no, it is a theory. It has just held up for every situation possible so far, so it is generally accepted as a law. There are no laws in science as nothing is ever 100% proven. It can be proven to such an extent as to be considered a truth, but can never be. The absence of contradicting evidence is not proof.
A law (in scientific terms) is simply an observable pattern in nature.
A theory is used to explain how/why that pattern exists.
Most people think that a theory can be proven enough to turn into a law, but that’s not really true. They’re not the same thing.
Really evolution in its simplest form should be a law. Due to genetics and mutations, species change all the time. It’s an observable pattern. But it’s probably not a law because of how controversial it is.
I am a creationist. But even I know that species change.
The “theory” part of Darwin’s evolution is natural selection. Having a theory just means it is explaining the pattern of evolution…and if it’s a theory, then it has never been proven false with any legitimate evidence.
What creationists mostly have a problem with is the way people use it to try to say there is no God. I don’t believe that’s so. I also don’t believe we evolved from monkeys. Although evolution is true, it does not change species as drastically as people think. For the most part, it’s adaptations. Like with the Gallapagos finches or with different colored moths. That is a perfect example of species changing and adapting in order to survive. It’s a gift God gave them. But it hardly means everything evolved from a single cell.
There are a number of ways evolution is used negatively. However, there are quite a few ways religion is used negatively…so it’s a difficult debate.
Overall, not all creationists are so ignorant. But she’s got a start, perhaps. She just has to educate herself a little more so she doesn’t sound so naive.
I have also seen many comments about Newton and Einstein.
Let me explain. Newton was first to analyze gravity. He observed the pattern.
THEN he came up with a theory for why and how gravity exists.
Years later. That theory was proven wrong. And Einstein gave his own theory about why and how gravity exists.
Then when that was proven wrong…other scientists step up.
Gravity itself has never changed. It IS a law. It’s an observable pattern in nature. There’s no way you can deny it because it’s holding you to your chair this very moment.
However, people continue to theorize why it exists. That is not as easy to explain.
Actually no, gravity is simply a thing. It exists. It isn’t a law. That’s like saying “Apple is a law”. It isn’t. Its a thing.
And yeah, philosophically speaking, nothing in sciene is a law, nor is it certain. Its merely happened many more times before, but that doesn’t guarantee it will happen again of course.
Scientifically speaking however, there are laws, truths, and certainties. But where’s the fun in certainty?!
UMMM humans did not evolve from monkeys we had a common ancestor which is why human DNA is 99% IDENTICAL to Chimpanzee DNA WE HAVE THE SAME ANCESTRAL TRAITS FROM THE SAME ANCESTOR WE ARE A MONOPHYLETIC GROUP!!!!
It’s important to note that while newton was on the right track with gravity, his logic was fundamentally flawed.
The flaw in newtonian physics lies in assuming that objects are attracted to each other, while in truth the fact of the matter is that matter bends space itself, the appearance of gravity is nothing but smaller objects moving within space that is bent by larger ones.
More importantly, there was some dude named Einstien who completely made up “gravity 2.0″ after the original didn’t work out. And less than 30 years later, someone realized that Gravity 2.0 doesn’t work either, because it’s 8 different kinds of fucked up at the quantum level. So physicists have been trying to make up some new “gravity 3.0 String Theory Edition” ever since.
And people making fun of someone willfully being ignorant of science and buying some story from primitive goat-herders without critical analysis of it on any level isn’t funny how?
Hey guess what. Bloodletting to get rif of bad blood and disease was accepted science too. Get off your high horse of science. History shows that a century from now, the “science” we know today will most likely be completely destroyed, disproven, and restructured.
Just to let you know, gravity is a LAW, because it is an observable object in nature. There are theories of Gravity and how it reacts with us, where it comes from, etc. This can be better explained by this example. There is an apple, so there is a LAW of apple. How did the apple get there, we don’t know, so there are many theories of what that apple does, how it got there, etc. Just substitute an apple with gravity and you should see.
