About the Science vs Religion Debate

[chomerics]

"Painfully difficult concept to grasp"

Chopper, the only painful concept to grasp is the concept of infinity. Science can not begin to fathom the concepts of infinitesimally small and infinitesimally large, infinitesimally in the past and infinitesimally in the future. Carl Sagan I think created the word googleplex. If I remember this correctly this number would be a 1 followed by enough zeroes that if put in a string behind that one would wrap around the Earths equator 22,000 times. Or something like that. So to test how really hard this is to grasp, think about a point of time in the past one trillion, trillion goolgeplexes in the past. (That would be a point in time equal to 1 followed by zeros wrapped around the Earths equator 22,000 TIMES one trillion, trillion.) How impossible is that to consider? I would say pretty darn impossible.

So much so that this simple example would cause you and I enough fried brain cells in an attempt to understand it. And when we could put our mind around how far in the past this might be, then lets double that point in the past say........ one trillion, trillion googleplexes. Then try to consider how far in the past is..... AND if we can wrap ourselves around that then do it all over again. That is right double our time in the past another 1 trillion trillion googleplexes.

Sitting in my chair trying to comprehend this helps me understand that even if I could relate to that distance in the past, I would never reach the concept of infinity in my mind.

My argument then is how can you put a beginning on something that has not a beginning. How can you apply science to the impossible? God or not, big bang or not. The answer escapes sciences ability to understand. Thoroughly and totally.

Portis, infinity is something scientists and mathematicians have a definate grasp on. You may not be able to imagine it, or may have trouble coming to grips with a sideways 8, but mathematicians and scientists have no problem with the comprehension at all.

[HOF44]

IggyJ, another poster here turned me onto a book which you might like. it is an introduction to string theory. It is a little bit over my head, and I am struggling to understand it on my own, but you may like it. Here is a link to the book . . .

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521831431/qid=1133581840/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-6538801-5951950?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

You may want to check it out, it's a textbook, but it will give you the nuts and bolts about the theory.

Thanks for the tip on the book, I'll have to order that.

[dchogs]

But when we do figure it out, won't we be revealing that which has been created?

This is no different then the discovery of DNA. Science discovered DNA, it did not create it. Even if / when science begins to manipulate DNA we will never be able to create new and different life.

i have no problem with that statement on the surface. beneath the surface is the fact that ID can be manipulated so that it is always correct. the first creationist story was that god made man. now that evolution is widely supported, ID says that it's god's hand that steers the course of evolution. later, when we discover how something comes from nothing, ID will say that god made that happen. it's like my daughter asking to play "just one more" game of rock, paper, scissors so that she can be the grand champion of the world even though she'd lost 20 in a row.

all that being said, science (as a thing, not the scientists) doesn't really care if there is a god or not. you're right in that science doesn't create- it explains. it doesn't matter if it is explaining something that god made, something the FSM made, or something that just happened randomly.

[dchogs]

IggyJ, another poster here turned me onto a book which you might like. it is an introduction to string theory. It is a little bit over my head, and I am struggling to understand it on my own, but you may like it. Here is a link to the book . . .

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521831431/qid=1133581840/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-6538801-5951950?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

You may want to check it out, it's a textbook, but it will give you the nuts and bolts about the theory.

that book looks awesome... i'm afraid the math will kill me though. i haven't really used any upper level math since my senior year in HS, and even then i'm only talking AP Calc.

[Thinking Skins]

I appreciate your well though out response, and it explained your position very clearly. I think I just chose a diffrerent path in life, and I decided that religon was something that was not needed in my life. I personally think spending a good portion of my life looking and worshiping something I can not touch, see, hear, understand, or even believe exists is a waste of time, but that is my own personal opinion and interpetation of religion. I hold nothing against people, like yourself, who decide to follow a different path to life. It completes your life for you, and I think that is an admirable thing, but I just believe in different things.

Where the disagreement comes is in the aspect of placing your belief system in public schools which are being paid for with taxpayer money. If you realize it or not, ID is teacing creationism, and it is circumventing a seperation of church and state. It is placing your beliefs above others, and I view that as wrong. I view it as saying that your god is better then another god. This is where we differ, and this is why I think ID should be taught in religous class, and not in a public school.

