The theory of evolution. Fact or fiction?
- Thread starter Complexion
- Start date
I don't understand why science and religion have to be oppositional. Well actually I do but still...
they dont need to be
people dont understand that both catholics and muslims had a stranglehold on scientific advancement in their respective spheres of influence and because of that there is residual angst that religion is fundamentally opposed to science
its quite the opposite, most science was born from priests and men of study who sought refuge there. Newton for example was a staunch christian
Isaac Newton - Wikipedia
just because some religious people used their power/positions to be against scientific advancement doesnt mean all believers are of the same mindset. Now that said there are some science positions (IE evolution and other fields that imply either deep time or opposing creation stories) are fundamentally at odds
its only natural that those people will contest the claims
RARI_Godwind
St. BAWGustine - DarkSkxxxn
I cannot dispute any of this. It could be facts brehs.
So how do you explain that humans and fish both have similar facial and body structures Fish have faces like ours (two eyes, two nostrils, and a mouth), their organ placement and skeletal structure is similar to ours. Also how do you explain when you look back in Human DNA you see fish DNA?
I wasn't talking about cross-breeding, I'm talking same species, why do animals in the same species have different characteristics. If there is no evolution, then breeding dogs would be impossible. Many dogs are bred through manually selecting characteristics. You wouldn't be able to do that if there was no evolution and they would just be a copy of the parents
Breh what? What do think evolution means? The basis of evolution is what you just said, its not just animals? You realize trees are living beings and have DNA as well right?
Breh this only makes sense if you are a young earth creationist.This is not proof that you can get a fish to turn into a person over time. And it doesnt rule out a variety of animals were already here since the beginning of time,big bang even opens the door for that. So you cant rule it out
the purpose for why creatures have the functions they have could have been determined as necessary given the physical phenomena
IE we have touch, sight, smell, hearing, taste, and some would argue a sixth "tingly spooky sense"
yet there are animals who have other documented senses OR greater versions of our senses like dogs with smell or rainbow shrimp with sight (7 major colors rather than 3)
A way of considering this is something I mentioned earlier in the thread is "probabilistic realities" meaning what "can be" actually is and what is not probable is less likely to exist
so if God made the world with ordinances (we'll assume these to be the physics constants that govern various phenomena) and then ran the universe like a simulation then in theory only the things that could probably exist actually exist. This is why even though science fiction like star trek likes to paint aliens in human form they in truth would only be in the form that probably allows them to exist if they existed at all (suppose a foreign planet with alternate chemistry to our own)
In either case, a good thought experiment is to take away a sense and try to justify why we would be better or worse without it then consider all the other creatures that also were born/created with that sense.
You could easily say thats proof of a creator. Thats like asking why did Picasso use the same paints. And last I checked DNA isnt labeled,so I know theres not a such thing as DNA that says "fish" on it. Shared characteristics,similar dna can mean same designer as much as it means evolution.
And I dont see how dogs being manually breeded by humans proves evolution by natural selection. I believe in adaption,mutation,devolving. But not when used to create a narrative for the theory of evolution.
If you believe in the big bang,why dont you believe life could be created on earth in a blink? Big bang says electrons,neutrons and a universe was created within seconds. So firstly how can you conclude the big bang is a one time event? Then secondly how can you conclude a "big bang", where different animal species are created in a blink to be impossible?
Its not as if atoms and everything within the primordial soup werent complex structures. You just for whatever reason believe a big bang could rapidly expand into a universe within seconds. But a giraffe and lion couldnt be blinked into existence like I Dream Of Jeanie
?This couldve happened various times that you wouldnt be aware of. God couldve had an era where he was really into fish,then he was really into dinasours,then he did animals,then decided to add humans. You are assuming a complete destruction would need to happen. But actually a "big bang" could occur where everything on earth is wiped out. Then instantly replaced in the blink of an eye.
Think of it as time being linear, while reincarnation being a cycle. So its a fact that the earth could be old. While the creations on the earth could actually be recent(new season of Love and Hiphop). An old earth doesnt disprove God or religion really.
They never were
Faith is a belief in something in the hope of
Science is just a method to study the behavior of the physical and natural world.
It's like comparing a therapist with a tool box and a dictionary, none are opposed
Some people do make science a religion itself and they're blind to that, like a cult of science worshipers, who foam at the mouth of you question their faith that they dont even understand.