For a guy who made it all up without any shred of evidence, he sure was a great guesser. Modern day tools not available in his time (such as DNA analysis) have proven not only what he said, but what he predicted we would find. Amazing!
Maybe ‘god’ gave Darwin special powers like seeing into the future so he could make a theory (that has been proven over and over again) that would cause this much controversy, you know, just to keep things interesting! I do believe that is the simplest explanation as to why a man who was just guessing somehow managed to gues right about everything he guessed about! Or maybe he wasn’t guessing and actually observed something that everyone else had missed up to that point, lik Newton.
“Last I checked, gravity was a law. Evolution is still a theory.”
I think laws were made to be broken? No? LOL.
No one knows what gravity is, but the string theorists view is that gravitons cause it, and they continually drop out of our universe into some other universe(s). Sounds like a theory to me.
You do know there is a distinction between a ‘theory’ and that of a ‘scientific theory’? As different as night and day.
Of course some atheist d* with zero sense of humor would post something like this on a site that’s supposed to be apolitical fun. Word to the atheists: it’s not effing funny. Now quit spamming the site with your propaganda. How’re you lemmings enjoying Climategate? Lol. Here’s an ep1c phail for you:
Leading Climatologist says: the wurld iz ep1kly cooling! WTF!?!!!1 The powlr ice capz are getting huge! The wurld iz gonna be a desert.
(Posted 30 years ago)
Al Gore says: the wurld is ep1kly warming! WTF!?!?!!!1 the powlr ice capz are shrinking. The powlr bearz iz dying! The wurld iz gonna be an ocean!
You have some interesting opinions. What, if I may ask, is your take on the dissolution of the written English language into a string of nonsensical gibberish through the incorporation of leet into the popular lexicon?
Imagine that, scientists forming theories based on observable evidence and then revising the *theory* once the evidence shows something different. This is not religion, where you manipulate evidence to suit faith.
Also, no one who is a member of an organized religion is ever allowed to call anyone not actively following other people jumping off a cliff a lemming.
Science and religion aren’t as different as they would like to be. Both simply are just looking for awnsers to the questions of life. Science could use some more imagination, and religion could use some more reality, both need to stop acting like they know what the hell they’re talking about.
And the truth behind it all is who gives a fuck? We don’t need genuine certainty or knowledge to be able to go about our own lives. We’re perfectly fine not knowing whether or not some non-existant being clapped his non-existant hands and POOF we existed, or if the existance of everything simply happened when nothing came together and exploded. POOF, we existed.
And the silence of the universe rejoiced..
Steps of the Scientific method (this is grade school science, people)
* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results
Creationism is only a hypothesis. It can’t be tested; no experiments were ever done. It’s not even a theory. Only after the data and conclusion is done does it even become a theory.
Oh, and in regards to the guy saying gravity was a theory, I detected a little sarcasm in his comment, as faint as it was. I guess some people didn’t catch that though.
Okay listen up, all of you (except the VERY few that are right): A hypothesis is just a guess based on ideas that one has. That would be creationism, as someone has already stated.
A THEORY is a hypothesis which has undergone extensive testing, but is not universally accepted as a LAW is. Also, most if not all LAWS are actually scientifically proven EQUATIONS that follow all evidence collected thusfar, and place the data into one convenient compacted package. However…
I might even go so far as to say that creationism is one level BELOW a hypothesis, as it is not one person’s idea but rather an adaptation of the ideas of what are now called the ‘heathen’ religions by those who somehow innately consider that their IMAGINARY god(s) are better than someone elses IMAGINARY god(s). The fact is, religion and science ARE different. Religion is something that governments and leaders of societies made up to control and soothe the minds of the masses, as well as to attempt explain phenomena in the environment that, with the scientific knowledge of the time, were unexplainable. SCIENCE, however, attempts to find RATIONAL and PROVABLE explanations for anything that anyone may be curious about. Granted, there are still mysteries even within science, but at least scientists ADMIT ANY FAILURES, while creationists and preachers DO NOT, as is clearly evidenced by luvbugmd up there. Fossil, genetic, molecular, and geological evidence ALL indicate we DID evolve from primitive primates. However, the idiots are right about one thing (and I do mean IDIOTS), we did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans BOTH evolved from much more PRIMITIVE ancestors, and diverged a very long time ago.