Personally, I try to live a christian life, even though I am not a christian. I try to treat others how I would like to be treated, and try to live by a certain moral compass. It isn't because of god's teaching, or because some religous diety says if I don't I will not enjoy the afterlife, but because I believe it is the right way to live. I think it is the correct way to live my life because it is how I perceive the world. I have seen to many different people in this world go to church and think because they give money to the church they will go to heaven. They are holier then thou for 1 hour a week, then when they leave the church, they do not practice what the church teaches them. They undermine, lie, cheat, steal, and do everything the bible says not to do, yet they never see problems with their behavior. They think they will be forgiven as long as they confess their sins. For me, I would rather live my life using the one rule I hold dear. . . do unto other as you would have them do to you. The one rule speaks volumes about charactor, and it is how I try to live my life.

Alright, lets ignore the ID thing because thats an argument I just dont want to get into. I don't really care if either is taught in school. The main thing I care about is that public schools in DC are crap and some attention needs to go towards fixing them.

And more importantly, lets ignore all those who claim the Word but will not act the Word. Benjamin Elijah Mays, one of the people I have study once said "If I'm going to go to hell I want to be the one driving the car," in the sense that he is not going to let others dictate what he believed or what he did in this life.

The Bible speaks of false prophets and warns that the churches will be full of them. But this should not be a reason to turn against religion. It may be a reason to turn against these people, but Christianity itself is Christianity with or without these people.

These people may drive you away from church, but if thats what it takes to strengthen your religion then stay away from church. The TV shows may anger you, so don't watch those shows. God's not going to judge your beliefs based on what others do. He's going to ask you if you believe.

Now then, how hard is it to believe that God exists? Suppose we don't call him God.

Suppose we call him 'the perfect ruler'. How hard, then is it to believe that there is some 'perfect ruler'? Shouldn't any man wish to be judged by a perfect ruler, by a ruler that has no bias and is not subjective to bribes.

How many times has the defendant lost a trial because he didn't have eveidence to prove his story? Wouldn't it be nice to have a ruler who knew all the facts of both sides of the story before he made a decision?

What about advice? How hard is it to obtain good advice? We are always seeking for how to do the right thing, but often times fall short. We have an earthly father who we generally go to for advice, but there are many things that even he does not know. How nice would it be to have a being that we could call up for advice and always get the right answer?

I'm asking these questions because I don't want to scare you into believing in God. But do you agree that this perfect ruler could exist, even if not in the flesh?

The question of a perfect ruler existing doesn't seem to be too hard to believe, its merely imagining to be one to always uphold certain principles of justice.

So if you can believe that the perfect ruler exists, then the question becomes, why aren't we perfect? Can we be perfect? And thats where the story of Jesus comes in, because he shows that we can be perfect in following his two commandments (1. Love God, 2. Love your neighbor as you love yourself), and the gospels actually show us how to do this so that we have somewhere, and actually someone to turn to when we face imperfections.

Thats why the third commandment is the foundation of Christianity, ( 3. Believe that Jesus Christ Died for our sins).

[Chopper Dave]

"Painfully difficult concept to grasp"

Chopper, the only painful concept to grasp is the concept of infinity. Science can not begin to fathom the concepts of infinitesimally small and infinitesimally large, infinitesimally in the past and infinitesimally in the future. Carl Sagan I think created the word googleplex. If I remember this correctly this number would be a 1 followed by enough zeroes that if put in a string behind that one would wrap around the Earths equator 22,000 times. Or something like that. So to test how really hard this is to grasp, think about a point of time in the past one trillion, trillion goolgeplexes in the past. (That would be a point in time equal to 1 followed by zeros wrapped around the Earths equator 22,000 TIMES one trillion, trillion.) How impossible is that to consider? I would say pretty darn impossible.

So much so that this simple example would cause you and I enough fried brain cells in an attempt to understand it. And when we could put our mind around how far in the past this might be, then lets double that point in the past say........ one trillion, trillion googleplexes. Then try to consider how far in the past is..... AND if we can wrap ourselves around that then do it all over again. That is right double our time in the past another 1 trillion trillion googleplexes.

Sitting in my chair trying to comprehend this helps me understand that even if I could relate to that distance in the past, I would never reach the concept of infinity in my mind.

My argument then is how can you put a beginning on something that has not a beginning. How can you apply science to the impossible? God or not, big bang or not. The answer escapes sciences ability to understand. Thoroughly and totally.

