"Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science? - Community Forum. For boardites on facebook join our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/boardlanejamaica/" target="_blank">Boardite Group</a>

Hi All

For those boardites who are facebook we have a Boardite Facebook Group. Be sure to check it out.

X

quodlibet

Senior Member

Join Date: Nov 2000

Posts: 3054
- Share
- Tweet
#1

"Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

08-28-2010, 01:50 PM

Let me start a discussion

I saw a remark in a post about Jamaican Churches grouping together and such, and it gave me pause to think.

Different groups will espouse varying tenets or statements of "truth" - and in order to be a fully functioning member of that group - it is more or less expected that you also subscribe to the common tenets or truths (otherwise known as belief systems).

But when it comes to belief systems, when do we draw the line between a belief system and a religion?

Example:

"Jesus is God's only begotten son, born in a manger, crucified for mankind's sins, died, was buried and rose on the third day". --- People accept this as a religion.

My question is - should we consider the various statements of truth by scientists and evolutionists as its own brand of religion as well?
Tags: None
f0rTyLeGz

Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 2453
- Share
- Tweet
#2

08-28-2010, 08:15 PM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
My question is - should we consider the various statements of truth by scientists and evolutionists as its own brand of religion as well? </div></div>
"Various statements of truth" like what? And to what religion would believers in these statements belong?
Comment
jah_yout

Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 17760
- Share
- Tweet
#3

08-28-2010, 10:09 PM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me start a discussion

But when it comes to belief systems, when do we draw the line between a belief system and a religion?

Example:

"Jesus is God's only begotten son, born in a manger, crucified for mankind's sins, died, was buried and rose on the third day". --- People accept this as a religion.

My question is - should we consider the various statements of truth by scientists and evolutionists as its own brand of religion as well? </div></div>

truth is truth...it needs no categorization or classification...it just is...

theories is another thing.. if it has no definitive proof it is a theory or hypothesis..
both evolutionists and creationists have belief systems as well
Comment
quodlibet

Senior Member

Join Date: Nov 2000

Posts: 3054
- Share
- Tweet
#4

08-28-2010, 11:39 PM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
truth is truth...it needs no categorization or classification...it just is...

theories is another thing.. if it has no definitive proof it is a theory or hypothesis..
both evolutionists and creationists have belief systems as well </div></div>

My originating post put "truth" in quotes. What I implied through that is the concept of truth is what people accept as proven.

The reason for the quotes is all about the gray area of acceptance. We have scientists who dont agree on what different scientific findings mean, or even sometimes if those findings are valid. For example in science, we were once taught as truth sometime ago that atoms were the smallest things in our universe. Now we are taught that there are smaller things than atoms - so we are now at the sub-atomic level, another 'truth'. Was the original statement a lie? Not really, it was what the people accepted as proven.

That being said, I do want to focus on the belief systems - because that is where the post was really directed...

So... would you be willing to call the belief system of creationists a "theory"?
Comment
f0rTyLeGz

Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 2453
- Share
- Tweet
#5

08-29-2010, 12:38 AM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
truth is truth...it needs no categorization or classification...it just is...

theories is another thing.. if it has no definitive proof it is a theory or hypothesis..
both evolutionists and creationists have belief systems as well </div></div>

My originating post put "truth" in quotes. What I implied through that is the concept of truth is what people accept as proven.

The reason for the quotes is all about the gray area of acceptance. We have scientists who dont agree on what different scientific findings mean, or even sometimes if those findings are valid. For example in science, we were once taught as truth sometime ago that atoms were the smallest things in our universe. Now we are taught that there are smaller things than atoms - so we are now at the sub-atomic level, another 'truth'. Was the original statement a lie? Not really, it was what the people accepted as proven.

That being said, I do want to focus on the belief systems - because that is where the post was really directed...

So... would you be willing to call the belief system of creationists a "theory"? </div></div>
No creationism isn't a theory I think, because creationists aren't scientists. In other words, they are not coming up with any hypotheses and testing them.

About atoms and now subatomic particles... when you were in school, and they taught you about atoms, the teachers didn't say that there would never be anything smaller than atoms... I hope.

I figure that science doesn't speak with one voice. It is a constant reviewing of results from new experiments. They are published, and the science community runs with the news. Often there are scientists that try to duplicate the newest experiments. Or they try to build on them.

It seems to me that the words "belief," and "believe in," and "faith," and "faith in," get a lot of grief by those who think that scientists are just blowhard liars making stuff up.
Comment
jah_yout

Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 17760
- Share
- Tweet
#6

08-29-2010, 01:34 AM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
truth is truth...it needs no categorization or classification...it just is...

theories is another thing.. if it has no definitive proof it is a theory or hypothesis..
both evolutionists and creationists have belief systems as well </div></div>

My originating post put "truth" in quotes. What I implied through that is the concept of truth is what people accept as proven.