So in short, religion capitalizes and uses peoples’ fear of the unknown, and science attempts to eliminate that fear and replace it with knowledge. So who do you want to believe, your aggressor or your defender?
Why does everyone treat a theory as if it were such an unbelievable thing? A theory is upheld by scientific facts, and constantly tested and re-tested to make sure it still functions as it says it does. Just because it hasn’t been named a universal law, doesn’t mean that it is any less credible.
Sooooo you are saying that this theory that pretty much everybody has spent the past 150 years or so trying to discredit and CAN’T is false. On top of none of you idiots coming up with something better and backing it up with facts, there is a thing called Evolutionary Developmental Biology where the genetics of in utero development are studied and that proves evolution. DNA analysis proves evolution, speciation proves evolution, fossil records proves evolution, vestigial structures proves evolution (and for those who are ignorant vestigial structures are left over structures on an animal from a previous state like most snakes have stumps where their legs used to be), and many other proofs I don’t want to get into.
Jeesy Chreesy. This is such a fail. Darwin has more evidence to his theory than the entire race of Christianity combined has to the existence of God. To this I say, facepalm, facepalm, facepalm to the ignorance of religious types.
All I have to say really is that people who say that they do ‘good’ science and support that fully without doing anything to actually persuade them are being extremely hipocritical. If some people say “there is no god” or “their imaginary gods” then they are being just as naive as some who say that there is without studyig the evidence. For instance, whether people like it or not the bible is a source of evidence… PROVEN… if you were wondering! Just as darwin’s books can be suggested as evidence. I could say Darwin was a crazy old man who wrote a book about how we evolved from apes just as stupid people say an old geezer wrote the bible. This ignorance leads them to make ridiculous conclusions.
Believe it or not science and “religion” both require faith or trust in something happening! they both answer different questions what it means is whether you will either be naive and suggest that science disproves god or be totally unreasonable and close your eyes to science because you think that religion means that this simply cant be the case. the CHOICE is yours!
Just curious, but what about the Bible has been “proven?” Darwin’s books can be accepted as evidence because his experiments and conclusions are the product of scientific rigor, and anyone in the world can repeat his experiments. He drew a conclusion from observed facts, and his conclusion has been nothing but affirmed by science since then.
And there is incentive for scientists to prove Evolution to be false. How famous do you think “the man who brought down Evolution” would be? That guy would be a millionaire and would be immortalized by history. Disproving Evolution is a scientist’s wet dream, but it hasn’t happened for a reason.
The biggest problem with people who question Evolution is that they see it as a “belief,” even though it is not. Selfish, individualistic people tend to think that facts are subjective and that they can pick and choose what goes on in the universe because they have the “freedom” to do so. Science is NOT faith, and it is NOT a belief. You don’t get to “decide” whether it happens or not like you can with religion. You could say that Darwin was a crazy old man who wrote a book, but unless you have scientific evidence proving you point you’d be buried under a mountain of evidence that proves you wrong. The same does not go for the Bible.
That would be true… if Darwin didn’t have hard data to back up his findings. The Bible, on the other hand, doesn’t. Not that I’m saying the bible isn’t something to live your life by, but must it be taken so literally? Can’t anything in the bible be translated to philosophical analogs, just as anything in the Tao Te Ching can be, or anything in the Tripitaka can be.
People stop responding when they don’t want to get in a pissing contest with a skunk. There’s no point trying to convince someone they’re wrong if they are stubbornly wrong. It’s better to just point and laugh because who f**king cares who “wins”.
