Home More advice Religion, Spirituality & Folklore
Trenth, Did you even read my response? Gravity is a fact and a theory. It is a fact that the phenomena exists. HOW it works is a theory. It is not all that difficult a concept. "The idea that mass has a pull is one such theory, though an obsolete one." Please stop being condescending. I was only trying to point out the distinction between facts & theories. I was not trying to get into an in-depth discussion on gravitational theory. If your burden of proof is that one must never make the slightest assumption and must personally see something with ones own eyes before it can be accepted as something true, then most of the things that we accept as true would be questionable. I have never been to space and seen for myself that the earth is round. Does that mean that to anyone who has never been in space, it is just a theory that the earth actually is round? "But the simple fact of their existence tells you nothing about how they came to be as they are." It certainly does. That they came to be is a fact, and we know when and where the organisms existed, unless you choose to dismiss radio-metric dating (carbon dating is only good for objects less than 50,000 years old) as completely inaccurate (although it uses math and logic, your own requirements for proof). And it is also a fact that complex life forms don't just spontaneously emerge from soil. Your burden of proof seems far more exacting than that of the scientific community. Are asumption being made? Of course. But when you watch an object fall you are also making assumptions. You assume that you are not halucinating, seeing an optical illusion, or standing on your head. At some point you have to accept certain realities as truth. Especially when there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence to support it. Evidence like radio-metric dating. And the only people who truly question that, are religious types who are not real scientists and who have an agenda to disprove it due to their own personal beliefs. While some might say radio metric dating is not 100% accurate, it certainly is accurate enough to determine the difference between something a billion years old and something a hundred thousand years old. "then you only know the fact of evolution by virtue of having heard it from sources you consider trustworthy - not so different from what happens for religious folks." Sorry but it is completely different. There is data and evidence to support science, evidence that is there for anyone wishing to take the time to see and understand it. There are only ancient texts written by superstitious men to support religious belief. You are being extremely hypertechnical. I was purposely trying to keep it simple in order to make a simple point. Other than your disagreement with me on the semantics of facts, theory and proof, do you deny the overwhelming evidence that all life evolved from single-celled organisms? If not, then why the are you trying to call me out with your overly-stringent interpretation of "proof"?
Trenth, Did you even read my response? Gravity is a fact and a theory. It is a fact that the phenomena exists. HOW it works is a theory. It is not all that difficult a concept. "The idea that mass has a pull is one such theory, though an obsolete one." Please stop being condescending. I was only trying to point out the distinction between facts & theories. I was not trying to get into an in-depth discussion on gravitational theory. If your burden of proof is that one must never make the slightest assumption and must personally see something with ones own eyes before it can be accepted as something true, then most of the things that we accept as true would be questionable. I have never been to space and seen for myself that the earth is round. Does that mean that to anyone who has never been in space, it is just a theory that the earth actually is round? "But the simple fact of their existence tells you nothing about how they came to be as they are." It certainly does. That they came to be is a fact, and we know when and where the organisms existed, unless you choose to dismiss radio-metric dating (carbon dating is only good for objects less than 50,000 years old) as completely inaccurate (although it uses math and logic, your own requirements for proof). And it is also a fact that complex life forms don't just spontaneously emerge from soil. Your burden of proof seems far more exacting than that of the scientific community. Are asumption being made? Of course. But when you watch an object fall you are also making assumptions. You assume that you are not halucinating, seeing an optical illusion, or standing on your head. At some point you have to accept certain realities as truth. Especially when there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence to support it. Evidence like radio-metric dating. And the only people who truly question that, are religious types who are not real scientists and who have an agenda to disprove it due to their own personal beliefs. While some might say radio metric dating is not 100% accurate, it certainly is accurate enough to determine the difference between something a billion years old and something a hundred thousand years old. "then you only know the fact of evolution by virtue of having heard it from sources you consider trustworthy - not so different from what happens for religious folks." Sorry but it is completely different. There is data and evidence to support science, evidence that is there for anyone wishing to take the time to see and understand it. There are only ancient texts written by superstitious men to support religious belief. You are being extremely hypertechnical. I was purposely trying to keep it simple in order to make a simple point. Other than your disagreement with me on the semantics of facts, theory and proof, do you deny the overwhelming evidence that all life evolved from single-celled organisms? If not, then why the are you trying to call me out with your overly-stringent interpretation of "proof"?