I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. As a matter of fact, I pretty much said the same thing, albeit in a shorter manner.

The question I post is that of why God has to be involved. If God can be infinite, then why can't the universe, rather than just being the creation of something that is infinite?

[portisizzle]

I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. As a matter of fact, I pretty much said the same thing, albeit in a shorter manner.

The question I post is that of why God has to be involved. If God can be infinite, then why can't the universe, rather than just being the creation of something that is infinite?

I think what I am trying to say is that there is no such thing as infinity. Infinity is a concept philosophers, theologists, and mathematicians have had to conjure up in order to come to some conclusion where there was none before. Short of the concept of infinity, how do you and I end my last post about googleplexes. Either we do not end the conversation or we would die trying.

In my opinion, trying to define the beginning of the universe by applying the concept of infinity is just the ant on the beach trying to make sense of something it does not have the capacity to understand. Because "infinity" does not exist as a natural law. Infinity only exists in our minds as a function of our limitation to truly understand the universe we live. I mean this in a positive sense. Because I do believe science will be able to explain our universe without the concept of infinity. When they do, all of the gobbldygook that Chrome wrote about five pages ago will be taught to a 3rd grade science class. We as adults will be so much farther than we are today in our understanding that it is possible that we will have to throw out all we know about philosophy, physics, and yes theology.

All I am proposing is when we come to the conclusion that the concept of infinity is cast away like the concept that the earth is flat, we will be left with the reality that our universe had a beginning and that it was created.

Predicto calls me to task about this term creation. he accepts the possibility that a "creator" made this universe. He even hold out the possibility that this creator may have even created "nacent life forms". I did not address with him directly, but if he believes that, could it not be said that the creator understood when he created this nacent life that the creator also knew that we as humans on this earth would come about as we have? In fact could it not be possible the we did evolve from apes? Yes it is possible. I await some evidence to the point.

[chomerics]

Portis, infintiy is a definate mathematical property or number. It is used in almost every single area of calculus, and diff eq's. It is used in many different theorems and it is needed to calculate things like the exponential function (e) the natural log (ln) and other mathematical summations like Riemanns sums, Fourier series etc.

You have trouble struggling with the concept, which I understand is difficult for many people, but not everyone has that difficulty. I can understand WHY the tangent of Pi/2 is undefined, it is because the function goes to ininity due to a zero in the denominator. Like I said, mathematicians, scientists and engineers all need to grasp the concept if they are to make anything of their careers, or even graduate from college.

[chomerics]

that book looks awesome... i'm afraid the math will kill me though. i haven't really used any upper level math since my senior year in HS, and even then i'm only talking AP Calc.

I took 2 full years of math in college, and I struggled with it. I've only worked through the first couple of chapters, but there is a lot of information in it.

[portisizzle]

Portis, infintiy is a definate mathematical property or number. It is used in almost every single area of calculus, and diff eq's. It is used in many different theorems and it is needed to calculate things like the exponential function (e) the natural log (ln) and other mathematical summations like Riemanns sums, Fourier series etc.

You have trouble struggling with the concept, which I understand is difficult for many people, but not everyone has that difficulty. I can understand WHY the tangent of Pi/2 is undefined, it is because the function goes to ininity due to a zero in the denominator. Like I said, mathematicians, scientists and engineers all need to grasp the concept if they are to make anything of their careers, or even graduate from college.

No, infinity is not a number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Infinity is not a real number but may be considered part of the extended real number line, in which arithmetic operations involving infinity may be performed.

In other words, according to the math that currently exists, we can not perform certain calculations without the concept of infinity. Infinity is a man made concept to make up for the shortcomings of our understanding of our universe.

I do not doubt that every mathematician must consider infinity. If they did not they could not make the math work. Which is sad in a way, because by insisting on doing math with infinity, they are mssing the trus answers that would further their understanding of the natural world.

Just to further my point. Infinity is not the representation of a natural law, although it helps some come to erroneous conclusions of other obeservable instances.

Infinity, Chrome, is the scientists version of faith...

[portisizzle]

In other words, according to the math that currently exists, we can not perform certain calculations without the concept of infinity. it helps some come to erroneous conclusions of other obeservable instances.

Let me continue further on this point.

