FACEOFF: Science VS Evolution

[Maj]

"Evolution of Species is a proven fact.

Evolution of Species is a theory, not a fact. There is a world of difference between the two.

I'll take these definitions straight from dictionary.com to avoid any confusion or mistakes:

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

"while the truth is they don't know 90% of what thare is to know in biology."

That would be a very flattering statement to any biologist.
I'd be very skeptical of any biologist who said his field had revealed and explained a mere percent of its mysteries.

 

[croxis]

Evolution of species does not explain the start of life (ie: the transition from protien to bacterium). Just simply how it developed.

BTW, I recall reading that some bacteria have been found that do not share the same base pairs most other life do. Can anyoen conferm this?

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Maj
Evolution of Species is a theory, not a fact. There is a world of difference between the two.

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

Newton's Theory of Gravitation is also just a theory.
But if you jumped off a building, it would soon become a fact.

 

[Quasar1011]

Originally posted by nihilistic
However, I think the people who made it sound like religionists are incapable of independant thought are the ones who repeatedly recite passages from their holy texts without any reasoning or original input. Don't try to pretend you are not guilty of that.

Guilty as charged. After all, God says it better than I can. Which is why I like to quote Him, or His prophets.

However, to say I have offered up texts without "any reasoning or original input" is totally false. Most times when I quote texts, I also give reasons as to why they are pertinent to the discussion. Those reasons are mine, and are therefore original input. So, naff off.

 

[Maj]

Originally posted by Kryten


Newton's Theory of Gravitation is also just a theory.
But if you jumped off a building, it would soon become a fact.

Aww shucks. I thought it had graduated to a Law

 

[Quasar1011]

Originally posted by Maj

Aww shucks. I thought it had graduated to a Law

No, a law would be like, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which runs counter to evolutionary theory, by the way.

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Quasar1011
No, a law would be like, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which runs counter to evolutionary theory, by the way.

Untrue I'm afraid.....

"This local increase of complexity created by the presence life, or decrease of entropy, appears to contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that entropy must always increase in natural spontaneous processes. However, it can be shown that overall entropy always increases so long as the changes in the surroundings as well as the changes in the organisms themselves are included. There is thus no conflict between the basic laws of physics and chemistry and the existence of living organisms."

Microsoft Encarta 2002.

But here is something to think about:-
Why do Christians automatically assume that the Genesis story as laid out in the Bible is the ONLY creation theory? What about the Babylonian Creation story, or the Egyptian Creation story, or the Aztec Creation story, or the Aborigine Creation story, and many, many others? Do these count for nothing? Are they to be dismissed out of hand? Are they to be discarded because they are representative of ‘failed’ religions? If so, then there is evolution for you.....the survival of the fittest religion!

 

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Quasar1011


No, a law would be like, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which runs counter to evolutionary theory, by the way.

That's simply not true, the second law only applies to a whole system.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

No, a law would be like, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which runs counter to evolutionary theory, by the way.

Ho boy even the most elementary biology textbook deals with this stuff. And I see others have already refuted it, so there's no need to continue bugging you for not having paid attention in class

Why do Christians automatically assume that the Genesis story as laid out in the Bible is the ONLY creation theory? What about the Babylonian Creation story, or the Egyptian Creation story, or the Aztec Creation story, or the Aborigine Creation story, and many, many others? Do these count for nothing? Are they to be dismissed out of hand? Are they to be discarded because they are representative of ‘failed’ religions? If so, then there is evolution for you.....the survival of the fittest religion!

Why bother, they're all essentially the same deal anyway.

You can talk about specifics, but the same basic arguments apply to the idea of any supernatural omniwhatnot being that rules our lives. The fact that God doesn't solve the something from nothing problem, etc. free will vs omniscience, omnipotence, etc.

Old hat