"Jimahl stated that gravity is a theory, but it is not; neither is it a hypothesis."
Trenth, I agree that gravity is not a hypothesis, but it most definately is a theory. How does gravity work? Why does something fall to the ground when I drop it? The answers to those questions are theoretical. The observable fact that objects drop tells you that it most definately happens, but it doesn't tell you why. I doesn't tell you that all mass has a gravational pull, and that the more mass the greater the pull. That part is "just" a theory. You are right gravity is an easily observable fact of life. I believe that evolution is also an easily observable fact of life. That is unless one thinks there is some grand conspiracy in the science community that is just making this stuff up because they hate god. We know for a fact that the earth's surface contains fossils. We know for a fact how old such fossils are. We know for a fact when the first simple organisms appeared. We know for a fact that as time progressed new and more complex organisms kept appearing. Mammals are just a tiny blip on that time line. The new forms of life had to come from somewhere. Different speices weren't just popping into existence? That is unless you think there was some supernatural power just sitting there constantly zapping billions of new species into existence all the time? The ONLY reasonable explanation is new species evolved from the earlier ones. If anyone has a better explanation, I'd love to hear it. The fossil records are an observable fact of life. I will give you it is not as easily observable as gravity, but they most definately can been observed. Just as seeing something drop to the earth is proof that gravity is a real phenomena, fossil records are proof that evolution is a real phenomena. And just as "mass has gravity" is a theory, "natural selection" is also a theory. That is why evolution is not "just" a theory, it is also a fact. The same as gravity.
The distinction jimahl made between theory and hypothesis is very important, and helpful for correcting all the misunderstanding of science on display in these discussions. I'd like to offer one clarification: Jimahl stated that gravity is a theory, but it is not; neither is it a hypothesis. As jimahl implied when he wrote that "No one doubts something will fall to the ground if you let it go," gravity is just an easily observable fact of life.
Various pre-scientific and scientific theories have been proposed to describe how it works (spiritual attraction, gravitron particles, curvature of spacetime, etc.), because that's what theories do: they describe how (not why) things work. These theories pass in and out of the consensus of scientific knowledge according to the process jimahl described. None of them are ever "proven"; each one merely has its turn as the best available explanation until new evidence is accumulated that it cannot explain well (or, occasionally, that DISproves the theory).
We are now sort of between theories of gravity, because the best is still Einstein's theory of general relativity, but quantum physics has now made the shortcomings of that theory clear, and so we await (while some of us work on) the next scientific advance that will be able to explain the macro-phenomena of astrophysics and the micro-phenomena of particle physics equally. Something along the lines of the "unified field theory" that Einstein searched for all his life. Perhaps emerging out of string theory, or not.
Here's the point: There is no proof that evolution is correct, just like there is never proof that any scientific theory is correct, and that does not make those theories "wrong," because science, contrary to popular opinion, has never been about "proof." Proof exists only in math, logic, criminal justice, and bad religion.
Simple. Evolution is science. Science sais: Every thought is a theory until somebody has an idea about how to either prove that it is correct or to prove that it is incorrect.
Evolution is still a theory. Almost all scientists use it as a working hypothesis because nobody has yet come with a better explanation. But yet, nobody was able to create a reproductable lab experiment to prove the theory of evolution.
Now many people are very unhappy with any "we don't really know for sure". People want the world explained. They want to be sure. Admitting that they don't know and mankind might never know is making them uncomfortable. I mean, how can you actually believe in something where people say "we're yet looking for the complete truth".