We could do NO math as we understand it without the concept of inifinity. Simple division would be considered impossible. Why? Because without infinity as a concept, how would you solve the formula...

1 divided by 2

then divided by 2

then divided by two....... right now the answer is .125

then divided by two

and on and on....... one divided by two 100 times equals 7.8886090522101180541172856528279e-31

ond divided by two 200 times equals....

You get the point. Without infinity, you would reach the unsolvable.

So instead of trying to understand the world in finite terms, we instead do math, and physics, and cosmology, and theology, and philosophy with a sideways 8.

In other words a guess.

[portisizzle]

i have no problem with that statement on the surface. beneath the surface is the fact that ID can be manipulated so that it is always correct. the first creationist story was that god made man. now that evolution is widely supported, ID says that it's god's hand that steers the course of evolution. later, when we discover how something comes from nothing, ID will say that god made that happen. it's like my daughter asking to play "just one more" game of rock, paper, scissors so that she can be the grand champion of the world even though she'd lost 20 in a row.

all that being said, science (as a thing, not the scientists) doesn't really care if there is a god or not. you're right in that science doesn't create- it explains. it doesn't matter if it is explaining something that god made, something the FSM made, or something that just happened randomly.

You second paragraph causes your first to be irrelevant.

No one wins in science. All science can and will do is explain and understand. The point is if science really did not care if their was a creator then why do we insist on trying to understand that which is finite as something infinite? On its surface it indeed seems like science is in the business of rejecting the notion of creation.

And who is to argue with a scientist who has cut into a human body to discover a heart that is remarkable similar to the same heart they saw in a 7th grade science class cutting open a frog.

To me, it seems many scientists have limited their understanding, so much so, that they have ruled out the most likely cause of the beginning life. That it was a creation and not an explosion.

[DjTj]

No, infinity is not a number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Infinity is not a real number but may be considered part of the extended real number line, in which arithmetic operations involving infinity may be performed.

In other words, according to the math that currently exists, we can not perform certain calculations without the concept of infinity. Infinity is a man made concept to make up for the shortcomings of our understanding of our universe.

I do not doubt that every mathematician must consider infinity. If they did not they could not make the math work. Which is sad in a way, because by insisting on doing math with infinity, they are mssing the trus answers that would further their understanding of the natural world.

Just to further my point. Infinity is not the representation of a natural law, although it helps some come to erroneous conclusions of other obeservable instances.

Infinity, Chrome, is the scientists version of faith...

Now you're just really stretching things ...

Infinity is a necessary consequence of natural law. Let's say I find a circle in the real world, and I want to measure the ratio of its circumfrence to its diameter. I take a string, wrap it around a circle, then stretch it out and compare it with the diameter. I find that the string is about 3.14 times as long as the diameter. If I try to make the measurement more accurately, I find it to be 3.1416 ... if I try even harder, I find that it is 3.14159265358979.

However, it never seems to quite match up, and as far as I can tell, the decimal representation seems to have no end. Now I could simply take on faith that the decimal will be infinite, but mathematicians don't generally take faith as an answer. In 1768, JH Lambert actually proved that the number has no end - that pi is an irrational number. Here's a simpler proof online:

http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~hr/numb/pi-irr.html

Before the formal proof of pi's irrationality, a few mathematicians had found ways to represent pi using infinite sums:

James Gregory around 1667 found that pi was simply the sum of the infinite sequence:

Lord Brouckner around 1659 found that pi was the result of the infinite continued fraction:

...so without any faith, but using only the physical circle and mathematical logic, one arrives at the concept of infinity, not as an erroneous conclusion, but as the only way we can represent the ratio of a circle's circumfrence to its diameter.

[portisizzle]

Now you're just really stretching things ...

Infinity is a necessary consequence of natural law. Let's say I find a circle in the real world, and I want to measure the ratio of its circumfrence to its diameter. I take a string, wrap it around a circle, then stretch it out and compare it with the diameter. I find that the string is about 3.14 times as long as the diameter. If I try to make the measurement more accurately, I find it to be 3.1416 ... if I try even harder, I find that it is 3.14159265358979.

