That would mean I have filter through an enormous amount of crap to get to the same definition the dictionary offers; do you think the people compiling the dictionary haven't done all that? And since they're proffesionals they'll have done it better too; so why would you even bother? That's just a waste of time.

On that note I'll end this, because I don't feel like bickering about this forever.

________________

Dunno if its been said but anyone with a better understanding of science then us would be seen as god/devil depending on his/her actions. I find it funny that some are giving God attributes that they make up.

The bible says Noa lived like 800 years ish? If one can swallow that then I got this great deal just for you! It includes sending me huge amounts of money for the belief that I will one day send you something.

Science is our defense against belief, nuff said.

I'm just going to quote the page between the differences since it was too hard for you to take the time to visit. I'm tried of refuting people that for some reason don't even take the time to research what they're disagreeing with.



Pay special attention to this line "Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes."

That same line can be applied to evolution.

This article was written by Anne Helmenstine, Ph.D., and is an author and consultant with a broad scientific and medical background. But I suppose she doesn't know what she's talking about either.

I'm not looking at theories and laws in the philosophical sense that that you are. I'm looking at them in their technical uses.

By the way, your direct insult to me regarding the mix-up between "reversed" and "rehearsed" was out right rude and unnecessary. It was simply a mistype that wasn't caught by my spell check, as you can see the h and v are actually quite close.

Plus if you're going to condemn everything I say due to a slight mistake, then the same can be done to you. Consistent misuse of punctuation, lacking capitalization, and repeatedly misspelling tomorrow...

When I say I know what I'm talking about, I mean it. There are many things I don't know, but I can guarantee you this is something I know very well. Keep in mind I'm not trying to argue against evolution or even faith I'm simply trying to inform people between the different term uses and their actual meanings. If you want to look at evolution as absolute fact, then that's fine, just keep in mind that it's not actual fact in the technical use of the term because it hasn't been deemed a law.

Not this «it’s just a theory» silliness again… You’re not fooling anyone sufficiently educated with such a fallacy.

“Theory” (in layman terms) =/= “scientific theory”
(for the record this sign means “not equal”)

The definition of theory you are giving from the dictionary is that of theory in layman’s terms. A SCIENTIFIC theory has a different definition (and it’s sad that scientists used that word given the confusion).
Just search for the definition of “scientific theory” (and not just “theory”) and you’ll see how the two are different.

Evolution is both a theory (i.e. how the phenomenon is studied and explained) and a fact (since it is observable).


1)There are no laws in science. Laws exist only in mathematics. Theories are thus the highest form of model in science. For the record, gravity is also “just” a theory; it is not a law.
2)Scientific theories can only be disproven; they can never be proven (which means “it’s never been proven!” is just yet another ignorant fallacy). Scientists are intellectually honest, so they realise that new evidence might one day overthrow the established models. Hence why they never consider theories to be proven. And for the record so far not a single scientific proof against evolution has been found and published in peer-reviewed journals.
2b)On the other hand there is an overwhelming amount of data that supports evolution. In science it's not what's missing that is important (there will always be aspects that aren't known or found yet), it's what has been found. And so far what has been found makes evolution correct beyond all reasonable doubt.
3)There is no such thing as a difference between macro and micro-evolution. That’s just made up.
4)Science (including evolution) does not try to prove or disprove religion. Quite simply it can’t. The supernatural is outside the scope of science since it can’t be observed, tested or reproduced. Quite simply, gods and religions are irrelevant to science.

If you’re going to debate evolution vs creationism, at least make sure you know what you are talking about.

Er, what mistake are you going on That I was attacking you on?

I was attacking you on merit. As in what you said was akin to saying just because things worked that way for the past 200 years, today. theres no PROOF that it will be that way tomorrow. so its a theory that tomorrow the planets will orbit in the sky, the future IS uncertain.

But its not reasonable to persist like this.

Laws of physics? Science does have laws, but they need to meet several requirements (from the top of my head), 1) they must be supported by facts/data (empirical or experimental), 2) they can be expanded upon by other theories (or conform with other theories), 3) exceptions may occur, but does not disprove of the law itself.

Therefore, laws do exist in science. A quick google search will reinforce that.

