Evidence proved evolution is just a theory

[GreenEyedLady]

Here is a link to what scientist think is noah's ark.
Doesn't that prove that us christians are right?
How can one part of the bible be right, noah, and the other just hogwash?
Just a thought

http://www.arksearch.com /
GEL

 

[Freodin]

Did you read this website?

There was not a single piece of evidence for the Ark.

They search for it, that is true! But people also still search for UFOs, the Yeti, lost Atlantis and El Dorado.

You will also have heard of the famous treasure of the Nibelungen, supposed to be buried in the river Rhine. There are also people searching for that.

None of these things or places have ever been found. Now, that does not mean that they don´t exist - but it DOES mean that it doesn´t proof Christians, Richard Wagner, Ufologists or Reinhold Messner right.

It´s the many "findings" of the Ark that prove the founders mislead, that is the other hand.

And the Bible is a compilation of quite a lot of texts, from a lot of authors. Of course some things can be true while others are right.

Greetings from Germany!

PS: the link does not work

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by GreenEyedLady
Here is a link to what scientist think is noah's ark.
Doesn't that prove that us christians are right?
How can one part of the bible be right, noah, and the other just hogwash?
Just a thought

http://www.arksearch.com /
GEL

The search for Noah's Ark has been a continual source of embarrassment for naive Christian archaeologists and a source of amusement for everyone else watching.

Noah's Ark and the Flood Story are logically impossible. There is a colorful history of hoaxes surrounding the ark, and I'd wager this is no different.

The discovery of an ark like this would be the archaeological find of the century, and there are several reputable Christian archaeological groups that would swarm to it like ants to honey. The fact that this "search" is maintained by a few isolated crackpots should be a big warning sign to you.

 

[chagal was here]

even if the ark was found - that alone wouldn't necessarliy prove the theory of evolution to be false.

 

[jon1101]

Evidence proved evolution is just a theory.

Evolution is a theory, but I don't understand where the 'just a' came from. Evolutionists, you'll have to help me here, but is 'theory' really that condecending? I personally don't agree with evolution, but 'evolution is just a theory' is one agrument I've never understood.

-jon

 

[Oliver]

Originally posted by Cancer To Iniquity

Evolution is a theory, but I don't understand where the 'just a' came from. Evolutionists, you'll have to help me here, but is 'theory' really that condecending? I personally don't agree with evolution, but 'evolution is just a theory' is one agrument I've never understood.

-jon

This argument comes from the misunderstanding of what a theory is for a scientist.

Contrary to what some people claim, the use of the word theory does not indicate a lack of evidence or confidence.
It rather denotes a synthesis of observations, an attempt to theorize our observations. It is the sign that a set of concepts has been induced from the sum of mere observation, thus enabling us to make predictions (and/or "postdictions").

If it was condescending, would we really talk about the theory of relativity, despite the amount of evidence in favor of this theory?

 

[A Christian]

II Peter 3:3-6
Knowing this first, that there SHALL come in the
last days SCOFFERS, walking AFTER THEIR OWN
LUSTS, and saying, "WHERE IS THE PROMISE
OF HIS COMING? for since the fathers fell asleep,
ALL THINGS CONTINUE AS THEY WERE from the
beginning of the creation. For this they WILLINGLY
are IGNORANT of, that by the WORD of GOD the
heavens standing out of water and in the water:
Whereby the world that was, being OVERFLOWED
WITH WATER PERISHED:

Simply put, men will at the end question the very
return of Christ because, while they heard of
Noah and the Flood they will accept only
UNIFORMATARIANISM and not God's Word.
One step leads to another.

 

[OntheRock]

What is a theory as defined by a scientist?

It's only a guess. Theory is not fact. Evolution is only a guess.

 

[edgeo]

Originally posted by OntheRock
What is a theory as defined by a scientist?

A theory is an explanation of observed data. The data are considered to evidence for the theory.

It's only a guess. Theory is not fact. Evolution is only a guess.

On the other hand, a guess is an opinion formed in the absence of evidence. This does not match what we know about the theory of evolution.

You are correct, however, that evolution is not a fact. Actually, the facts support evolution.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Evolution is just as much of a religion as Christianity.
Since it is based on faith/theory in darwin, it should be concidered a religion!
GEL

 

[brt28006]

Originally posted by Cancer To Iniquity


Evolution is a theory, but I don't understand where the 'just a' came from. Evolutionists, you'll have to help me here, but is 'theory' really that condecending? I personally don't agree with evolution, but 'evolution is just a theory' is one agrument I've never understood.

-jon

Exactly what I was going to say.
Calling evolution a theory is a really strong statement IN FAVOR OF IT, as a theory is a hypothesis which has substantial evidence behind it.

 

[jon1101]

Evolution is just as much of a religion as Christianity.

This is another argument I do not understand. Evolution has no deity, has no scriptures, has no 'ultimate reality,' etc. Humanism may be a relgion (pending the definition) but evolution is NOT. There are evolutionists of various world views (a term I prefer to 'religion' when no deity is involved, but I digress), whether they be humanist, agnostic, deistic, or even christian.

Since it is based on faith/theory in darwin, it should be concidered a religion!

Wow, I suppose a christian who agrees with relativity, atomic theory, and evolution would be balancing four religions? What about Stephen Hawking's theory of white holes? Is that a religion?

-jon

 

[OntheRock]

Theory is still not a fact, neither is evolution. The 'evidence' is not exclusive to the hypothesis of evolution, but could be applied to other hypothesis.

Are any of you evolutionists trying to say that the 'evidence' used to support evolution can not be used to support other ideas? Is evolution the only guess work that can be fathomed? Now, should we talk about closed minds?