It basically shows you can turn anything into a religion, whether it be science or Beyonce
You have got to be one of the most hilariously misinformed posters in this thread, and that's saying something because @MMS and Still Benefited are in here.
For the record:
A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL IN SCIENCE.
The goal of any hypothesis is to become a scientific theory, not a law.
A law is simply an observation-- for example: "the sky in the daytime is blue".
A scientific theory is the EXPLANATION for WHY the sky is blue.
Scientific Law: an observation
Scientific Theory: an explanation for that observation
Laws are LOWER on the totem pole in science, because a scientific theory is MADE UP OF SCIENTIFIC LAWS
You nikkas comparing colloquial words to scientific definitions, because you think "nothing is above the law"
You have got to be one of the most hilariously misinformed posters in this thread, and that's saying something because @MMS and Still Benefited are in here.
For the record:
A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL IN SCIENCE.
The goal of any hypothesis is to become a scientific theory, not a law.
A law is simply an observation-- for example: "the sky in the daytime is blue".
A scientific theory is the EXPLANATION for WHY the sky is blue.
Scientific Law: an observation
Scientific Theory: an explanation for that observation
Laws are LOWER on the totem pole in science, because a scientific theory is MADE UP OF SCIENTIFIC LAWS
You nikkas comparing colloquial words to scientific definitions, because you think "nothing is above the law"
did you read this thoroughly and THINK it through.
LAWS have a mathmatical relationship, as in they are already proven, and work over and over and over
"
Answer and Explanation:
Scientific theories are based on the observed evidence, and are updated, adapted, and changed as new evidence becomes available. When new tests are performed their results either support or disprove the current theory, but they can never absolutely prove it.
"
True or False: Scientific theories can never be proved true beyond all doubt. | Homework.Study.com
Answer to: True or False: Scientific theories can never be proved true beyond all doubt. By signing up, you'll get thousands of step-by-step...
homework.study.com
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. And theories are continually improved or modified as more information is gathered, so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
What Is a Scientific Theory?
A scientific theory is based on careful examination of facts.
I sit correct
mathematical laws can be disproven too
as many of them are just theories built on currently accepted ideas
like the Laws of Thermodynamics. Things like absolute temperature seem to make sense but its another case of where our measurement devices can only record temperature to a certain level. And the equations used predict some of these things
entropy is an assumed part of the universe not a fact of the universe. Its a residual predicted from differential equations
they are beautiful "laws" but you're still being dense and splitting hairs because apparently this is what you do with your spare time @Th3Birdman
as many of them are just theories built on currently accepted ideas
like the Laws of Thermodynamics. Things like absolute temperature seem to make sense but its another case of where our measurement devices can only record temperature to a certain level. And the equations used predict some of these things
entropy is an assumed part of the universe not a fact of the universe. Its a residual predicted from differential equations
they are beautiful "laws" but you're still being dense and splitting hairs because apparently this is what you do with your spare time @Th3Birdman
He is 1000% wrong.
Literally nothing he wrote in that quote is correct.
I guarantee you he doesn't even know what the laws of thermodynamics are, nor why they would even apply to evolution in the first place.
He also couldn't tell you the context of conservation of mass and why that would matter to evolution, either. He is repeating creationist/ID rhetoric that is usually repeated by people that don't know what those terms mean.
What always gets me is these scientific illiterates invoke science and scientific terms in an attempt at invalidating science.
That's like trying to burn the Human Torch. They don't realize how stupid they sound.
Facts in Science
A scientific fact is an undeniably true statement accepted by the science community. It can be proven to be correct through observations and testing. This process is known as the scientific method.
He is 1000% wrong.
Literally nothing he wrote in that quote is correct.
I guarantee you he doesn't even know what the laws of thermodynamics are, nor why they would even apply to evolution in the first place.
He also couldn't tell you the context of conservation of mass and why that would matter to evolution, either. He is repeating creationist/ID rhetoric that is usually repeated by people that don't know what those terms mean.
What always gets me is these scientific illiterates invoke science and scientific terms in an attempt at invalidating science.
That's like trying to burn the Human Torch. They don't realize how stupid they sound.
I had to take thermodynamics class to graduate with an engineering science degree
we studied how materials react to heat and cold, among 1000 other things. You only cut and paste.
Can you explain thermodyamics or solid mechanics in your own words? I doubt
you sound extremely emotional about this, which is what happens when you can not prove your arguement.