Actually I don't, the definition I quoted was not mine. However theory is theory, fact is fact. Gravity is not a theory it is a fact, clearly observable to all with abundant physical evidence. Gravity is in fact a part of Gods creation, without which we would all be flying uncontrollably out into space without the need for rockets! Theories about aspects of gravity such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity do not change the fact of gravity they merely make assumptions proven or otherwise about aspects of its operation or its effects. Of course animal or bird life etc will prosper where their environment is suited to their existence and where that environment becomes, let's say alien to them they may adapt in some way if the conditions are not too severe, or if the conditions are so severe they will die off but they don't become a different species. Mutations occur of course and species adapt to different circumstances from the simplest form of a moth or chamelion changing its colour to fit its background to perhaps more extreme cases, perhaps of birds no longer using the ability to fly. Experiments have been done years ago on fruit flies for example, breeding for change ... but none of the fruit flies changed for the better, they all lost abilities they had before, e.g. the ability to fly, but they never became anything other than fruit flies. Now you might say that in time they would have changed from flies to beetles but there is no evidence that such has ever happened. Similarly dog breeders have developed over many years differend 'breeds' of dogs from the little chihuahua to the giant Newfoundland or from the poodle to the bulldog ... but they never cross the species barrier, they always remain dogs. Evolution fails also to address the issue of why we still have the 'original' form which allegedly changed or evolved to form the new. Let's view it in its simplest basic form, man is supposed to have evolved from the apes, but the theory of evolution does not tell us why we still have the ape species, or indeed any of the other species that we are supposed to have evolved from - the chasm that still exist between the two has never been explained. Now my view is that the bible is true when it says that God created the species, "each according to their kind", and that explanation, whilst needing faith is a much more reasonable view IMO, albeit unpopular with those who don't believe in God, (after all if you don't believe in God how can you believe in His creation!). Belief in God is personal, involving a full study of His Word and the evidence surrounding it but more than that it involves developing a personal relationship with Him, something that no one can do for you. I would be happy to help you prove to yourself that God exists, let me know where you live and if it's local I'll call, if not I'll arrange a course of study for you.
grandad, you should really click on this link and read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science And how do you know which is his word? Also, I take it that by personal relationship you mean voluntarily indulging in a schizophrenic "relationship" with an imaginary person.
Yes but that is a very unreliable source of information - you use it to prove that a theory is something more than it is. Yet I've just edited it to show that a theory is just a theory until proven and that the teaching of theories as fact propagates something that is incorrect. Anyone can edit and add bits to wikipedia, it is not a reliable source of 'evidence' or scholarly opinion and should never be taken as an authoritative source of information. You know which is his word by examining the evidence with an open mind! Schizophrenic? - No the one who has a personal relationship with God exhibits none of the symptoms of schizophrenia, quite to the contrary.
We are talking about "scientific" theories right, Which is what evolution is; In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena As opposed to a common theory which is speculation, conjecture or opinion, Which is what your baseless "theory" of god is. Theory Gravity is a theory; Isaac Newton's theory of universal gravitation A bird wouldn't turn in to something else, it's too far along it's evolutionary path to be able to change in to something else now. But when the bird was a far simpler creature it had the ability, Through natural selection, To become something else. All birds used to reptiles for example. If you only take a second to look at the body of a chicken, Especially it's feet, This should become obvious. Evolution doesn't say we evolved from modern day apes. It says we and modern day apes shared a common ancestor. There was an ape "missing link" and we evolved from that creature to become humans and the other apes evolved from that creature to become what they are. At no point does evolution claim we were once a chimpanzee or a gorilla and it doesn't claim that this creature still exists. I mearly says at some point we shared an ancestor with the other apes. This is the problem the religious have. they look at modern day creatures and see that a dog isn't going to give birth to a pig and a pig isn't going to give birth to a fish. Of course this is true, But it doesn't effect evolution because that isn't what evolution claims. Evolutionary paths were determined long long ago when creatures were far simpler and had the chance to become something more complicated. It's like having a Lego set. You could start with all the pieces on the floor and make a bridge, a car or a house. But once you have built a house it becomes impossible to turn that in to a car or a bridge simply by adding more pieces. The more complicated the structure is the harder it is to create another form from it. Forget about modern day animals and apply natural selection to creatures limited to less that 100 cells. This is another thing that makes it so hard to have a sensible discussion with the religious. At no point have you attempted to argue your own opinion, You simply attack opposing opinions. Then when asked to validate your claims you make this ludicrous claim that you are in some way gifted and can see the truth. Then finally comes the indoctrination. So predictable.