Darwinism is at most half right. Natural selection and survival of the fittest bringing on adaptations by the passing of on traits and genes which are favourable for survival only takes common sense to figure out that its most likely true.
We can use common sense again however when it comes to humans having evolved from apes. in fact there is by far enough proof to make it no longer a theory but rather a fact. let me present to you my evidence. Evidence no. 1: politicians. The world is run by monkeys. nuff said
A law has a few properties (like it has to be simple, or usually it can be expressed in one mathematical formular). A law has never been proven wrong. And the main point: it is commonly accepted by the scientific community and likely not to change ever (but it could one day if proven wrong).
A theory is more likely to change or be disproven and usually more complex.
Neither laws nor theories are proven. (But since “gravity binds us to our chair” meaning it seems completely impossible to deny, we accept it as a law and base all our theories on those laws.)
Gravity is a law by this definition, but there are a few gravity theories (some proven wrong, though the relative theorie is not proven wrong, as far as i remember, but rather it does not describe the quantum mechanics, meaning it is not complete).
BTW I am only talking about physical laws und scientific theories.
It’s amazing how often people forget the true definition of the word “theory”. A theory isn’t something that’s made up or guessed. A theory is a statement backed up by evidence.
As a religious scientist who believes in the speciation of finches, some evolutionary theory and the theory of global warming, I am deeply offended by the lack of intelligent argument coming from the so-called religious posters on here.
There is no way to intelligently argue a theory. It’s a theory. It is about belief, not fact. You can use as much scientific terminology as you like but the fact still remains that it CAN’T be proven. Now let us focus our attentions onto a topic that can actually go somewhere.
Why dont all of the galaxies in the universe rotate in the same direction? Why is there no “missing link”. I would think there would be many seeing as evolution takes such a long time. Wouldn’t the less developed species simply die out due to their becoming obsolete? Why is there no fossilized evidence of these obsolete creatures?
How do you determine the age of a rock? By the fossils found in it.
How do you determine the age of the fossils? By the layer of rock it is found in.
(Circular Reasoning)
How did the universe come to be? God made it.
The fact is that Evolutionism and Creationism are both theorys. They can’t be scientifically proven. However Creationism is not about being proven. It is about faith, and you need faith to believe in evolution as well. It simply comes down to your own decision.
I would like to point out that evolution has many holes in the theory while Creationism only has one scientific flaw. You only need to assume there is an all powerful being that made everything. It may seem like a tough pill to swallow but it makes more sense than the convoluded mind fart Charles Darwin had while doing some bird watching.
Leave Ashley Alone! Evangelism is a mental disability.
As a Darwinist with a psychiatric disability, I resent that remark!
Me too. High five for psychiatric disabilities
! Wait…no, it’s not like that’s a good thing. Well…uh…hi, anyway.
No, you’re thinking of atheism.
Someone should tell Nick that Newton postulated a LAW gravity, not a THEORY.
Someone should tell you that Newton postulated a THEORY, not a LAW.
Er, LAW of gravity.
no, it is a theory. It has just held up for every situation possible so far, so it is generally accepted as a law. There are no laws in science as nothing is ever 100% proven. It can be proven to such an extent as to be considered a truth, but can never be. The absence of contradicting evidence is not proof.
No actually, gravity IS a law.
A law (in scientific terms) is simply an observable pattern in nature.
A theory is used to explain how/why that pattern exists.
Most people think that a theory can be proven enough to turn into a law, but that’s not really true. They’re not the same thing.
Really evolution in its simplest form should be a law. Due to genetics and mutations, species change all the time. It’s an observable pattern. But it’s probably not a law because of how controversial it is.
I am a creationist. But even I know that species change.
The “theory” part of Darwin’s evolution is natural selection. Having a theory just means it is explaining the pattern of evolution…and if it’s a theory, then it has never been proven false with any legitimate evidence.
