Is evolution even a theory?

[Pete Harcoff]

so creation, a simple idea, is overthrown by the complex, mathmatically improbable, and increasingly complex theory of evolution. hmm...

Wrong. Occam's Razor applies to ideas with equal explanatory power. Creation may be simple, but it also explains absolutely nothing. Evolution, OTOH, is a more complex idea, but it also provides actual explanations.

So no, creation doesn't win by virtue of being simple. It actually loses, because it explains nothing.

if i'm wrong on that maybe you could remind me what the chances are of the right changes taking place millions of times in a row to get from pondscum to homosapien.

The probability of every event in your parents lives leading up to them meeting and eventually giving birth to you is 1 in 1.23 * 10 ^ 11. Therefore, you were miracled into existence.

 

[AngelusTenebrae]

i feel we should quote occam's razor:

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine's tracks. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions. (wikipedia)

so creation, a simple idea, is overthrown by the complex, mathmatically improbable, and increasingly complex theory of evolution. hmm...
if i'm wrong on that maybe you could remind me what the chances are of the right changes taking place millions of times in a row to get from pondscum to homosapien.

No comment can be made on using Occam's Razor because creationism is unexplained. Another reason why creationism fails as a science. Or you can see it that it as not having any scientific methods, and therefore, not compatible with evolution with Occam's Razor. Either way, I should also mention that not all processes that we study are efficient or simple to understand. If they were, anyone could understand science. The premise is that it is the simplest explanation relative to other theories, but "simplest" does not imply that it is simple.

 

[AtheistPerson]

Evolution is a scientific theory because it has been proven over and over again making it even more true. Creationism hasnt even been proven once and yet people still have "faith."

 

[MidnightBlue]

i feel we should quote occam's razor:

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine's tracks. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions. (wikipedia)

I was born in Pensacola, Florida.

One theory is that my parents were both from Pensacola, too.

Another theory is that my father was from Wisconsin and was stationed in Pensacola when he was in the navy, while my mother was from the mountains of North Carolina and moved to Florida to find work.

According to the above, which theory is most likely to be true?
Which one actually is true?

 

[LogicChristian]

According to the above, which theory is most likely to be true?
Which one actually is true?

Given the ease of transportation in this nation, either one could just as easily be true.

 

[alerj123]

I was born in Pensacola, Florida.

One theory is that my parents were both from Pensacola, too.

Another theory is that my father was from Wisconsin and was stationed in Pensacola when he was in the navy, while my mother was from the mountains of North Carolina and moved to Florida to find work.

According to the above, which theory is most likely to be true?
Which one actually is true?

I think this is a good analogy to illistrate how the simplisity of creationism can not be used to prove its truth because in your example, the simpler explanation (i assume) acually has less evidence for it then the second explanation. So your analogy is just as flawed when trying to use the razor thing because the razor assumes both theroy's have equal amount of evidence. Im not sure if thats the point you were trying to make.

 

[MidnightBlue]

I think this is a good analogy to illistrate how the simplisity of creationism can not be used to prove its truth because in your example, the simpler explanation (i assume) acually has less evidence for it then the second explanation. So your analogy is just as flawed when trying to use the razor thing because the razor assumes both theroy's have equal amount of evidence. Im not sure if thats the point you were trying to make.

That's it exactly.

 

[wiske]

Well, you've applied the term "combination" (as opposed to permutation) to an incorrect problem. A Combination from a set of numbers assumes that no replacement is possible, so in the 1-6 example, rolling a 1 on the first die would leave only 2-5 remaining. Clearly this is an incorrect use of the concept in this instance, so a more colloquial use of the word "Combination" must be assumed. In this case it is more like the term "combination lock" where only the correct order of the correct numbers will open the lock rather than just requiring the correct numbers in any order.

1. Rolling 2 dice is not the same as picking two numbers out of a hat.
2. Combinations with repetition do exist; I really don't see why you assume that they are impossible. We're not talking philosophy here, just mathematics.
3. For completeness' sake, here is the formula for combinations with repetition:

._______________________ (n + r - 1)!
Number of combinations = ------------
.________________________ r!(n - 1)!

where n is the number of objects from which you can choose and r is the number to be chosen.