So people invented gods to explain the world. This is an easy explanation for everything. If you don't know and no one else knows: Must have been the god.
The god-explanaion is complete. It's clear. It's clean. No insecurities. No maybes. Just plain, crystal clear, logical stuff if you believe in it. God made that. Because God wanted it that way. Period. No need to ponder. You even get a free "meaning of life" with it. Because God wanted it that way. Great. No need to find your own way. No need to decide what's right or wrong. Your preacher and your god will comfortably do that for you. Religion claims to know it all.
So why do people not believe in science? Because it lacks that. It lacks a clear, straight world view. It doesn't give all the answers. Science is unsolved questions wherever you look. Science is insecurity. I mean how can you feel safe and sound if no one tells you what happens to you after you die? How can you believe that any of you actions is right if there is no clear this-good-and-that-bad codex? How can you acually support an opinion if it's only a working theory?
Jimahl, you write that gravity "most definately is a theory," and also that "gravity is an easily observable fact." Make up your mind, lol! :) The theory only comes in response to your question about it: "How does it work?" The idea that mass has a pull is one such theory, though an obsolete one.
On the other hand, I am quite certain that neither you nor any other person has ever observed one species evolving into another. Nor have you or anyone else ever observed a fossil hanging around for a billion years. Those things are simply not observable facts. Only the existence of various species and of various fossils are observable facts (like the existence of gravity). But the simple fact of their existence tells you nothing about how they came to be as they are. As with gravity, that requires us to develop theories that can adequately explain the peculiarities of the observable phenomena, such as by applying the equally observable rate of decay of radioactive Carbon 14. "They had to come from somewhere" is far from a scientific theory, and gives no more credence to evolution than it does to divine creation or to spontaneous emergence from soil, or to extraterrestrial origin.
If you have not observed those fossils and that rate of decay directly yourself, and have not also worked through the detailed logic of the competing theories yourself to decide which you find more persuasive, then you only know the fact of evolution by virtue of having heard it from sources you consider trustworthy - not so different from what happens for religious folks. That is how all of us know most of what we know. Nothing to do with the fallacy of "proof."
Katie, you wrote: "How do you believe in God and evolution at the same time? If you really believe in God you should understand that HE made everything and not evolution" This seems to me like saying "How can you believe in G!d and in the rotation of the earth on its axis at the same time? If you really believe in G!d, you should understand that HE made the sunsrise, not the earth's rotation." But, of course, both are true: G!d made the sunrise that occurs because of the earth's rotation - which G!d also made.
Now you may not believe the same thing is true of evolution. Even so, you should be able to understand how simple and straightforward that idea is for those who do believe it.
Angel, you are right, science will never prove god is not real. It will also never prove that santa claus, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy aren't real either. Science does not set out to prove something isn't true. It tries to prove what is true. While science has proven the story of genesis isn't true, that was not what they set out to do. They were simply trying to find out how we came to be here. What some religios people don't like about that, is scientists don't accept the bible as scientific proof of anything. But they also don't accept the Torah, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Dhammapada, Confucian Analects or Tao Te Ching as scientific proof either.
My dear My name is Miss merian Jerry ,i saw your profile today and became intrested in you,i will also like to know you more,and i want you to send an email to my email address so i can give you my picture for you to know whom i am.Here is my email address(merianjerriy@yahoo .co.uk) i believe we can move from here. I am waiting for your mail to my Email address above. Remeber the distance or colour does not matter but love matters alot in life Yours Love.please i will like you to contact me with this email address (merianjerriy@yahoo .co.uk)
It just amazes me how little people understand the scientific method. A theory and a hypothesis are two differenet things. A hypothsis is how a theory starts. It is an idea that is studied and tested until it becomes a scientific theory, which is not just a guess. It is based on overwhelming evidence, that has been tested and retested many times through peer-review and finally universal acceptance by the scientific community. Gravity is just a theory too. No one doubts something will fall to the ground if you let it go.
i will have to agree with u. i believe that God started a wonderfull thing called evolution. bc of this. evolution is saying that we were formedd from molucules. that formed n the earth billions of years ago... well where did the molucules come from? just formed? on wat? earth? where did earth come from? I no... God. he started it and evolution is taking its toll just like he planned. we cant proove he is real bc thats how he wants it. its all about faith.