What creationists mostly have a problem with is the way people use it to try to say there is no God. I don’t believe that’s so. I also don’t believe we evolved from monkeys. Although evolution is true, it does not change species as drastically as people think. For the most part, it’s adaptations. Like with the Gallapagos finches or with different colored moths. That is a perfect example of species changing and adapting in order to survive. It’s a gift God gave them. But it hardly means everything evolved from a single cell.
There are a number of ways evolution is used negatively. However, there are quite a few ways religion is used negatively…so it’s a difficult debate.
Overall, not all creationists are so ignorant. But she’s got a start, perhaps. She just has to educate herself a little more so she doesn’t sound so naive.
I have also seen many comments about Newton and Einstein.
Let me explain. Newton was first to analyze gravity. He observed the pattern.
THEN he came up with a theory for why and how gravity exists.
Years later. That theory was proven wrong. And Einstein gave his own theory about why and how gravity exists.
Then when that was proven wrong…other scientists step up.
Gravity itself has never changed. It IS a law. It’s an observable pattern in nature. There’s no way you can deny it because it’s holding you to your chair this very moment.
However, people continue to theorize why it exists. That is not as easy to explain.
Actually no, gravity is simply a thing. It exists. It isn’t a law. That’s like saying “Apple is a law”. It isn’t. Its a thing.
And yeah, philosophically speaking, nothing in sciene is a law, nor is it certain. Its merely happened many more times before, but that doesn’t guarantee it will happen again of course.
Scientifically speaking however, there are laws, truths, and certainties. But where’s the fun in certainty?!
yah so just wanted to throw this out there but gravity isn’t a thing dumbass, it’s intangible. meaning you cannot see it touch it etc.
That’s kind of like saying, “well, sure, you can add 5 an infinite number of times, but it’ll never add up to a THOUSAND!”
UMMM humans did not evolve from monkeys we had a common ancestor which is why human DNA is 99% IDENTICAL to Chimpanzee DNA WE HAVE THE SAME ANCESTRAL TRAITS FROM THE SAME ANCESTOR WE ARE A MONOPHYLETIC GROUP!!!!
^ hahahahahahahahahaha
^^
wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation
haha also in the wikipedia article it says that there were flaws in Newtons Theory, it had to be editted before it became a law
Gravity is a conspiracy!
true dat
double true!
It’s important to note that while newton was on the right track with gravity, his logic was fundamentally flawed.
The flaw in newtonian physics lies in assuming that objects are attracted to each other, while in truth the fact of the matter is that matter bends space itself, the appearance of gravity is nothing but smaller objects moving within space that is bent by larger ones.
#justsaying
Yes, I’m that kind of geek.
More importantly, there was some dude named Einstien who completely made up “gravity 2.0″ after the original didn’t work out. And less than 30 years later, someone realized that Gravity 2.0 doesn’t work either, because it’s 8 different kinds of fucked up at the quantum level. So physicists have been trying to make up some new “gravity 3.0 String Theory Edition” ever since.
hmm the only scientist to produce something without any fact…. (cough) creationists
Don’t see what’s so funny here. Just a bunch of people being dicks to a creationist.
And people making fun of someone willfully being ignorant of science and buying some story from primitive goat-herders without critical analysis of it on any level isn’t funny how?
Oddly, that creationist went storming onto a discussion group announcement.
If one of them had dragged her into it, then they would be dicks. Here, they’re simply resonding to dickish behavior from the creationist
Hey guess what. Bloodletting to get rif of bad blood and disease was accepted science too. Get off your high horse of science. History shows that a century from now, the “science” we know today will most likely be completely destroyed, disproven, and restructured.
Last I checked, gravity was a law. Evolution is still a theory.
Obviously you haven’t checked then because gravity is, and will always be, a theory, just like evolution.
Just to let you know, gravity is a LAW, because it is an observable object in nature. There are theories of Gravity and how it reacts with us, where it comes from, etc. This can be better explained by this example. There is an apple, so there is a LAW of apple. How did the apple get there, we don’t know, so there are many theories of what that apple does, how it got there, etc. Just substitute an apple with gravity and you should see.
