Nope, they call it a theory for a reason. You don't see anything evolving so you have to theorize that it's so. And if you noticed from my previous post I have skepticism on both viewpoints. You don't have a corner on facts. Legitimate scientists theorize and hypothesize. It's why they explore the natural world for clues about our origins. You want to say it's settled science in order to attack religion.
Religion
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
- Status
El Correcto
god is dead
You’re just assuming it is created, you don’t know that. That’s what makes this baseless.
Yes, it’s in your answer friend, I don’t know why you are asking it again. I think abiogenesis is the most plausible answer to that question. Non living organic material becoming life.
Oh sorry I just assumed that was from your favorite book. You just went off on a rant about corn and creation. Baseless nonsense as usual.
El Correcto
god is dead
Yeah we’ve been over this before, you just don’t understand what theory is and think it means it’s not true. I knew you were gonna try to play stupid semantics yet again, we’ve had this argument before and you never win.
Do I need to start posting the children’s YouTube videos about what a theory is?
Not playing semantics. Real scientists say theory, not fact. You want to say fact to fit your narrative. You know what hypothesis means? An educated guess. Scientists do their best with what they have to work with. But until they get indisputable evidence all of this is, as THEY say, theory.
El Correcto
god is dead
And what are theories back by? How do they become theories?
You’re playing semantics and your skepticism is childish denial.
If you have facts that prove the theory then it's no longer a theory. You don't. Everything theoretical you've said as fact isn't. And you call us fanatics. I've already said my belief in God is based on faith. I believe he exists. You are no different, just think you are.
P.S. I've never said a theory means it's not true. I'm just pointing out to be accepted as fact a theory has to proven. At that point it's no longer a theory. You accept as fact what you can't prove, just believe it's so. That's not the scientific method.
El Correcto
god is dead
No that’s not how a theory works at all. Watch the cartoon.
See my edited reply.
El Correcto
god is dead
Theories are basically a comprehensive understanding of facts and observations.
Evolution is absolutely a theory backed by facts that dismiss your creationist bible story.
You have to make a bunch of baseless assumptions and introduce a level of skepticism that would have you curious if every step you take will end with you falling through the world to deny evolution.
Theories are interpretations of observed phenomenon. They may be proven factual but to say a theory is an understanding of facts puts the cart before the horse. Theories cease be theory when proven as fact. Not semantics. The Big Bang Theory would just be The Big Bang if proven. The Theory of Evolution would likewise be just Evolution. You're calling them accepted fact when they haven't been proven yet.
El Correcto
god is dead
No they don’t, laws and theories are different things, a law isn’t like a “proved” theory.
Many theories will never reach a mathematical conclusion like laws in physics, doesn’t mean they aren’t true.
When you find major peer reviewed scientific publications saying that evolution is settled science let us know. Not some outlier but major scientific journals.
El Correcto
god is dead
Introduction to Human Evolution
No one debates if evolution itself is fact. I guess you have to show me the people saying it isn’t for me to know what nut job put you up to this.
El Correcto
god is dead
No seriously post the people who say evolution isn’t a fact I want to see their arguments.
Do they now? As long as it says theories I'm comfortable saying it's not settled science.Introduction to Human Evolution
humanorigins.si.edu
No one debates if evolution itself is fact. I guess you have to show me the people saying it isn’t for me to know what nut job put you up to this.
You've been arguing with me for a couple hours. I'm not representing anyone. I just know for a "fact" that evolution hasn't been definitively proven. And you can argue it all you want but until scientists no longer call it a theory at best you can put an * beside it.
*Not proven yet.
BrownFlush
Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
I'll try again. Does every house built, have a builder?
The evolutionist answer. Time. Just tack on a few billion years to something and what is impossible, happens.
BrownFlush
Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
You refused to answer simple questions again. As usual.
It's apparent you're not interested in honest discussion.
tourists24
Well-Known Member
Check out Jonathan Safarti. His books is where I started my studies of Creation vs. Evolution years ago. The argument isn't against the occurrence of evolution per se, it's more of the way it's taught to try and answer the beginning of everything. Of course the biggest hurdle for evolution eventually gets around to the actual beginning. There is no answer to that because no one knows for sure. Abiogenesis may be the most probable in scientific theory but still is not even close to being able to show the ties to evolution and how it evolves to the universe of we have today.
Same holds true for a creation theory too. There's no way to prove it. We all have a faith that their way is the correct which is why people will still be having the same disagreements long after we're dead and gone.
BrownFlush
Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
Disagree. Look around the evidence of creation is everywhere.
The battle isn't creation or evolution. The battle is the recognition and acceptance of God.
When a gene mutates it produces an alternative form of the structure or condition it produced before. When a gene for a wing form mutates it produces another wing form, and not an eye color. If we evolved from protozoa (one-celled organisms), where along the way did we get genes which produce bones, blood, and teeth, for protozoa do not have these?
As more and more work is done on how the DNA in every cell works in replication, that point becomes an even larger obstacle for the evolutionary explanation of all life forms being the results of mutations from a single-celled organism.
Beyond the problems that are evident to the honest searcher with mutations to account for all present varieties of life, there is a mathematical problem with the time necessary for the process as @El Correcto recognized. Let's give it 10 billion years and even at that, mathematical models have shown that even the time speculated would not provide enough time for the number of mutations which would have to be made to result in the present life forms even IF (never happened)we all started from a single-celled organism.
As more and more work is done on how the DNA in every cell works in replication, that point becomes an even larger obstacle for the evolutionary explanation of all life forms being the results of mutations from a single-celled organism.
Beyond the problems that are evident to the honest searcher with mutations to account for all present varieties of life, there is a mathematical problem with the time necessary for the process as @El Correcto recognized. Let's give it 10 billion years and even at that, mathematical models have shown that even the time speculated would not provide enough time for the number of mutations which would have to be made to result in the present life forms even IF (never happened)we all started from a single-celled organism.
- Status
Similar threads