You could have done better than that Okay, have it your way, new link for you: http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html There is no evidence. The bible is NOT evidence. Schizophrenia, noun: Any of several psychotic disorders characterized by distortions of reality and disturbances of thought and language and withdrawal from social contact
With respect, in this and other threads I have stated my opinion. I don't believe in evolution, I believe it is exactly what it says it is, a theory and I don't believe that any amount of wikipedia can be a source of reliable scientific authority to prove otherwise. If the theory of evolution was a fact we would not have the ridiculous scenes that we regularly get of people turning up with tiny fragments of bone and telling us exactly what the supposed creature looked like - nor would incidents like the Piltdown Man have been experienced. If evolution was fact it would be clearly provable as such that is all I am saying. To me the assumption that all species developed by some freak 'accident' in the distant past is less believable than the bible's account that the individual species were created by an intelligent designer who also created man. Everything in the natural world around us cries out that it had a designer ... even your watch had a designer and it merely measures the time of movement of planets, yet you claim that those planets had no designer ... it is equally ludicrous IMO. I absolutely defend your right to believe what you wish but I sincerely believe that you are wrong. Those who do not have any spiritual inclination will always find it hard to have a discussion with those who do because spirituality is foolishness to them, (just as the bible recorded). Because such ones do not have a spiritual inclination the outcome is often one of a mutual failure in understanding. In the finale God has given all of us the free will to make our choice of what to believe and what to do - if there is a God, (and of course I believe that there is), then we all stand or fall before him on the decisions that we personally make. As for me I will happily serve God in the knowledge that he has made me a better person and that if everyone on earth today followed just a part of the bible, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount' as it is known, the world as we know it today would be totally transformed for the benefit and joy of every man woman and child on earth. Gifted? Yes if you like, I believe the Good News of Gods Kingdom is the greatest gift that anyone could ever receive.
You are quite wrong the bible contains abundant evidence that many scientific authorities agree on. "“archaeological data has demonstrated the substantial originality of the Books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, of Ezra and Nehemiah beyond doubt, they have confirmed the traditional picture of events as well as their order.â€â€”The Bible After Twenty Years of Archaeology, W. F. Albright." "astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin scientists have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened. Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation." "The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History commented: “Darwin’s theory has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would, the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.†"Astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe agreed, “Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning, so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.†"Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists: “All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.†Withdrawal from social contact? ... Jehovah's Witnesses? ... in your dreams!
You are just denying reality now. How about the dictionary, Can people alter the dictionary, Or are you just going to flat out deny the definition the dictionary gives. Theory 1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another I don't even think you should be allowed to take part in discusions. You offer absolutely no evidence for your claims, You deny reality, You claim other peoples solid evidence to be false. You are delusional. If you took this flimsy mental disorder you call a belief to court they would laugh at you. If you want to believe this crap then go do it, But don't have the cheek to argue against science and facts when you have absolutely no understanding of them, Deny reality and evidence and offer no argument to support your claims other than the fact that you believe it because it's what you have been told. Go back to the dark ages, The 21st century has no place for you.
Atheists don't just target Christianity. Freethinkers/Atheists do criticize other religions as well. Christianity does take the brunt of visible criticism in our culture though because it is such a dominant force in our society. My friend Tim is the author of the site you are referring to. He is a good guy who wants to see the world free of harmful religious beliefs. I do too, which is why I put christianityisbullshit.com online. The site does actually exist! I'm apparently not allowed to post a live link to it since I am new here, but the site is online. My own rejection of Christian belief has nothing to do with rebelliousness against my parents (who were not and are not Christians) or even against God. I was a devout Christian believer for 15 years of my life. I walked away from the faith after doing a great deal of researching and thinking and coming to the realization that none of it was actually true.
Of course science has facts. Facts are the data and observations which are explained by theories. Nor does science try to answer everything. It's a way of explaining the workings of the natural world on the basis of the laws of nature. It doesn't attempt to explain the supernatural, but that doesn't make it inadequate for explaining the natural.
Evolution and the theory of evolution are different things. Evolution is a physical process, and the theory of evolution is the scientific explanation of how that process works. Same for gravity and the theory of gravity. Same for atoms and atomic theory. Since theories are broad explanations of large bodies of facts, there's always a possibility that they could be invalidated by facts discovered in the future which don't fit into the current theory. That's true of all theories, not just the theory of evolution. To say that there's something wrong with a theory because it's unproven is to show a very basic ignorance of the scientific method.