For a guy who made it all up without any shred of evidence, he sure was a great guesser. Modern day tools not available in his time (such as DNA analysis) have proven not only what he said, but what he predicted we would find. Amazing!
Maybe ‘god’ gave Darwin special powers like seeing into the future so he could make a theory (that has been proven over and over again) that would cause this much controversy, you know, just to keep things interesting! I do believe that is the simplest explanation as to why a man who was just guessing somehow managed to gues right about everything he guessed about! Or maybe he wasn’t guessing and actually observed something that everyone else had missed up to that point, lik Newton.
“Last I checked, gravity was a law. Evolution is still a theory.”
I think laws were made to be broken? No? LOL.
No one knows what gravity is, but the string theorists view is that gravitons cause it, and they continually drop out of our universe into some other universe(s). Sounds like a theory to me.
You do know there is a distinction between a ‘theory’ and that of a ‘scientific theory’? As different as night and day.
Of course some atheist d* with zero sense of humor would post something like this on a site that’s supposed to be apolitical fun. Word to the atheists: it’s not effing funny. Now quit spamming the site with your propaganda. How’re you lemmings enjoying Climategate? Lol. Here’s an ep1c phail for you:
Leading Climatologist says: the wurld iz ep1kly cooling! WTF!?!!!1 The powlr ice capz are getting huge! The wurld iz gonna be a desert.
(Posted 30 years ago)
Al Gore says: the wurld is ep1kly warming! WTF!?!?!!!1 the powlr ice capz are shrinking. The powlr bearz iz dying! The wurld iz gonna be an ocean!
(Posted 5 years ago)
Fail.
You have some interesting opinions. What, if I may ask, is your take on the dissolution of the written English language into a string of nonsensical gibberish through the incorporation of leet into the popular lexicon?
You win the thread.
between an atheist d* with a zero sense of humor and a creationist with a sub zero sense of both humor and grammar, I think I’d take atheist d*
Imagine that, scientists forming theories based on observable evidence and then revising the *theory* once the evidence shows something different. This is not religion, where you manipulate evidence to suit faith.
Also, no one who is a member of an organized religion is ever allowed to call anyone not actively following other people jumping off a cliff a lemming.
Science and religion aren’t as different as they would like to be. Both simply are just looking for awnsers to the questions of life. Science could use some more imagination, and religion could use some more reality, both need to stop acting like they know what the hell they’re talking about.
Word. The reality is no one knows who, what, where, when, why or how the universe works or came into being.
And the truth behind it all is who gives a fuck? We don’t need genuine certainty or knowledge to be able to go about our own lives. We’re perfectly fine not knowing whether or not some non-existant being clapped his non-existant hands and POOF we existed, or if the existance of everything simply happened when nothing came together and exploded. POOF, we existed.
And the silence of the universe rejoiced..
True, but without science you wouldn’t have computers. Electricity is science.
Aww *pats Ashley on the head*. Creationists are funny.
Steps of the Scientific method (this is grade school science, people)
* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results
Creationism is only a hypothesis. It can’t be tested; no experiments were ever done. It’s not even a theory. Only after the data and conclusion is done does it even become a theory.
I’m so proud of my school…
Oh, and in regards to the guy saying gravity was a theory, I detected a little sarcasm in his comment, as faint as it was. I guess some people didn’t catch that though.
“gravity” is not a theory or a law.
The Law of Universal Gravitation is what that supercilious twat meant to post about on Facebook.
Lol i almost went to that lecture
Okay listen up, all of you (except the VERY few that are right): A hypothesis is just a guess based on ideas that one has. That would be creationism, as someone has already stated.
