It's still considered a theory because of it's nature. Like you said, Kiki: it's just there.

This is common ammunition for evolutionists, because it proves the validity of some theories. Which is completely understandable. It can also support creationism, but I'm not going to delve into that right now.

However, as it's extremely difficult - if not impossible - to sample, test, and manipulate gravity like we can with other things, we can't exactly put it in writing that we fully understand gravity. Hence, it remains a theory; a perfectly valid, incomplete book.

ahhhh, ok. then lol. so its there, just not proven HOW its there?

edit::wait, that makes no sense...cus aint it the earths rotation that causes gravity? erg, i just confused myself XD

Evolutionists don't need ammunition from gravity. It is just a way of explaining that when we say "theory" in science it doesn't mean "guess", which is what creationists wold have you think.

Like I said, everyone needs proof and results to confirm reality.

I guess in theory, the word is the best possible explanation if proof does not exist.

... or proven, for that matter.
I have yet to see an evolving creature.

Don't confuse this with me saying "evolution is false." I can never truly say evolution is false. I am saying, however, that since the process of evolution happens over millions of years, how do we observe it? I'm pretty sure we can't... and observation plays a fundamental role in the scientific method... so I'm left unconvinced.

I spotted this assumption in one of your earlier posts.
I'm more creationist, and I can say, right here and now, that 'theory' doesn't necessarily mean ''guess".

You're right. That much is known. lol
... but that doesn't explain what gravity is.

Either you are reading my posts or you aren't. Theories are most often never proven in science. Most often they are disproven. If they cannot be disproven, they are considered, essentially, fact. Again, think of the scientific meaning vs. the layperson meaning.

I didn't say you said that. I am saying there are creationists who use this "loophole" to make an argument that is based on, basically, a falsehood.

true...hey who knows, maybe there's some giant magnet in the center of the earth in the middle pf the core magma/lava junk XD

Sorry, I'm mainly only reading what's being directed at me.

I understand what you mean. The problem is you can't disprove a deity or divine force either. If you find something on this planet and present it as evidence, it can be considered a product of said deity or divine force. Remember, anything responsible for the existence of the physical world is not necessarily limited by it's laws. That's why these kinds of debates always take place. What causes reality? Another potential stalemate.

Thanks for clarifying.

And you cannot prove the existence of a deity either. That's why religions are called "faith-based". That's where they creationist argument crumbles in a way in my eyes because creationists hold scientists to a higher standard than they hold their own faith. And, sadly, that is where the discussion ends.

The discussion ends when you realise that your faith in science should have far less faith than in anything else. It is erroenous views like this which lead to arrogance against faith in a creator.
Seriously, science? Something man made and finite that is constantly being updated and added to?
At the end of the day science only goes to "discover" what is already there. We use our own initiative to create new alloys and whatnot but that is all we can really do.. we will never create something from scratch.
They can find all the permutations and combinations of particular chemicals and elements, yet it already exists.
That itself gives more weight to a creator and everything to do with religion, than any theory that science could come up with.

As far as Evolution goes and the constant bleating of certain people about how antibiotics and such are proof of it.. go back to some of the threads where it is said that mutations are a specific process of bacteria and not anything else.

My eyes have been opened much wider by the logic of science then the "faith-based" system where I am asked to believe blindly.

Any system that rejects the notion of "proof" is a flawed one at best. At least science wears its doubts and flaws like a badge of honor.

Mefears I have said too much.

According to you, "you can't prove the existence of a deity," which is a creationist flaw. But then, by not denying the statement that you can neither disprove the existence of a deity, I assume you agree with it? (Fill me in, please)

I'm convinced that neither side can prove they're correct, or that the other is incorrect. My reason is this: The evolutionist argument typically begins at the primordial soup and builds off from there. The creationist argument typically begins at the cause of all things; divine, intelligent creation. There seems to be a huge gap...

Divine, intelligent creation is the clear target for scrutiny from evolutionists, obviously... but, when I ask evolutionists about what happens before the primordial soup, instead of referring to the Big Bang, like I expect, they often give some evasive response, like "definitely not some guy in a dress, floating in the clouds" or "I don't care."
Why is this?






Holy crap, it's ivi.
Hi, ivi. :ywave:

Warning
 

Agreed Nyororin. I will watch my step.

Jaydealert, evolution is just that. To reject evolutionary theory because it doesn't explain the creation of the universe is like rejecting algebra because it doesn't explain the holes in quantum physics.

Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory, the creation of the universe, the creation of Earth or the creation of life on Earth.

Evolution only covers life on earth since it existed and how life and livings things transpired from the first single-celled organism to the living world we see before us today.

I plan on dropping this debate very soon, but I'm genuinely interested in reading the next response (if there will be one). Please excuse it. I have no intention on getting hostile.

おねがい!

Edit: Eh, too late.

I think that's where the competition between evolution and creationism disturbs me the most.
I'm still not convinced, but I understand, for the most part, where you're coming from.

... And, as promised (above), I now have to stop arguing. lol

Also Santa claus exists, so do Digimon and all anime! Bleh.

You don't need to disprove something that has not been proven.

so if evolutionism is a theory because it hasn't been proven wrong, why isn't creationism a theory also? And no one seemed to comment on why we don't find more "missing links"???

Hey dude :ywave:

Lol that depends on the religion. I hope you're not making sweeping statements about all of them. ;)


Yet Algebra works for many things other than Quantum Physics. It is the basis for so much technology today which is above the quantum level. That is because it deals with physics outside the nucleus of an atom.
Evolution doesn't work at all. Only Natural Selection does, which as i've said before, existed well before Evolution without there ever being any theory deriven for it.

