Evolution vs. Creation

[aquariumfishguy]

The thing is - this topic has been discussed SO many times here, both in threads dedicated to this very topic, and in threads not intended to be used for religious debates. I think most members would agree that you either believe one way, or the other... or maybe both... but the point is, we aren't going to change our minds, or change anyone else's for that matter. It’s almost like arguing that gray is really closer to the color black than it is white. You can’t win! Since most people know about the theories behind both creation and evolution, it seems pointless IMO to even debate/argue/persuade.

Again, it is JMO and I don't speak for anyone but myself.

 

[Riso-chan]

Hey I am an Aussie, thanks for that Dale.

I love aussies too! I want to visit there soon, the people seem nice. I could definitely get used to the accent too. Maybe one day I might even move to a different country. The only thing I think I'd be a bit worried about going to Austraillia is all the poisonous animals. There are so many,but it might be worth it to be somewhere interesting to live.

 

[mogurnda]

I've always thought that the purpose of a theory was to help make sense of data and generate testable hypotheses. When it comes to trying to understand how DNA sequences or body parts came to be the way they are, evolution by natural selection works very well for me. If another theory with more explanatory power takes its place, so be it. As I often hear people say, "It's just a theory," but a useful one for the moment.

 

[slipknottin]

But why can't we bring religion into this, what do you call atheist their bible is evolution.(same with hitler, not saying it to make some of you mad it is true just read Mein Kampf) I'm sure we all can keep this debate civil.Thumbs up :thm:

I can see this thread is going to turn out great. :thud:

Seeing as my beliefs have already been assaulted and compared to a psychopath mass murdurer, Im not going to get involved in this. (of course, hitler was no athiest, and the evolution is no religion, but just the comparison existing shows where this thread is headed)

 

[slipknottin]

I've always thought that the purpose of a theory was to help make sense of data and generate testable hypotheses.

"Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole. "

- http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

 

[Leopardess]

Sigh.

 

[mogurnda]

Thanks for the def, Slip. I will have to go through it a few more times to figure out if it differs from my working definition.

 

[Harlock]

Wow, Godwin's Law, already there...

 

[slipknottin]

Wow, Godwin's Law, already there...

Indeed. :soda:

 

[cohazard]

I don't think Slips deffinition is much different from yours Mogurnda.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole. "

Aren't the improvements to a theory the result of a hypothesis that was generated by said theory?

In that case, Mogurnda's deffinition of a theory, was actually correct. Then again, I'm not sure if you were trying to correct him, or just go into more detail.

I've always thought that the purpose of a theory was to help make sense of data and generate testable hypotheses.

So, a theory is the result of multiple hypothesi which have been tested and reach the same conclusion. But that theory can always create new hypothesi which improve it. (Did I spell the plural form of hypothesis correctly? I can't find my dictionary, lol)

Serg