'Evidence' only supports a guess at evolution but does not conclude evolution as fact.

Example: My dog has a limp when he walks. This is evidence that he has a broken leg. This could also be evidence of a thorn in his paw, or a bruised muscle.

Of course with the case of a dog we can do tests to proove the matter. But with evolution we have no conclusive tests to proove it.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by OntheRock
Theory is still not a fact, neither is evolution. The 'evidence' is not exclusive to the hypothesis of evolution, but could be applied to other hypothesis.

Are any of you evolutionists trying to say that the 'evidence' used to support evolution can not be used to support other ideas? Is evolution the only guess work that can be fathomed? Now, should we talk about closed minds?

'Evidence' only supports a guess at evolution but does not conclude evolution as fact.

Example: My dog has a limp when he walks. This is evidence that he has a broken leg. This could also be evidence of a thorn in his paw, or a bruised muscle.

Of course with the case of a dog we can do tests to proove the matter. But with evolution we have no conclusive tests to proove it.

OK, Einstein, what is your theory for the diversity of life? Where's your evidence, what predictions can be made, and how can we test them?

 

[edgeo]

Originally posted by OntheRock Theory is still not a fact, neither is evolution. The 'evidence' is not exclusive to the hypothesis of evolution, but could be applied to other hypothesis.

Of course not. This is exactly what I said earlier. Evolution is not a fact, but facts support evolution.

Are any of you evolutionists trying to say that the 'evidence' used to support evolution can not be used to support other ideas?

Exactly. When you use all of it.

Is evolution the only guess work that can be fathomed? Now, should we talk about closed minds?

Yes, you need to open your mind to all of the data.

Evidence' only supports a guess at evolution but does not conclude evolution as fact.

No. You did not read the definition that I gave you.

 

[mac_philo]

Originally posted by GreenEyedLady
Here is a link to what scientist think is noah's ark.
Doesn't that prove that us christians are right?
How can one part of the bible be right, noah, and the other just hogwash?
Just a thought

http://www.arksearch.com /
GEL

This is an attempt at humor, right?

I can't believe that this is serious. How could you portray the faith of Aquinas and Augustine as being this foolish?

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by OntheRock
Theory is still not a fact, neither is evolution. The 'evidence' is not exclusive to the hypothesis of evolution, but could be applied to other hypothesis.

Are any of you evolutionists trying to say that the 'evidence' used to support evolution can not be used to support other ideas? Is evolution the only guess work that can be fathomed? Now, should we talk about closed minds?

'Evidence' only supports a guess at evolution but does not conclude evolution as fact.

Example: My dog has a limp when he walks. This is evidence that he has a broken leg. This could also be evidence of a thorn in his paw, or a bruised muscle.

Of course with the case of a dog we can do tests to proove the matter. But with evolution we have no conclusive tests to proove it.

Let me try to explain this 'theory' thing again. I could not find where I've posted it before so I'll have to type this in again. *sigh*

Data is observed and measured. These observations and measurements are then tested in different control environments. After lenghtly testing is done, a hypothesis is arrived at. Confidence is above nill, to fair, at this stage. Next, the scientist tries to falsify his own findings. When/if satisified, confidence gets higher, and the scientist presents his hypothesis to his colleagues, who also try to disprove the hypothesis. When/if satisfied at this stage, confidence really begins to rise. Next, the hypothesis is sent to a board of 'referees' who scrutinize it even further, looking at methods used, etc. When/if satisfied at this stage, confidence in the hypothesis rises even further. Next, the findings and hypotheses get published in scientific journals, to be scrutinized by peers, all over the world. If accepted at this stage, confidence is extremely high. If the hypothesis is 'ground breaking' or 'life changing', confidence begins to soar, and maybe it will earn the title of a "theory".

I hope this helps desuade those who insist on, "It's just a theory". Saying something like that is akin to describing an Olympic Gold Medal Winner as, "just another athlete".


John

 

[Tinker Grey]

GEL,

One thing I would like to say is that there are many Christians who believe that evolution is the way God did things.

These Christians are not balancing faith in Darwin with faith in God.

Rather they trust there own observations and the ability of their minds to find the pattern to the data and create a theory that takes into account all the observed facts. (That is not to say that the theory is the same as the facts, or that the theory is fact, just that the theory doesn't contradict known facts since it was designed to take them into account! (*whew* -- and you thought Paul wrote long sentences.))

Contrary to what you may be thinking right now (or not), this is not necessarily faith in our selves. Rather it is faith in God that he designed our minds to be able to find the patterns in the data (it is for this reason that conspiracy theories are so popular.)

God has enabled our minds to create models of systems (e.g., astronomical systems, biological systems, systems of the body, etc.). From these models, we predict from a set of data what will happen next. If the model fails to predict accurately, the model is revised. This is the strength of science. It is the strenght of humanity -- we learn from our mistakes.

This faith in how God made us and made our minds is exercised every time we go to the doctor. I don't understand how aspirin works, yet I have faith that consistent observation by the relevant scientists (pharmacists, chemists, and doctors) that it will work.

I hope this helps explain that for many of us that the question of Evolution v. God is not an either/or proposition.

God bless,

Tinker

 

[tyler4588]

Technically, evolution is not a theory. There are a couple religions that can come from evolution though.

Liberal Christianity
Agnosticism - Not knowing if God exists
Gnosticism - Believes that God does not exist
Wicca - Not really from evolution, but Wiccans believe in it

 

[VeraciousMaven]

Nihilism, I think. (not really comes from evolution, but uses evolution as justification for teachings ... I think so)