Evolution is considered Law because it meets the 3 requirements, 1) it is supported by fossil data, 2) it conforms with various other theories such as continental shift theory, the theory surrounding DNA and genetics, and 3) the absence of evidence in one case does not necessarily disprove the entire theory as a whole (while the missing link has not been found in humans, many evolutionary trees for other species have been laid out).

And lastly, the supernatural and science actually have a lot in common. Much of superstition/supernatural incidences serve to do the same thing science does but in a slightly different way. While science uses logical thoughts and experimental data to lay out laws and theories, most supernatural cases are (a form of) logical thoughts but simply lack empirical experimental data. After all, for rare instances such as ghost sightings, psychics, or even god itself, it is difficult to make a repeatable controlled experiment. But much like the ancient sciences, much of the supernatural simply explains why things are, and in fact when one looks back at Roman and Greek mythology, their science and mythology was one in the same.

During this time, ancient mythology was used to explain much of what couldn't be explained, the seasons, the days, etc. Science and religion aren't necessarily polar subjects, it is just that people make them out to be opposites, when in fact they both serve the same purpose, to reason/explain things. It just so happens that science follows a route of proven facts, whereas religion follows belief and faith.

Similarly, religion and evolution do not necessarily disprove one another, and while many people argue or dispute evolution as being incorrect (despite the data and evidence), what's to say that religion itself isn't wrong? Perhaps we weren't created from mud in the garden of eden, perhaps we were made of stone? Perhaps woman came first and then men? While science itself is proven by data (but may vary based on interpretation of data), religion itself has and will always be biased by society (a male dominating society) and change overtime (acceptable morals in religion).

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I hope it's not too bold of me to assume so.

For some reason people keep implying that I'm trying to refute evolution. I'm not on either side of the line, I'm actually rather open to both possibilities. So to make things clear I'm NOT trying to say it's "just a theory".

You are correct, scientific theory is different from a layman terms theory. But the definition I gave earlier actually was in relation to scientific theory. A laymen terms theory is implying that a theory is just speculation or thought, but the one definition I gave a few pages ago is in relation to scientific theory.

It's also correct that there are facts in theories. It's fact that fossils and numerous other supporting elements have been found to support evolution. But it's important to keep in mind that facts found in relation to supporting theories do not make the theory fact, it is what it is and that's factual supporting evidence.

There are laws in science. Haven't you heard of scientific law? Gravity is in fact the poster-boy for scientific law. Here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

"Law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation"

This line is important because it implies that evolution is well on it's way to becoming a law, it's just not quite there yet.



You're right I'm sorry, I've been in a foul mood all day due to lack of sleep and I overreacted on the attacking bit (by the way, I was talking about the reversed/rehearsed typo). I can see your point.

Edit: I thought I would add this page I found that some may find interesting in relation to the "it's a fact, it's a fact and theory, it's just a theory" bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Last edited by Antiquely at 3:37 pm, Dec 19 2011

Apples and oranges. Theories and laws are similar, but a theory will always remain a theory. It will never “graduate” to become a law… which is fortuitous considering how much more overarching scientific theories are compared to the specific conditions for which laws are relevant.
And for the record Newton’s Law of Gravity is just a part of the current theory of gravity. It is not a poster child for anything. As a matter of fact it is increasingly getting sidetracked due to having to be plugged by the theory of relatively once a certain point is reached, as it is valid under specific conditions (like all scientific laws).
In contrast the theory of evolution is currently far more solid. One day it might get replaced by a more accurate theory, but that's by far not the case yet.

I'll admit that I'm having trouble with this position. In my honest opinion one can not be neutral towards this supposed debate, only not well-informed enough. There is currently no scientific alternative to evolution, and creationism/ID hold purely on religious grounds. What one can be neutral towards is deciding whether to follow empirical evidence or faith in the supernatural. Either is fine.
However to pretend that creationism/ID are valid scientific alternatives to evolution is simply wrong.


Vudoodude, whether there’s something similar between science and supernatural explanations doesn’t matter. The point that the supernatural is entirely irrelevant to science still stands.
I aimed that specific part at those who ramble about scientists trying to disprove god or whatever superstition they cling to. Science (including evolution) doesn’t give a rat’s backside about the existence of gods or the supernatural. It doesn’t seek to / can’t prove or disprove their existence. That’s all just a persecution complex and delusion.

sigh. faith means to believe something that can't be proven. If it can be proven it won't be a faith.

those who believe in evolution have a faith in it, that's as long as it can't be proven.