However, it never seems to quite match up, and as far as I can tell, the decimal representation seems to have no end. Now I could simply take on faith that the decimal will be infinite, but mathematicians don't generally take faith as an answer. In 1768, JH Lambert actually proved that the number has no end - that pi is an irrational number. Here's a simpler proof online:

http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~hr/numb/pi-irr.html

Before the formal proof of pi's irrationality, a few mathematicians had found ways to represent pi using infinite sums:

James Gregory around 1667 found that pi was simply the sum of the infinite sequence:

= 4 - 4/3 + 4/5 - 4/7 + 4/9 - 4/11 + ...

Lord Brouckner around 1659 found that pi was the result of the infinite continued fraction:

...so without any faith, but using only the physical circle and mathematical logic, one arrives at the concept of infinity, not as an erroneous conclusion, but as the only way we can represent the ratio of a circle's circumfrence to its diameter.

You are right, the only way you can represent the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is to arrive at the concept of infinity.

Just like I said about simple division.(Which by the way is the same problem you are dealing with on ratios) The only way you can arrive at the concept of simple division is to do so with infinity.

But it is still a guess. And the only stretch here is doing finite math by guessing.

[DjTj]

You are right, the only way you can represent the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is to arrive at the concept of infinity.

Just like I said about simple division.(Which by the way is the same problem you are dealing with on ratios) The only way you can arrive at the concept of simple division is to do so with infinity.

But it is still a guess. And the only stretch here is doing finite math by guessing.

Division doesn't require infinity. Only if you try to divide something an infinite number of times do you arrive at infinity (or you try to divide by zero). However, there's nothing physical about division that forces us to use infinity. In your division example, you can just stop dividing by 2 and you'll still have a real number in front of you. You will only arrive at infinity when you force yourself to do so. That is not the case with circles.

Circles are something natural and physical. There is no guessing about it. You take a circle, you try to measure its circumfrence and diameter, and logic will lead you to infinity. Where is the guess?

[BlueTalon]

i have no problem with that statement on the surface. beneath the surface is the fact that ID can be manipulated so that it is always correct. the first creationist story was that god made man. now that evolution is widely supported, ID says that it's god's hand that steers the course of evolution. later, when we discover how something comes from nothing, ID will say that god made that happen.

You could say the same thing about evolution. First it was Darwinian evolution, part of which included the idea that the environment directly produced changes in an organism (eg. the giraffe's neck started short but got longer long because its food source kept getting higher). That was quickly discarded, and adapted to become what it is now, gradualism. But the lack of intermediate fossils forced a re-think, and that's when punctuated equalibrium got started. Now, secular scientists basically can't agree on much about how it all supposedly happened, but for some reason they're absolutely positive that anything labeled "creationism" or "ID" is incorrect.

I've stayed out of this thread until now because of the title. "Science vs Religion" is codespeak for evolution vs. creation/ID, and it's disingenuous. Wording it that way is an attempt to portray Christians and other creationists as anti-science, and we're not. Science in the form of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. is not something most Christians oppose. Evolution is not science, it is a philosophy of science that attempts to interpret geology and paleontology, which are true science. Creationism/ID attempts to do the very same thing. They are competing/opposing philosophies of science.

People here have previously ridiculed attempts to point out that evolution is merely a theory, by saying gravity is also a theory and the two theories are equally valid. The difference is that every human being consciously observes and experiences gravity during every waking second of their lives. The same cannot be said of evolution. (Anyone who claims he/she observes evolution every day is either misleading, or doesn't know what he/she is talking about.)

[HOF44]

I've stayed out of this thread until now because of the title. "Science vs Religion" is codespeak for evolution vs. creation/ID, and it's disingenuous. Wording it that way is an attempt to portray Christians and other creationists as anti-science, and we're not.

I believe the person who started and labled the thread is of the pro-christian leaning.

[HOF44]

You could say the same thing about evolution. First it was Darwinian evolution, part of which included the idea that the environment directly produced changes in an organism (eg. the giraffe's neck started short but got longer long because its food source kept getting higher). That was quickly discarded, and adapted to become what it is now, gradualism. But the lack of intermediate fossils forced a re-think, and that's when punctuated equalibrium got started. Now, secular scientists basically can't agree on much about how it all supposedly happened, but for some reason they're absolutely positive that anything labeled "creationism" or "ID" is incorrect.