A THEORY is a hypothesis which has undergone extensive testing, but is not universally accepted as a LAW is. Also, most if not all LAWS are actually scientifically proven EQUATIONS that follow all evidence collected thusfar, and place the data into one convenient compacted package. However…
I might even go so far as to say that creationism is one level BELOW a hypothesis, as it is not one person’s idea but rather an adaptation of the ideas of what are now called the ‘heathen’ religions by those who somehow innately consider that their IMAGINARY god(s) are better than someone elses IMAGINARY god(s). The fact is, religion and science ARE different. Religion is something that governments and leaders of societies made up to control and soothe the minds of the masses, as well as to attempt explain phenomena in the environment that, with the scientific knowledge of the time, were unexplainable. SCIENCE, however, attempts to find RATIONAL and PROVABLE explanations for anything that anyone may be curious about. Granted, there are still mysteries even within science, but at least scientists ADMIT ANY FAILURES, while creationists and preachers DO NOT, as is clearly evidenced by luvbugmd up there. Fossil, genetic, molecular, and geological evidence ALL indicate we DID evolve from primitive primates. However, the idiots are right about one thing (and I do mean IDIOTS), we did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans BOTH evolved from much more PRIMITIVE ancestors, and diverged a very long time ago.
So in short, religion capitalizes and uses peoples’ fear of the unknown, and science attempts to eliminate that fear and replace it with knowledge. So who do you want to believe, your aggressor or your defender?
Bravo! There was a quote that went something like this “Religion makes life bearable in a world that religion made unbearable” or something like that.
Win.
Why does everyone treat a theory as if it were such an unbelievable thing? A theory is upheld by scientific facts, and constantly tested and re-tested to make sure it still functions as it says it does. Just because it hasn’t been named a universal law, doesn’t mean that it is any less credible.
Unlike Newton’s THEORY, however, Darwin’s THEORY isn’t even real.
Sooooo you are saying that this theory that pretty much everybody has spent the past 150 years or so trying to discredit and CAN’T is false. On top of none of you idiots coming up with something better and backing it up with facts, there is a thing called Evolutionary Developmental Biology where the genetics of in utero development are studied and that proves evolution. DNA analysis proves evolution, speciation proves evolution, fossil records proves evolution, vestigial structures proves evolution (and for those who are ignorant vestigial structures are left over structures on an animal from a previous state like most snakes have stumps where their legs used to be), and many other proofs I don’t want to get into.
Jeesy Chreesy. This is such a fail. Darwin has more evidence to his theory than the entire race of Christianity combined has to the existence of God. To this I say, facepalm, facepalm, facepalm to the ignorance of religious types.
All I have to say really is that people who say that they do ‘good’ science and support that fully without doing anything to actually persuade them are being extremely hipocritical. If some people say “there is no god” or “their imaginary gods” then they are being just as naive as some who say that there is without studyig the evidence. For instance, whether people like it or not the bible is a source of evidence… PROVEN… if you were wondering! Just as darwin’s books can be suggested as evidence. I could say Darwin was a crazy old man who wrote a book about how we evolved from apes just as stupid people say an old geezer wrote the bible. This ignorance leads them to make ridiculous conclusions.
Believe it or not science and “religion” both require faith or trust in something happening! they both answer different questions what it means is whether you will either be naive and suggest that science disproves god or be totally unreasonable and close your eyes to science because you think that religion means that this simply cant be the case. the CHOICE is yours!
Just curious, but what about the Bible has been “proven?” Darwin’s books can be accepted as evidence because his experiments and conclusions are the product of scientific rigor, and anyone in the world can repeat his experiments. He drew a conclusion from observed facts, and his conclusion has been nothing but affirmed by science since then.
And there is incentive for scientists to prove Evolution to be false. How famous do you think “the man who brought down Evolution” would be? That guy would be a millionaire and would be immortalized by history. Disproving Evolution is a scientist’s wet dream, but it hasn’t happened for a reason.