Katie evolution is not a person or supernatural being and can't create anything. Evolution is natural process that has been proven by sicence and makes no claims. It just is. The bible is an ancient text written by supserstious men. It certainly is not evidence of anyhting supernatural ever occurring. And it is also a fact that most of the worlds christians do in fact accept evolution as real and also believe in god. You are in the minority.
i agree that science has come a long way and has proof of many things we all believed to be different. the bible is not perfect. all im saying is there can be a way that God and evolution can coexit. there are a lot of christian scientists. they find a way to make it work and still have faith. I beileve God has a hand in everything. We were made to question to wonder if he really exits. he gave us that choice. Its really wat u believe.
First off, people use the word proof when they really mean evidence. They are very different.
Quite simply, some religious people feel threatened because sience has discovered things that render some of their beliefs inmpossible, like the story of genisis, or the great flood. And they attack science as something evil when without science they wouldn't even be sitting at a computer reading this right now.
Religion is Belief and Science is based on facts or even in some cases a hypothesis. Basically in science you KNOW because you have proof or else it wont be science. If, however you dont know then you just believe in a religion. Neither is wrong as one states the facts and the other states beliefs. You can only argue facts with proof but you can argue beliefs forever and ever.
A lot of that has to do with faith- which is believing without seeing or proof. They see that what they were taught is true and right only. However, there are religions, or different sects that believe in evolution. When I went to highschool, it was a Catholic highschool by the way, we were always taught that humans came to be through evolution and that God had a hand in it.
not everything is perfect in the bible. the only perfect thing is God. anything else is no where near. so there can be mistakes. but science cannot and will never proove God to not be real. i dont feel threatened. Just i know that God did things a certain wasy and to learn more about the twists and turns he throughs at me makes me have even more faith.
Normally I don't care what people believe. Ignorance is all over, and I certainly don't have the time nor inclination to fight it. The only part I find frustrating is when some religious types insist their beliefs should be taught alongside actual science schools. I don't want religion being taught in my kids science class.
People do need proof to believe in religions.. Thats why we have BIBLES. Thats all the proof you need right there. But it does have to do alot with faith and where you grew up.
Evolution is nothing more than another hairbrained idea from a scientist to try to remove God's name.
i will have to agree with you about that. religion should be a family or a group thing in a church only. school is for learning about other things. thats y they have church. its a different kinda school and should be separate. or u can go to a religious school if thats wat they want.
I agree 100% that belief in god and aceptance of scientific fact can coexist. It does for most believers. It is only a few very narrow-minded people who think otherwise. Who let their religious belief dictate what is fact and what is not regardless of the evidence.
There is a difference between proof and evidence. Some might consider the bible evidence, but it certainly proves nothing.
Are you a scientist? Do you know even the first thing about the theory of evolution that you can call it hair-brained?
Angel.... How do you believe in God and evolution at the same time? If you really believe in God you should understand that HE made everything and not evolution.
i agree. there r some over religious ppl who shut there mind out to answers we all wonder even if there r facts backing it up. this all can be very frustrating.
and jimahi.... What?!? The bible is evidence! And it proves alot! No I'm not a scientist but that does'nt mean I know nothing. And yes I do.
evolution is real. it is just as God planned it to be. cant proove it and cant dismiss it. just gotta have faith
//"Are you a scientist"// criticising ones credentials? Nuff said
but thats a hole other topic. nice convo. have a good day:)
"overwhelming evidence"debatable.