In the case of rolling 2 dice, we have n=6 and r=2, and the number of combinations is 7!/(2!*5!) = 21.

 

[alerj123]

i feel we should quote occam's razor:

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine's tracks. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions. (wikipedia)

Did anyone else catch the irony of this example? I find it kinda funny acually. In this example, the NATURAL explanation is deemed simpler then the idea of an INTELIGENT DESIGNER designing the situation. For the same reason, evolution, the NATURAL explanation, can be deemed simpler then creationism, the INTELLIGENT DESIGNER explanation. This is of course, assuming the two theroy's have equal evience, which they don't.

I would like to use your example again for another reason. If you found this charred tree however you have never seen lightning. People may see it, and assume that some intelligent being designed the tree to look that way. They think this because they have no other explanaiton. Then someone comes along, and deomonstrates lightning. With this new information, even though people didnt SEE the lightning hit the tree, people still conclude that this lightning hit the tree, and not some intelligent being. However, there is a small sept of people who still hold to the theroy that the tree was INTELLIGENTLY designed because they can't let go of their interpretation.

This is exactly like evolution and creations. Life, complex, first assumed to be the work of God. We then observe evolution, see how life could fit this common ancestor model, so we conclude that this happend. But we still have this small sect of people who still believe that god did it, becauset hey can't let go of their interpretation.

anyways, i like your example philadiddle!! i especialy like how it ilistrates this debate and views so well.

 

[Beastt]

Given two equally predictive theories...

That's really as far as you can take that statement. While the utmost scrutiny has been applied to evolution and whether or not it constitutes a true theory, (which it does), apparently no such scrutiny has been applied to creationism. You don't have two equally predictive theories because creationism doesn't even pass as a hypothesis. Thusly it certainly never made it to being a theory. Perhaps it would be enlightening to go back through your qualifications for a theory and attempt to hold creationism to the test. Creationism simply isn't a theory and never was.

 

[USincognito]

Given the ease of transportation in this nation, either one could just as easily be true.

Good point, but since the issue at hand was Occam's Razor and which is more likely to be true, not which could be, it doesn't really apply. I mean, that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but God, who cannot lie, decietfully created it to look 4.5 billion years old is just as easily true as the Earth actually being 4.5 billion years old. The latter is more likely though.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is an observed phenomenon. There is a theory that explains it. Evolution is one thing; evolutionary theory is another thing. People often confuse agencies of evolution, like natural selection, or consequences of evolution like common descent, with evolution itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is an observed phenomenon.

What's so phenomenal about it, if every population since cyanobacteria has been doing it?

 

[The Barbarian]

What's so phenomenal about it, if every population since cyanobacteria has been doing it?

phenomenon
fĭ-nŏm′ə-nŏn″, -nən

noun​

1. An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.

We can see it in changing phenotypes and directly by looking at the distribution of alleles in a population genome over time.

 

[AV1611VET]

phenomenon
fĭ-nŏm′ə-nŏn″, -nən

noun​

1. An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.

We can see it in changing phenotypes and directly by looking at the distribution of alleles in a population genome over time.

Do you hit a FULL STOP at 4004 BC?

If not, you're only seeing lines on paper.

In addition, if these lines connect man to apes, then you're playing connect-the-dots.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you hit a FULL STOP at 4004 BC?

Evidence shows that men were building structures well before that time.

If not, you're only seeing lines on paper.

In addition, if these lines connect man to apes, then you're playing connect-the-dots.

It comes down to evidence like genetics, fossil record transitional forms, anatomy, etc. All of it shows that man is an ape.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evidence shows that men were building structures well before that time.

It comes down to evidence like genetics, fossil record transitional forms, anatomy, etc. All of it shows that man is an ape.

Only on paper.

And even if one piece of God's creation dovetailed into another piece, that doesn't mean that piece came from the other piece.

 

[The Barbarian]

Only on paper.

Nope. In fossils, genes, geomagnetic data, and a lot more. YE is only on paper.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. In fossils, genes, geomagnetic data, and a lot more. YE is only on paper.

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

 

[driewerf]

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

Your Disagreement is noted.
But while The Barbarian can point to multiple pieces of evidence in real life, like fossils, genomes, geomagnetic data etc, you on the other hand can just say "I disagree" and can't support your disagreement.