The biggest problem with people who question Evolution is that they see it as a “belief,” even though it is not. Selfish, individualistic people tend to think that facts are subjective and that they can pick and choose what goes on in the universe because they have the “freedom” to do so. Science is NOT faith, and it is NOT a belief. You don’t get to “decide” whether it happens or not like you can with religion. You could say that Darwin was a crazy old man who wrote a book, but unless you have scientific evidence proving you point you’d be buried under a mountain of evidence that proves you wrong. The same does not go for the Bible.
That would be true… if Darwin didn’t have hard data to back up his findings. The Bible, on the other hand, doesn’t. Not that I’m saying the bible isn’t something to live your life by, but must it be taken so literally? Can’t anything in the bible be translated to philosophical analogs, just as anything in the Tao Te Ching can be, or anything in the Tripitaka can be.
Just saying.
ooh…
has anybody noticed that people never respond when proven wrong?
so I declare the darwanists as the winner for this particular thread
People stop responding when they don’t want to get in a pissing contest with a skunk. There’s no point trying to convince someone they’re wrong if they are stubbornly wrong. It’s better to just point and laugh because who f**king cares who “wins”.
Darwinism is at most half right. Natural selection and survival of the fittest bringing on adaptations by the passing of on traits and genes which are favourable for survival only takes common sense to figure out that its most likely true.
We can use common sense again however when it comes to humans having evolved from apes. in fact there is by far enough proof to make it no longer a theory but rather a fact. let me present to you my evidence. Evidence no. 1: politicians. The world is run by monkeys. nuff said
…this is a repeat
whoops no it’s not i’m looking at the old ones
Haha, poor Ashley. Having her beliefs to be proved totally and completely wrong.
Silly Maggie, your use of the word “proven” shows your ignorance to the subject at hand.
To laws and theories:
A law has a few properties (like it has to be simple, or usually it can be expressed in one mathematical formular). A law has never been proven wrong. And the main point: it is commonly accepted by the scientific community and likely not to change ever (but it could one day if proven wrong).
A theory is more likely to change or be disproven and usually more complex.
Neither laws nor theories are proven. (But since “gravity binds us to our chair” meaning it seems completely impossible to deny, we accept it as a law and base all our theories on those laws.)
Gravity is a law by this definition, but there are a few gravity theories (some proven wrong, though the relative theorie is not proven wrong, as far as i remember, but rather it does not describe the quantum mechanics, meaning it is not complete).
BTW I am only talking about physical laws und scientific theories.
It’s amazing how often people forget the true definition of the word “theory”. A theory isn’t something that’s made up or guessed. A theory is a statement backed up by evidence.
But it isn’t proven. It can’t be. That is why it is a theory.
As a religious scientist who believes in the speciation of finches, some evolutionary theory and the theory of global warming, I am deeply offended by the lack of intelligent argument coming from the so-called religious posters on here.
There is no way to intelligently argue a theory. It’s a theory. It is about belief, not fact. You can use as much scientific terminology as you like but the fact still remains that it CAN’T be proven. Now let us focus our attentions onto a topic that can actually go somewhere.
Just two quick questions?.. If the the theory of evolution is true… 1. How come humans don’t keep on evolving and 2. why are there still monkeys/apes?
Why dont all of the galaxies in the universe rotate in the same direction? Why is there no “missing link”. I would think there would be many seeing as evolution takes such a long time. Wouldn’t the less developed species simply die out due to their becoming obsolete? Why is there no fossilized evidence of these obsolete creatures?
How do you determine the age of a rock? By the fossils found in it.
How do you determine the age of the fossils? By the layer of rock it is found in.
(Circular Reasoning)
How did the universe come to be? God made it.
The fact is that Evolutionism and Creationism are both theorys. They can’t be scientifically proven. However Creationism is not about being proven. It is about faith, and you need faith to believe in evolution as well. It simply comes down to your own decision.
I would like to point out that evolution has many holes in the theory while Creationism only has one scientific flaw. You only need to assume there is an all powerful being that made everything. It may seem like a tough pill to swallow but it makes more sense than the convoluded mind fart Charles Darwin had while doing some bird watching.