Why 'just a theory'?

[Astrid]

I don’t have a minority view , unless you mean that those who understand such as Darwin are a minority on forums like this.

I hold the views of science. As a one time director of science companies and institutes its hardly a surprise.
I also know the scope of science. What it can answer - what it cannot.

but then spending time in quantum theory forces you to ask such questions, what is “ real”

please accept the fact, if you will not or cannot study it. Most of “ abiogenesis “ and evolution to present life complexity is pure unsupported conjecture. Most of our supported knowledge is in the last second of the last hour of the day of evolution, if that’s what happened. The rest is speculation. Most of what is posted on forums like this is assumption , not fact, by the illinformed like warden.

And if you want to compare two proposals for the solution to a problem they must have the same scope - ie be alternative solutions to the same problem.but Unless you define evolution in FAR wider terms than science can support as other than conjecture ,( not theory)then the scope of creation and evolution are different and they answer different problems!

Nobody believes your "one time director" claim.

 

[Astrid]

I'm in the same boat as is @durangoawood. What I would add is that I'm very much a lover of God. I'm not an atheist. Also, in my readings, there is a lot more proof of evolution than there is of the Creation story of an ancient middle-eastern desert tribe. But I also look beyond the Earth. It's no secret that the cosmos changes and evolves over time. The Earth changes and life changes. None of it is immune from the basic activity of change that every bit of the universe goes through. So I've learn to listen to the scientist and what they have to say about evolution over religious beliefs.

" proof of creation story"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So someone who starts a thread “ just a theory” clearly doesnt see, to know what a theory is!
( In science not atheist wish believe terms )

Worse than that on an evolution thread that you appear to have no idea what darwins thesis was -
the scope and Whether it qualified as hypothesis or theory! Have you ever even read it?

can anyone else on this thread help warden out with the basics!

how can you post about theories until you know what one is? Yet You call me arrogant!

You clearly did not read the OP on this thread at all, and it shows.

And maybe, instead of continuously being a berk by being condescending to me, you can actually and be pleasant and maybe pretend that I need an education by telling me how my commentary on what a theory is is incorrect.

Though I'm not expecting much...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That was directed at @Warden_of_the_Storm . Why would you expect Warden to be able to answer a history question in a thread on biology?

And surely you realise that On the Origin of Species was Darwin's conjecture delivered with precision. It was the precis of what he had intended to write, but never did. So to state Darwin's conjecture with precision I need only point you to the original, (though I hesitate to suggest which edition would be best. Too many subtle differences.) It's almost as if you dared to pose that question because you were unaware that On the Origin of Species was one long argument.

I just do not understand what he's driving for.

Do I need to quote the entire history of germ theory to point out that it is indeed a working theory? What about plate tectonics? Nuclear theory? Why do I need to talk about the history of the theory of evolution to point out that it's stupid that only evolutionary theory is derided by some as 'just a theory' when other scientific theories are not?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that not only is there a clear "audit trail of life" ...

Only on paper.

And I've coined a phrase to show how it works: "blue lining".

This is one of my favorite pictures:

Notice the blue lines that gloss over more missing links than Carter has liver pills?

That chart, which is only on paper, makes it look like our [so called] ancestral line is smooth as butter.

I love that picture.

It shows how convincingly one can cover up a theory that is literally full of holes.

On paper.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do I need to quote the entire history of germ theory to point out that it is indeed a working theory? What about plate tectonics? Nuclear theory?

Yes.

Please do so.

Start a thread on it.

In the CLEAN CHRISTIAN JOKES forum.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes.

Please do so.

Start a thread on it.

In the CLEAN CHRISTIAN JOKES forum.

