but also from the religious point of view: you would have to invent a new theology to account for what god is/ how god acts/ how a transcendent god can exist within the limits of our 4 dimensions.

if you are a "creationist", sawa: you believe god exists, and that he created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. but how did he create them? the bible does not answer that question, does it? and the bible does not talk about dna, does it? creation, whatever it involved, must have been a very complex process that took eons and eons... and that is probably still going on. the genesis chronicle that talks about 6 days of creation is only a hint as to the complexity involved. we surely don't believe that that's all there is to the story?! for every word that's said, there's a million or more that are not being said. the bible simply does not explain everything because it wasn't written to explain "everything"!

according to the theory of evolution, life-forms evolved from very simple forms to more complex forms in various stages.
according to the biblical theory of creation, something pretty similar happened. there is this idea that certain life forms came into being (or were created) at different points in time (perhaps as the world became more habitable for them). and we are asked to believe that the final product (humankind) was the ultimate in complexity and importance.
yaani both types of theories see the process as a teleological one that happened in STAGES.
both theories have no answer as to what the 'starting point' was. as some of you have rightly pointed out, evolution explains the development of various species, but doesn't touch so much on the origin of life. ditto for creation: god may have created all, but we still don't know where god, the source of all life, came from.
both types of theories account for the pressnce of dna/ rna in all life forms.
these theories have much more in common than many are willing to admit. if you have the time you can easily think up other similarities.

as time passes, the theories of evolution will prove to be erroneous or insufficient. and ditto for our understandings of the bible. all knowledge ultimately proves to have kasoros within it, so that should not be a surprise. understanding is a work in progress. there's always room for improvement.

@Volina, wrt your original post, it's impossible to be an individualist. none of us is living in a vacuum. of course everyone reproduces theories/ beliefs that have been described to them by someone else. how else can we live?

[Volina]

I took an evolution today and my question still is, I mean I am reading Darwin, but still, where did the fossils come from initially. where did the chicks and finches..etc come from..who created them.....I mean Evolution can convince me on population and speciation, but where did they ancestral ancient come from...that is my problem:

[spider-ndwalz]

creationsim vs.evolution huh?

this is a no-brainer...Darwin was a bull####er in my opinion...there is no way that you cant believe in a higher power...
and what of new age?
i dont believe that stuff just sparks out of nowhere...out of some catalystic phenomenon...
i know there is a God ...and God knows that i know he exists..nothing will and can ever shake that ....
just my hypothesis....

[ATLian]

>Theory is what it is:
>a theory. I hate to use simple analogies but I have to so some
>of you can understand. UFO phenomena is a theory, so is
>evolution, so is creationism,

Points,

you're correct. The existence of UFOs, mermaids, unicorns, etc, are all theories. I don't concern myself with such theories. The only theories I care for are SCIENTIFIC theories. Mermaids, unicorns and UFOs aren't corroborated by scientific theories. Neither is creation.

And that's the point both Death and I have been trying to make - evolution is a scientific theory, while creation isn't. Saying that an almighty deity who's always lived created us without offering an iota of evidence holds as much water as saying Bogi Benda created the world.



>Now, you are caught in a
>trap because you are bound by your science in that you can go
>however far back in creation you want but you are still left
>with the conundrum of CREATION OF MATTER! See, we are all
>taught how you cannot create or destroy matterbut here you
>are trying to undermine foundations of Physics and chemistry
>by telling us that the world begun by CREATING MATTER.

Let me correct you. Yes, according to the laws of thermodynamics, you cannot create or destroy energy or matter. What you maybe you forgot or just plain didn't know is that this law refers to CHEMICAL reactions. You can create matter in a NUCLEAR reaction. Not only can you do this, but it has been done. It's a FACT that has been proven mathematically AND physically. The Big Bang theory talks about a nuclear explosion, not a chemical reaction... Since nuclear reactions can produce matter, and since the Big Bang is the biggest nuclear reaction and explosion that will ever be, then that should explain where the matter in the Big Bang theory came from.



>but here you
>are trying to undermine foundations of Physics and chemistry
>by telling us that the world begun by CREATING MATTER.

This is why it helps to know what you're talking about before you write it down. I didn't undermine the foundations of physics, I just told you of some laws of physics that you didn't know about.



>As if
>that is not enough, you want to convince me that this science
>(which creating matter is a BIG no no) created the perfect and
>most daring/intelligent/amazing/magnificent matter if you
>think about even the complexity of a seemingly simple particle
>such as a virus.
>Give me a break!

I'm not sure I understand the above statement. What's this "most daring/intelligent/amazing/magnificent matter" you refer to? God? Because if it's god, then we are on different pages. I don't believe there's a god, meaning that I don't believe science created god.

[ATLian]

>evolution and belief in creation could very easily coexist;

Zelda,

I beg to differ.

First of all, god is perfect, and the Bible says that his creation was perfect. As we all know, evolution is all about an imperfect organism struggling to become perfect by adapting itself to it's environment and needs. This means that god didn't create these imperfect organisms.

Secondly, evolution is a process that takes millions of years, while it's been proven in the Bible that Adam was created around 7,000 years ago.

Thirdly, some "facts" about creation are straight up wrong, like:

Genesis 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night"

We all know that the moon has no light, it's a planet like the earth. The light it has is what it reflects from the sun. This makes it very probable that it's a man who wrote the creation story, and of course at that time he had no idea that the light was coming from the sun, not the moon.

Finally, some facts just straight out contradict creation. The Bible says that god created the stars on the 4th day. Let me get into a little physics. The nearest star from earth is 4 light years away. For those who have sahaud what a light year is, it's the distance light travels in a year. So we see this star the way it looked 4 years ago because that's the length of time that light took to reach us. Or if that star blew up today, we'd see the explosion 4 years from now, in 2010.

Therefore all logic dictates that when the stars were created in their various galaxies, Adam should have seen the first star 4 years from the date of creation. Now there are many stars that are millions of light years away from the earth. But we still see them. Meaning that the light we see has been travelling to us for a million years, which would be impossible if they were all 7,000 years old.

Again, the anwwer for this glaring discrepancy is most likely that the men who wrote the Bible didn't have the faintest clue of what the heck a light year was.

I don't really want to go deep into it, but that's part of the reason why I say that creation and evolution cannot co-exist...