People here have previously ridiculed attempts to point out that evolution is merely a theory, by saying gravity is also a theory and the two theories are equally valid. The difference is that every human being consciously observes and experiences gravity during every waking second of their lives. The same cannot be said of evolution. (Anyone who claims he/she observes evolution every day is either misleading, or doesn't know what he/she is talking about.)

The reason science alters Evolutuionary theory is things are observed and deduced that conflict with the prior model. If the evidence is compelling enough then the theory is altered to reflect the most current understanding.

ID has no tangible facts supporting it.

Evolutionary theory is based on repeatable observations and experiments. Is it perfect. No, but it is factualy based.

ID is a belief not a scientific theory. To say otherwise is to show lack of understanding of what the word "theory" means when applied scientifically.

[BlueTalon]

The reason science alters Evolutuionary theory is things are observed and deduced that conflict with the prior model. If the evidence is compelling enough then the theory is altered to reflect the most current understanding.

ID has no tangible facts supporting it.

Evolutionary theory is based on repeatable observations and experiments. Is it perfect. No, but it is factualy based.

ID is a belief not a scientific theory. To say otherwise is to show lack of understanding of what the word "theory" means when applied scientifically.

I don't think you know what you just did. "The reason science alters Evolutuionary theory is things are observed and deduced that conflict with the prior model... Evolutionary theory is based on repeatable observations and experiments... it is factualy based." If evolutionary theory is based on repeatable observations and experiments and is factually based, why does the theory so radically change? The truth is that evolutionary theory is NOT based on "repeatable observations and experiments." (Please list some of the repeatable observations and experiments.) If you try to claim that evolution now is "based on repeatable observations and experiments", then you are more or less compelled to admit that previous versions of evolutionary theory weren't -- or that the scientists proposing previous versions mucked it up pretty badly.

The key word in your post is "deduced" (inferred, construed, interpreted). As I said before, what evolutionists attempt to do is take data from other areas of legitimate hard science such as geology biology & paleontology, interpret that data and weave it into a coherent storyline. ID does the same thing, using the same data from the same fields, but obviously the storyline is much different. So for you to say "ID has no tangible facts supporting it" is either an admission that evolution also has no tangible facts supporting it (which is true when considering it as a philosophy), or an erroneous statement (which is the case when considering the data from the hard sciences).

I'm not going to argue your point that ID is a belief. My point is that evolution is also a belief.

[NoCalMike]

The problem with this thread and all the others about this topic is that it turns into "which is right evolution or creationary theory" and that is all besides the point. The question is should intelligent design be taught in a SCIENCE class.......

[HOF44]

I don't think you know what you just did. "The reason science alters Evolutuionary theory is things are observed and deduced that conflict with the prior model... Evolutionary theory is based on repeatable observations and experiments... it is factualy based." If evolutionary theory is based on repeatable observations and experiments and is factually based, why does the theory so radically change? The truth is that evolutionary theory is NOT based on "repeatable observations and experiments." (Please list some of the repeatable observations and experiments.) If you try to claim that evolution now is "based on repeatable observations and experiments", then you are more or less compelled to admit that previous versions of evolutionary theory weren't -- or that the scientists proposing previous versions mucked it up pretty badly.

The key word in your post is "deduced" (inferred, construed, interpreted). As I said before, what evolutionists attempt to do is take data from other areas of legitimate hard science such as geology biology & paleontology, interpret that data and weave it into a coherent storyline. ID does the same thing, using the same data from the same fields, but obviously the storyline is much different. So for you to say "ID has no tangible facts supporting it" is either an admission that evolution also has no tangible facts supporting it (which is true when considering it as a philosophy), or an erroneous statement (which is the case when considering the data from the hard sciences).

I'm not going to argue your point that ID is a belief. My point is that evolution is also a belief.

Experiments with bacteria best show evolution in action. Because they reproduce at such a staggering rate you can see change through generations in a small timeframe. The changes that occur back up evolutionary theory.

The change is usually due to a new acheological find, or a novel new experiment someone has designed. So i don't admit previous versions were not based on experiments and observations. They were based on the best data available at the time.

You don't understand what a theory is as it relates to science.

You have a belief, you will not change it.

I have a theory and if better evidence comes along I will change it.

Thats the biggest difference.

I don't begrudge you your belief just don't try to pass it off as science.

[BlueTalon]

Experiments with bacteria best show evolution in action. Because they reproduce at such a staggering rate you can see change through generations in a small timeframe. The changes that occur back up evolutionary theory.