Also now, you may or may not have heard.. they're saying the "Mongol" class of people (i.e. chinese etc) had a different link to everyone else. A month ago if you had blindly bet your life on science, right now you'd have lost.

Why is that contrary to what Jayd is trying to say? Afterall Evolution hasn't been proven either and that is what the whole debate about the subject stems from.

Evolution doesn't work at all? Excuse me?

I'll remind you again that the field of medicine and biology rely on evolution to be true.

What's your point there? It's already been established that science is self-correcting.

(AAAARGH! I wish I could debate religion on here! It's so frustrating! Please someone change the rules of the forum! I have so much more to say regarding some of the things being said here.)

I really think they need to do more research,but it really too soon to tell. By looking at this picture it really looks just like an ordinary well-preseved lemur skeleton. And if it is really the missing link, then my question is this..why have we not find more like this? surely by now...Scientists should have more evidence, right?
Not trying to say they have not been searching for something like this, but if it is really evidence it should not be this hard to find...the true would have been reveal by now.

Another question would be if human do evolute...why are we not still evolving? Does evolution just stops???? Yes it might takes several years,but how long it that??? How long did it take for an animal to transform to a human?? It take steps in order to evolute, right? Why are there not people half human half something else now or show sign of evolving? Why do we continue to live shorter live spand even with the help of medicine and science?

History of the World
It actually been proven already from dna that all human came from a single human female....that's been proven with dna...
Not trying to be critical of people who believe in evolution but just trying to understand why you believe in it. There are SEVERALS HOLES (alot of holes actually) in evolution that are very much unexplained that need to be explain if it wants to be proven. And please do not be upset by my comments...just trying to understand.

Like in the article "If a lie is told often enough it eventually becomes believable; it’s called propaganda"

Evolution is a conclusion to a series of studies... it's a theory. Scientist can try over and over again but they will come to the same conclusion.

While believing in a deity is just believing to a written book and all it says. It's not based on anything, you just have to follow it without using your logic.

It is a big difference.

good point

It sucks that I'm still being involved in the debate after agreeing to drop it.
Please PM me if you want to discuss.

Sorry to sound blunt.. but that is your prejudice on it without really knowing about religions that provide plenty of logic toward the existence of a deity.

I really don't understand your argument here. Are you dismissing the discovery because they didn't find it sooner?

You are asking a lot of questions here, but basically there is no need to evolve when you are at the top of the food chain. Several years? More like hundreds of thousands, millions, billions of years...numbers our brains can't fathom. And human life spans are getting longer, not shorter.
You should hesitate when someone says something has been "proven" in science.

You website is nice, but always question what is the ulterior motive of the writer. The writer clearly is not writing in the interest of scientific exploration, but to promote a religious belief. In short, take what they say with a grain of salt. Here is a less biased look at Mitochondrial Eve, and you will find it contradicts with your writer's point.

Good science will tell you evolution will never be 100% proven. Just as we weren't there during at the dawn of the Earth or the dawn of man, we will never be able to 100% prove how things happened. However, just like in criminal court cases, there is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and scientists will tell you that the evidence is on the side of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just in science that isn't enough to call it a fact.

Maybe you didn't read the whole thing about anti-biotics (i.e. bacteria), that I already addressed some time ago. That was that Bacteria is special and passes down its genetic makeup to the next generation, thereby leaving it immune to certain changes in their habitat. Only bacteria share this trait..

Yea that is my point.. so to have faith in it is just as "blind" as having faith in religion.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I know it quite well.

What she and I mean is that we can find thousands of dinosaur skeletons but not missing links. according to you if it takes billions of years for evolution to happen. we should find more than just a handful of people claiming to find "missing links" remains.

There could be a million reasons why. Maybe they all burned to ashes in a volcanic eruption. Maybe they were swallowed miles down in a earthquake. Maybe there weren't very many of them or they were located in a limited area because of predators, geography.

What gave you the impression that i'm disappointed?

Also, if you know quite well (and your disposition so far tells me otherwise), then continue to enlighten me with what you know.

Haha... I'm no scientist.

But bacterial evolution shows change at a cellular level, and since we are all made up of cells... go figure.

How so? If science is self correcting... then obviously the individual that "believes" in science is self correcting too.

Science is based on evidence. Like I said before, if anyone makes studies regarding evolution they will come up with the same conclusion.

Faith on religion is blind because you don't have verifiable evidence. You can't examine it further.

Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes cover only a small area. The world is a big place and its hard to believe they only lived in one area on the entire planet. Dinosaurs were apparently wiped off the face of the earth by meteors or something, yet we can still find tons of bones from them.

Why? Kangaroos still only live in Australia. There are lots of plants and berries that only grow in my corner of the US. There are some species that live on on single small islands in the tropics.

We just don't know.

How come the previous "missing" links that we found have been in areas all over the world then?

Different missing links are from different points in history and are not the same animals.

Thats kind of confusing to me, would you mind explaining more on that? I've always thought it to be a linear evolution

Linear? I am not sure what you mean.

This article explains it in pretty easy-to-understand terms.

Salt Lake City Freethinking Examiner: Evolution Explained#1: In the beginning...

These two are more continuing discussions and misconceptions

Salt Lake City Freethinking Examiner: Evolution Explained #2: Misperceptions and predictions

Salt Lake City Freethinking Examiner: Evolution Explained #3: Fundamental Unity

Oh I'm sorry, I misunderstood your previous statement. But if they were all over the place that means they weren't in one small area. Linear as in ape->missing link->to human. and its strange how only human intelligence improved drastically among every other specie, huh?

Evolution isn't the same for all species. That is why all animals have not the same intellect.