I kept reading through this and I found something common amounts proponents of science (as a method of study or knowledge) and evolution. #1 They point out that evolution is a theory and not a fact, #2 then they conclude that it's not true (to be more precise: not the truth) because it can be wrong. There are so many wrongs going from #1 to #2 ranging from logical fallacies to complete ignorance of how science as a body of knowledge (this includes philosophy, which is not a science nowadays) works.

I don't even know where to start but I'm going to start with 'truth' or rather what makes something true. Philosophically speaking, truth is something that will always be no matter what. This sounds easy because we can instantly points out that 'facts' or events that we witness/observe/seen are considered true. However, we are using philosophy here so everything can be viewed as 'possible' including time machines and alternate realities (think: the Matrix). So past events or 'facts' being the 'truth' are out the window with time machines and everything else are also out the window with alternate realities. For example, if you were in the Matrix, you wouldn't be able to tell what's real and what's not right? At this point, the 'truth' seem so hard to pin down. Probably the only guy getting close to the truth is the "I think therefore, I am" guy (Decartes). Because you are 'thinking' or at least 'think' that you are 'thinking' so you must be 'something'. That means the fact that you exist as something is true, even though everything else can be false.

Now, let's walk away from the head spinning philosophical 'truth' and go back to the world we live in and re-examine what we called as being true or 'the truth'. We instantly realize that that we observe, seen, feel, witness...etc may or may not be true; for example, we saw a guy flying to the sky with wings. Perhaps we didn't actually 'see' or 'observe' the event or we've done so inaccurately. Therefore, we need to ask the guy standing next to us so see if we've gone crazy or not. If the guy agrees with us then we have a hefty amount of confidence that we weren't wrong. However, maybe the other guy is joking or maybe he's wrong too so we have to keep asking the guy next to him and the guy after...etc. Let's assume we managed to asked everyone and everyone agrees. At the end of the day, we have "because everyone agrees with me therefore I'm right" kind of problem. We all know that because everyone agrees that the Sun moves around the Earth does not make it so. The truth, even in the real world, is also really hard to pin down.

If you think what I have been saying are philosophical bogus then think of why we have historians arguing with each other on past events. The things of the past are set in stone (at least until the time machine), yet we have historians and writers bickering at each other because someone else think he/she saw it differently. Another example would be criminal court cases where people arguing about a past event. Witnesses got the 'are you sure you saw that?' line to re-examine their 'facts'. DNA evidence got scientific inquires to examine its accuracies...etc.

Science have its roots from philosophy so it is bound to carry some of the reasoning from philosophy. It accepts that certainty is never 100% certain and there always a possibility of everything being wrong. That's why scientific theories/hypothesizes are not proven to be 'correct' or even being 'the truth'. They can only be disproved and there is always a possibility of them being wrong (that's why they are not the truth). A theory is developed by disproving every other theories (particularly, the theory of everything else). Facts do not prove theories, they disprove them. The theory that remains standing when most of the facts fail to break it will be the one science uses. Not all facts will support a theory as sometimes you get facts that are exceptions and any good theory will manage to include that exception. Vice versa, any theory that got shot to next Sunday because of the facts are debunked.

Ok after going around in circles about theories, facts and truths, we can conclude that theories (in terms of accuracy) are not facts but they are the closest things to facts; facts might not be true but they are the closest things to the truth and the truth is hard to pin down but always correct.

Back to the original "#1 They point out that evolution is a theory ...etc... because it can be wrong." thing. We can almost laugh at the reasoning here. "If it can be wrong then it's not the truth" line of reasoning is correct but we now know there are very few things that can be called 'the truth'. Everything is questionable in terms of accuracy and reality (with the truth being always accurate). Most things are only accurate to a certain degree and we often assume that facts are the most accurate. Theories are supported by facts so they can be less accurate but also possible to be as accurate as facts.

Science is never a faith because it's doing the exact opposite. Science (as a body of knowledge) seeks the truth but it knows that it's extremely hard to do so and there is always a possibility that everything is wrong. Faith does not seek the truth, it just assume that it is the truth and whether it is correct or not is irrelevant. You don't question faith since it would lose its potency if you question it. Science always questions everything including itself and it becomes stronger the more it questions. Faith is closed and never open to the possibility of something else. Science is always open minded to everything that can be examined (or at least survive the scientific method) and everything else you'll get the "it's not within the scope of science" or "I don't know what that means".