The change is usually due to a new acheological find, or a novel new experiment someone has designed. So i don't admit previous versions were not based on experiments and observations. They were based on the best data available at the time.

You don't understand what a theory is as it relates to science.

You have a belief, you will not change it.

I have a theory and if better evidence comes along I will change it.

Thats the biggest difference.

Do the changes in bacteria show them becoming something other than bactieria? If not, it doesn't prove your beloved evolution. Humans and dogs change over time, too, but you don't see them becoming anything other than humans and dogs.

You also have a belief and will not change it. Be real. You're sold out to evolution, and it doesn't matter what crazy twists or turns it might take, you are a believer in evolution. You can say you'll change your theory if better evidence somes along, but the reality is you simply believe whatever the latest version of evolution is. You've completely closed your mind off from the possibility of any science anywhere indicating something other than evolution, and you interpret things that don't really support evolution as supporting evolution. That's as religious of a belief as any you accuse us having.

As I said before, I don't argue the fact that ID/creationism is a belief -- it is after all a philosophy. I don't begrudge you your belief either, but you do try to pass yours off as science.

[HOF44]

Do the changes in bacteria show them becoming something other than bactieria? If not, it doesn't prove your beloved evolution. Humans and dogs change over time, too, but you don't see them becoming anything other than humans and dogs.

You also have a belief and will not change it. Be real. You're sold out to evolution, and it doesn't matter what crazy twists or turns it might take, you are a believer in evolution. You can say you'll change your theory if better evidence somes along, but the reality is you simply believe whatever the latest version of evolution is. You've completely closed your mind off from the possibility of any science anywhere indicating something other than evolution, and you interpret things that don't really support evolution as supporting evolution. That's as religious of a belief as any you accuse us having.

As I said before, I don't argue the fact that ID/creationism is a belief -- it is after all a philosophy. I don't begrudge you your belief either, but you do try to pass yours off as science.

I will quote chomeric, because I think he addressed this very well earlier in this thread.

"Well, here you go again. You are changing the definition of a theory and equating something that isn't one. As science is concerned, evolution is a thoery because there is insurmountable evidence which backs up its claims. It has not been refuted by anyone, no matter what some creationist website tells you.

Scientists hold the word theory as almost sacred. Is is not thrown around losely at all. So the second you say that creationism should be considered alongside evolution, you are insulting the entire branch of science.

In you OPINION, creatonism is a theory, but not according to science as a whole. YOU think they are the same, yet scientists do not. It is an opinion which belongs aside evolution just as much as the flying spaghetti monster. In other words, believe what you want to, but do not try to equate it to a branch of science that has been around for over 100 years, and has mountaneous volumes of evidence to back it up."

[DjTj]

Do the changes in bacteria show them becoming something other than bactieria? If not, it doesn't prove your beloved evolution. Humans and dogs change over time, too, but you don't see them becoming anything other than humans and dogs.

The bacteria do become different species of bacteria. That is all that is necessary for macro-evolution. When you say things like "do bacteria become something other than bacteria" you ask for proof that current technology cannot provide in the laboratory. This would be the equivalent of not believing in teh theory of gravitation until scientists can observe gravitons or manipulate gravitational fields. The basis of science is making inferences from observations; most scientific theories do not allow us to manipulate the world at will.

Even though we can't build warp drive engines, the theory of gravitation is reasonably well accepted. Even though we can't make dogs turn into werewolves, the theory of evolution is even more well accepted than gravitation. There is plenty of observational evidence of one species evolving into another species. First, you have to define the word "species." Then, I encourage you to read this thread:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1378989

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1383882

[SUNSTONE]

If the Encyclopedia of Evolution says that creation is a theory, then I don't care what anyone says.

In fact that book mentioned this exact debate, and said that Evolutionists are wrong when it comes to saying that Creationism has been proven wrong, or that "man is an ancestory of apes".

And people want to compare evolution theory, to the theory of gravity.

In order for that to be a fair comparison, there would have to be atleast 100's of examples of man in different stages of evolution throughout the ages.

But gravity on the other hand, I can sit here and drop that apple over and over and over again.

Gravity will always work until there is a reason for it to not work, example if the moon shifted drasticly, that could effect our gravity.