Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Kenny'sID]

Well that's not true.

Suit yourself.

 

[inquiring mind]

Dictionary definitions of "theory" are not necessarily the same thing as the scientific use of the word "theory".

If you're trying to poke holes in science by invoking the dictionary, then all you're really doing is constructing a giant strawman.

According to the Wikipedia definition, “In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for, or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[4] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word hypothesis).”

Since “theory” has been sort of redefined by modern science, shouldn’t “Theory of Evolution” be changed to “Hypothesis of Evolution?”

 

[Micah888]

This doesn’t need to be a scientific or religious dissertation, simply what you feel about the subject.

If a Christian thinks about it carefully evolution is an attack on divine creation. Evolution excludes God completely, and "theistic evolution" denies what is clearly revealed in Scripture. If the Bible is indeed the Word of God, then the first two chapters of this book cannot be fantasy, legend, myth, or fable.

Therefore Bible-believing Christians have always maintained that God created this universe in six literal 24-hour days. And so that there would be no misunderstanding whatsoever, He embedded this truth in the Ten Commandments.

 

[VirOptimus]

According to the Wikipedia definition, “In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for, or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[4] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word hypothesis).”

Since “theory” has been sort of redefined by modern science, shouldn’t “Theory of Evolution” be changed to “Hypothesis of Evolution?”

No.

 

[Speedwell]

According to the Wikipedia definition, “In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for, or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[4] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word hypothesis).”

Since “theory” has been sort of redefined by modern science, shouldn’t “Theory of Evolution” be changed to “Hypothesis of Evolution?”

No. The theory of evolution clearly meets the definition of "theory" that you posted.

 

[Speedwell]

If a Christian thinks about it carefully evolution is an attack on divine creation. Evolution excludes God completely, and "theistic evolution" denies what is clearly revealed in Scripture. If the Bible is indeed the Word of God, then the first two chapters of this book cannot be fantasy, legend, myth, or fable.

Therefore Bible-believing Christians have always maintained that God created this universe in six literal 24-hour days. And so that there would be no misunderstanding whatsoever, He embedded this truth in the Ten Commandments.

Yes. We all know that to be the position taken by YEC Christians. It is not binding on the rest of Christendom nor is it a requirement for salvation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

According to the Wikipedia definition, “In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for, or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[4] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word hypothesis).”

Since “theory” has been sort of redefined by modern science, shouldn’t “Theory of Evolution” be changed to “Hypothesis of Evolution?”

It's one of the most well supported theories in biology, so no.

 

[xianghua]

As you stated chance implyinh odds, show the math. Unsupported claims are useless.

i dont need to show that a car need a designer. the one who claim that a car can evolve naturally need to show that.

 

[xianghua]

No, they didnt. There is no accepted science on ID as ID isnt science.

why id isnt science? because you say so? and evolution is science because?

 

[xianghua]

Not according to evolution theory, no.

You should read up a bit.

so according to you a human will always be a human. this is my position too.

 

[Speedwell]

so according to you a human will always be a human. this is my position too.

Yes, even if some descendant population of of humans evolved its arms into wings and flew away to live in trees it would still be human. No matter what you become, you cannot change your ancestry.

 

[Speedwell]

i dont need to show that a car need a designer. the one who claim that a car can evolve naturally need to show that.

You are the only one who ever brings up naturally evolving cars. But if a car could evolve naturally, it wouldn't need a designer.

 

[Speedwell]

why id isnt science? because you say so?

Because intelligent design is unfalsifiable.

 

[xianghua]

Animals plants fungi , you know the usual crowd , living and extinct

what about them? what kind of fossil will falsify evolution for instance?

 

[xianghua]

I don't know because I have no idea what such an object would look like.

like this one:

designed or not? (image from Unidentified flying object - Wikipedia ).

 

[xianghua]

As always with this line of, (what can only loosely be called) reasoning, this is nonsense and lies.

first: as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general. now, what you will say about this?:

 

[Skreeper]

like this one:

designed or not? (image from Unidentified flying object - Wikipedia ).

The clue is in the title. It's UNIDENTIFIED therefore we cannot say if it was designed or not.

 

[VirOptimus]

i dont need to show that a car need a designer. the one who claim that a car can evolve naturally need to show that.

You make a claim, you support it.

If you cant, then its wortless.

 

[VirOptimus]

why id isnt science? because you say so? and evolution is science because?

No, ID isnt science as it doesnt meet scientific criterias.

The ToE does meet the same criterias.

 

[pitabread]

Since “theory” has been sort of redefined by modern science, shouldn’t “Theory of Evolution” be changed to “Hypothesis of Evolution?”

No, because it's not a hypothesis.