The reason why you see Science clashes with Faith so much because Faith tries to be the truth and Science is the truth seeker which will blast away anything that failed to be the truth. The evidence is that most Faiths fail under the scope of Science (or rather fail at scientific method). Example: Sun circles around the Earth (written in the Bible), The Earth is flat, The Earth is dish shaped and carried by monsters, The Earth is the center of the Universe, Fish has no legs, God creates human. All of those sort of failed as Science questions them. You can say that some 'Faith' are sort of like theories which get debunked when you put them under the scope of science. The remaining Faiths that manage to survive are those that can't be examined by Science yet (at least for now) such as: Magic exists, ESP is real, Space aliens come in UFOs, person from the future has laser guns, God creates the universe, We all live in the Matrix.

Yes, I do believe evolution is (for lack of a better word) a faith rather than a fact. Believing that (if you go back far enough) little bits of nothing collided, exploded, and set in motion a reaction that ultimately created everything (yes, I know I'm oversimplifying it) is about as plausible as the idea that there is an omnipotent creator who made the world by his own hands in seven days.

Micro-evolution exists without a doubt. Species evolve. However, there is no solid proof that any one species has ever evolved and become another species. I understand that scientific "theories" are the next-best thing to actual fact because they have withstood years of scrutiny, but the holes in the theory are too big for me to accept it wholeheartedly.

Last edited by Alaena Night at 4:23 pm, Dec 28 2011

________________
≡ Youtube ≡ DeviantART ≡ Roseille Scans

I agree man. I agree
When i take science courses in college and they get to the little details of evolution you won't believe how big the holes are. that go completely unrecognized through high school courses

The one problem that evolution has is that much of its evidence is fossil based, and unfortunately unless we dig up the entire world, we cannot get a fossil of every single evolutionary species and sub-species. Even if we do, we still have difficulties determining the small details such as colour differences or deformities in sub-species (such as one species having a normal skull and one species having a slight bump which through millions of generations would mutate into a full horn). While we cannot collect every single piece of evidence via a fossil record of each and every single generation, we can conclude things based on the evidence given.

I find it strange that people will pick at the tiny holes in evolution (despite several theories and sciences that work together to prove it, such as continental shift theory, archaeology, and genetics/mutations) but at the same time, expect no evidence for creationism aside from he said/she said thousands of years ago. From a scientific standpoint, even Ancient Alien theory provides more hypothetical possibility than straight up religion.

Getting back to the topic at hand though, something is only a fact when a large majority of people conclude it as such. "Facts" are not universal (or at least our perception of what is fact isn't) in that what was considered a fact centuries ago has been long since proven wrong (i.e. the world is flat or that the universe orbits around earth). Ultimately, is evolution fact? We'd have to take a survey of everyone (at least baka updates user) and have a significant majority.

The funny thing is, if god appeared before you, and proved he existed and was god, you'd apparently stop believing in his existance.

For something that can't be proven, then it can't possibly be true. otherwise it would be possible to prove it true in some manner.

the only way for something that can't be proven true is for it not to be true.

Regardless, to not believe in the principals of selection relating to breeding natural, and artificial selection, is to deny 5000 years of human history. I don't CARE if you believe in evolution or not, but you MUST believe humanity has been breeding livestock ever since they started farming.

you want everything to be run by god and/or his master plan. Fine. thats generally a lazy solution, but really does it MATTER why things are they way they are one way or the other?

As for evolution and how it differs from the process of domesticating animals, for the most part its not really something that matters to an individual, you don't need to believe in it, you don't need to understand it. all you need to understand is how to breed things, everything else is not really important for implementation. Hell only ranchers need to know how to breed things.

but if you want to dick around for 3 more pages defining Theory and law in ways to loophole out of whatever, fine, do so. its not important. Evolution DOES NOT MATTER. all that matters is breeding. Don't deny that please

I wish people who have no clue about scientific processes would stop pretending that they did.

There are no holes in any current scientific theory. If there were holes, then by definition they would immediately stop being valid theories.

We're not talking about "plausible" explanations here. We're talking about the only valid explanations that fit every current fact that we have collected about the universe over multiple millennium.