... if that's a joke, I do not see the humour in it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I differ with you on this point. I think that not only is there a clear "audit trail of life", but - unfortunately for @Mountainmike's argument - there is more than one. We have two audit trails of homologies established via comparative anatomy and developmental biology (including embryology). We have the nested heirarchies of genomes that map on the postulated ancestral relationships between organisms. Then there are is the audit trail established by the immensely rich fossil record, which is being added to all the time. (And if the response to that includes the phrase "missing link" then we have clear evidence of a lack of education in even basic evolutionary theory.) Not to mention the audit trail presented by biogeography. What did I miss?

Certainly that was the possibility that came to mind, yet it was clear he was rejecting that "audit trail", thus leaving me baffled to what he thought should exist, what that missing audit trail should be.

 

[AV1611VET]

Certainly that was the possibility that came to mind, yet it was clear he was rejecting that "audit trail", thus leaving me baffled to what he thought should exist, what that missing audit trail should be.

It's not an audit trail.

It's a mine field.

Follow the blue line, and you'll soon step on a missing link that'll cancel your trip.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not an audit trail.

It's a mine field.

Follow the blue line, and you'll soon step on a missing link that'll cancel your trip.

Kind of doesn't.

 

[Ophiolite]

Only on paper.

And I've coined a phrase to show how it works: "blue lining".

This is one of my favorite pictures:

View attachment 348587

Notice the blue lines that gloss over more missing links than Carter has liver pills?

That chart, which is only on paper, makes it look like our [so called] ancestral line is smooth as butter.

I love that picture.

It shows how convincingly one can cover up a theory that is literally full of holes.

On paper.

I am deeply contemptuous of people whom, despite the opportunity to rectify their ignorance, refuse to educate themselves in the matter of so-called "missing links". A sincere attempt to present things to a lay audience in a digestible manner has led to the deliberate usurpation of the concept and its cynical conversion to an object of snide, misguided ridicule. That's the domain of hacks and charlatans. I regret that you choose to associate with them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am deeply contemptuous of people whom, despite the opportunity to rectify their ignorance, refuse to educate themselves in the matter of so-called "missing links". A sincere attempt to present things to a lay audience in a digestible manner has led to the deliberate usurpation of the concept and its cynical conversion to an object of snide, misguided ridicule. That's the domain of hacks and charlatans. I regret that you choose to associate with them.

AV just does not care.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's the domain of hacks and charlatans. I regret that you choose to associate with them.

Even hacks and charlatans are entitled to their own opinions.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV just does not care.

I care enough to warn my brothers and sisters in Christ that following certain scientific theories -- no matter how solid -- can and has led to atheism.

Just as Paul said it would in the book of Romans.

 

[Psalm 27]

I'd say it's because evolution gets its claws deeper into the Bible than any other theory.

So we "fight back" by showing evolution for what it is: just a theory.

Evil ution. Just Another lie

 

[trophy33]

I care enough to warn my brothers and sisters in Christ that following certain scientific theories -- no matter how solid -- can and has led to atheism.

Just as Paul said it would in the book of Romans.

Can you quote Paul saying that scientific theories will lead Christians to atheism?

I would argue the opposite - false beliefs, if somebody identify them with Christianity, can lead such Christians to atheism, when those false beliefs are scientifically proven wrong. If you teach somebody that Christianity means believing in the Flat Earth or in the Global Flood or in the YEC, they may loose their faith, after recognizing those are not true.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I care enough to warn my brothers and sisters in Christ that following certain scientific theories -- no matter how solid -- can and has led to atheism.

Just as Paul said it would in the book of Romans.

If science is enough to make them lose their faith, then maybe their faith wasn't as strong you or they thought. Just saying...

It could also have the opposite effect of making their faith stronger, either in God Himself or their faith in God. Again, just saying...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evil ution. Just Another lie

Wow... so original and ground breaking a thought, you must have come up with it all by yourself...

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you quote Paul saying that scientific theories will lead Christians to atheism?

Sure.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Paraphrase:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be [Homo sapiens], they became [atheists],

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sure.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Paraphrase:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be [Homo sapiens], they became [atheists],

This isn't paraphrasing. This is just you altering the text of the Bible to say something it's not.