Man, this thread has gone too far lol Keep arguing if you want, you've heard my opinion on the matter, you all have opinions...I want to hear them
Indeed. Theories are explanations of large bodies of facts. Equally, evolution is not a theory, it's a fact, and is also clearly observable to people who know what they're looking for. Darwin's theory of evolution by variation and selection, which replaced Lamarck's theory of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics, doesn't change the fact of evolution; it merely provides an explanation of how it works. Fruit flies have been bred which eat meat. Which means they're no longer fruit flies. The change from vegetarian to omnivorous or carnivorous is a fairly major change. But all we hear is the old refrain "but they're still flies." And if they were ever bred so that they were different enough to not be flies, the old refrain would just change a bit: "but they're still insects." For creationists, there's no way evolution can occur because their holy book forbids it; therefore, it doesn't matter what evidence is presented, it'll never be enough. Go along to PubMed, plug "speciation" into the search engine, and read the abstracts of all the research papers describing the observation of new species being formed in real time. This argument is so bogus that even creationist ministries are suggesting that their followers drop it. It's tantamount to saying "If Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?" God created every species individually? Do you have any idea how large the Ark would have to have been if that were true?
And all the tens of thousands of scientists out there who do accept that evolution exists and the theory of evolution is a well-supported explanation? What about them? Also not good enough for you? What about the 72 Nobel laureates who signed the amicus curiae brief in the Edwards v Aguillard Supreme Court case? Not good enough for you? How much scientific support would be good enough for you? It doesn't matter, does it? No scientific evidence would ever be enough because you've fallen for the fundamentalist line that evolution is an atheistic/satanic theory and that in order to be a True Christian you have to reject it. So please stop pretending that your rejection of evolution has anything to do with science. It has been. The double nested hierarchies in the phylogenetic and fossil records are clear evidence of the existence of common descent. The only other explanation of those patterns is that this god of yours created all the species individually and went to some lengths to do it in such a way that the special creation was indistinguishable from common descent. Interesting to speculate why he'd take such trouble. Scientists have been wrong in a lot of areas of research. Does the fact that prions can cause transmissible diseases mean that bacteria aren't infectious? Does the cold-fusion debacle mean that we should abandon atomic theory? The Piltdown hoax was detected by scientists using science, not by fundamentalist Christians praying about it. If you're talking about evolution, it isn't accidental. The word "selection" should give a clue. If you're talking about abiogenesis, that also isn't accidental, as you should know if you've ever studied elementary chemistry. And if you ARE talking about abiogenesis, then why are you complaining about evolution? It may cry it out to you, but it doesn't cry it out to everybody. Were rabies virus, mildew, blight fungi, smallpox virus, plague bacteria, and malaria parasites also created by this designer? Nice guy.
Well of course it’s easy to try to promote your ideas by being rude, but what you fail to realize is that many, many scholars totally reject the theory of evolution, (and whatever you say a ‘theory’ will ALWAYS remain a ‘theory’, nothing else). The fact obviously escapes your notice that there is an abundant pool of eminent people who provide evidence against evolution. So don’t just assume that by being rude to me you can make the issue go away, it won’t, evolution will continue to be a ‘theory’, produced and expounded by men who do not wish to entertain the idea that they are accountable to a Creator. Here are a just a few quotes including one from Darwin himself:- Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard. Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28). "The argument of 'Darwin on Trial' is that we know a great deal less (about evolution) than has been claimed. In particular, we do not know how the immensely complex organ systems of plants and animals could have been created by mindless and purposeless natural processes, as Darwinists say they must have been. Darwinian theory attributes biological complexity to the accumulation of adaptive micro-mutations by natural selection, but the creative power of this hypothetical mechanism has never been demonstrated, and the fossil evidence is inconsistent with the claim that biological creation occurred in that way. The philosophically important part of the Darwinian theory - its mechanism for creating complex things that did not exist before - is therefore not really empirical science at all, but rather a deduction from naturalistic philosophy. In brief, what makes me a "critic of (Darwinian) evolution" is that I distinguish between naturalistic philosophy and empirical science, and oppose the former when it comes cloaked in the authority of the latter." 'Darwin on Trial' by Phillip Johnson (p158) Fundamental to contemporary Quantum Theory is the notion that there is no phenomenon until it is observed. This effect is known as the 'Observer Effect'. 1 The implications of the 'Observer Effect' are profound because, if true, it means that before anything can manifest in the physical universe it must first be observed. Presumably observation cannot occur without the pre-existence of some sort of consciousness to do the observing. The Observer Effect clearly implies that the physical Universe is the direct result of 'consciousness'. This notion has a striking resemblance to perennial esoteric theory which asserts that all phenomena are the result of the consciousness of a single overlighting Creative Principle or the Mind of God. There is a delicious irony in all this. Contemporary Western scientific theory postulates that human consciousness is solely a result of the workings of a physical brain, yet if the observer effect is correct, the physical matter comprising a brain cannot come into existence until it is the subject of observation by some pre-existing consciousness. Alex Paterson Thus did matters proceed from the pre-biotic past to the very threshold of the last universal common ancestor, whereupon, with inimitable gusto, life began to diversify itself by means of Darwinian principles. This account is no longer fantasy. But it is not yet fact. That is one reason why retracing its steps is such an interesting exercise, to which we now turn. David Liu, professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard Carl Woese was concerned to urge upon the biological community the benefits of “an all-out Darwinian perspective.†But the difficulty with “an all-out Darwinian perspective†is that it entails an all-out Darwinian impediment: notably, the assignment of a degree of foresight to a Darwinian process that the process could not possibly possess. At the conclusion of a long essay, it is customary to summarize what has been learned. In the present case, I suspect it would be more prudent to recall how much has been assumed: David Berlinski, Discovery Institute — Center for Science and Culture http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi... History and Philosophy of Science - MainPage Scientist greater than anyone contributing to this thread are in disagreement on the subject of evolution and creation, many support the theory of evolution and many do not. Many support the idea that a 'major intelligence' must have been behind the appearance of life on earth. To dismiss anyone who believes in an intelligence behind the appearance of life on earth is both presumtious and ill-informed and flies in the face of many, yes many, scholarly scientific minds. I say once again, with the full backing of scientific knowledge that the theory of evolution is not a fact, it is taught as fact but it is not fact and until it is proven as fact it will remain exactly what it is - a theory put forward by man to circumvent the idea that there could possibly be a Creator.
So, are you claiming to be a scientist? Where is your certification in regards to facts about science? Who made you an authority figure on scientific evidence? See? It's easy to question people's authority on matters about anything. It's called "muck-raking". For the agenda of...???????? Who knows? Obviously nothing positive. I still can't figure out what your agenda is? You seem to be doing your best to shoot down the Bible and anyone remotely associated to the truth about the Bible. Let us state some facts here. You will NEVER know if the Bible is factual or not. Why? Because, you will NEVER agree to the remotest possibility that God exists, no matter what evidence there is on this planet or in the entire universe. I mean evidence in the way an organization operates that is backed by God. You can stand outside any organization and call it names, pull it apart and point the finger and NEVER really know how or why it operates. Anyone can do that. That is what makes people so stupid at times. Because they think they are so smart and clever, they think there is no possibility that they are wrong about anything. You know there is one scripture that identifies this "type" of people. Matthew 11:25-30 says it all where Jesus says: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes. 26 Yes, O Father, because to do thus came to be the way approved by you. 27 All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one fully knows the Son but the Father, neither does anyone fully know the Father but the Son and anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all YOU who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh YOU. 29 Take my yoke upon YOU and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and YOU will find refreshment for YOUR souls. 30 For my yoke is kindly and my load is light.†God does not want intellectuals who refuse true wisdom in his new world. That is why it is revealed to "Babes". One's who have the right heart condition. Not one's who's hearts have hardened like yours. I can only hope that one day you will see the stupidity in your aggressive attitude to those who have faith in God by works and knowledge, and that day you might, just slightly, open your heart and just listen to the way you have been talking. Nothing good can ever be gained by your negativity. But, plenty of good can be achieved by our positivity. Good will always conquer bad in the long run. You are absolutely correct. This 21st Century is full of terrible people. Selfish, proud, greedy and brutal. Who would want to stay in this place anyway? I would much rather have what God promises any day. There is nothing this world offers that even compares to the world that God offers. Col
He then went on to say: Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." In other words, he was saying "this looks like a problem, but it isn't." It's interesting how many creationists will quote the "this looks like a problem" part and happily leave out the rest. You can pretend that people are saying different things from what they're really saying if you extract partial quotes and present them out of context, but it's a dishonest thing to do. Do we have any reason to believe that the other quotes are any more honest? Apart, that is, from the one by Phillip Johnson, who happens to be a creationist himself. The notion of believing in God is different from the notion that natural processes are insufficient to explain evolution. There are no great scientists who support intelligent design, young-earth creationism, or any other sort of creationism. There are many great scientists who believe in God, accept evolution, and flat-out reject creationism. There is no scientific knowledge behind this statement. Theories aren't facts; theories explain facts. The theory of evolution is equivalent to all the other scientific theories in that respect. Quite apart from which, you're suggesting that a major scientific theory, accepted by thousands upon thousands of research scientists of all different religious beliefs, is some sort of fabrication that was concocted for religious reasons? Do you have any idea at all of the magnitude of the conspiracy that would be required to pull off such an elaborate deception? In this statement you're accusing many thousands of highly trained and experienced scientists of perpetrating criminal fraud on their governments. Please feel free to back that up with something at least remotely resembling facts or take it back. Good heavens.