The reason for the quotes is all about the gray area of acceptance. We have scientists who dont agree on what different scientific findings mean, or even sometimes if those findings are valid. For example in science, we were once taught as truth sometime ago that atoms were the smallest things in our universe. Now we are taught that there are smaller things than atoms - so we are now at the sub-atomic level, another 'truth'. Was the original statement a lie? Not really, it was what the people accepted as proven.

That being said, I do want to focus on the belief systems - because that is where the post was really directed...

So... <span style="font-weight: bold">would you be willing to call the belief system of creationists a "theory"?</span> </div></div>

<span style="font-size: 11pt">yes- if you follow webster's dictionary:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of THEORY

1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: <span style="font-weight: bold">abstract thought : speculation</span>
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6
<span style="font-weight: bold">a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture</span>
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Examples of THEORY

a widely accepted scientific theory
Her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn.
There are a number of different theories about the cause of the disease.
She proposed a theory of her own.
Investigators rejected the theory that the death was accidental.
There is no evidence to support such a theory.
He is a specialist in film theory and criticism.
Origin of THEORY

Late Latin theoria, from Greek the&#333;ria, from the&#333;rein
First Known Use: 1592</span>
Comment
quodlibet

Senior Member

Join Date: Nov 2000

Posts: 3054
- Share
- Tweet
#7

08-29-2010, 10:41 AM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
truth is truth...it needs no categorization or classification...it just is...

theories is another thing.. if it has no definitive proof it is a theory or hypothesis..
both evolutionists and creationists have belief systems as well </div></div>

My originating post put "truth" in quotes. What I implied through that is the concept of truth is what people accept as proven.

The reason for the quotes is all about the gray area of acceptance. We have scientists who dont agree on what different scientific findings mean, or even sometimes if those findings are valid. For example in science, we were once taught as truth sometime ago that atoms were the smallest things in our universe. Now we are taught that there are smaller things than atoms - so we are now at the sub-atomic level, another 'truth'. Was the original statement a lie? Not really, it was what the people accepted as proven.

That being said, I do want to focus on the belief systems - because that is where the post was really directed...

So... <span style="font-weight: bold">would you be willing to call the belief system of creationists a "theory"?</span> </div></div>

<span style="font-size: 11pt">yes- if you follow webster's dictionary:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of THEORY

1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: <span style="font-weight: bold">abstract thought : speculation</span>
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6
<span style="font-weight: bold">a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture</span>
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Examples of THEORY

a widely accepted scientific theory
Her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn.
There are a number of different theories about the cause of the disease.
She proposed a theory of her own.
Investigators rejected the theory that the death was accidental.
There is no evidence to support such a theory.
He is a specialist in film theory and criticism.
Origin of THEORY

Late Latin theoria, from Greek the&#333;ria, from the&#333;rein
First Known Use: 1592</span> </div></div>

hmm

<span style="font-weight: bold">abstract thought : speculation</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture</span>

I see the emphasis (extracted above) - but if you believed in the creation as narrated in the Christian Bible, how could you see that as theory? You cant.
Comment
rudemonk

Senior Member

Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 4737
- Share
- Tweet
#8

08-30-2010, 12:25 AM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me start a discussion

But when it comes to belief systems, when do we draw the line between a belief system and a religion?

Example:

"Jesus is God's only begotten son, born in a manger, crucified for mankind's sins, died, was buried and rose on the third day". --- People accept this as a religion.

My question is - should we consider the various statements of truth by scientists and evolutionists as its own brand of religion as well? </div></div>

truth is truth...it needs no categorization or classification...it just is...

theories is another thing.. if it has no definitive proof it is a theory or hypothesis..
both evolutionists and creationists have belief systems as well </div></div>

not exactly.

The Theory of Gravity is a truth, yet still called a Theory.

You would not in a zillion years argue that gravity is "just" a theory. Same with evolution.

You are conflating theory (law) with hypothesis and there is a significant difference...
Comment
rudemonk

Senior Member

Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 4737
- Share
- Tweet
#9

08-30-2010, 12:29 AM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I figure that science doesn't speak with one voice. It is a constant reviewing of results from new experiments. They are published, and the science community runs with the news. Often there are scientists that try to duplicate the newest experiments. Or they try to build on them.

It seems to me that the words "belief," and "believe in," and "faith," and "faith in," get a lot of grief by those who think that scientists are just blowhard liars making stuff up.

</div></div>

yes, this hits a nail on the head. and what can be said about science is that it is repeatable and testable, which is why it advances and you can do things with it. in fact, ironically, every time I have ever seen someone refute some former scientific 'fact', they use recent scientific discovery to do so, which they think makes their point but actually eradicates it.

like you can't heal an amputee with faith or with religion or with your bible. but sprinkle some enzymes culled from stem cells, or find the genetic switch to turn on our regenerative gene which through mutation got shut off, and there you go. you can do things.
Comment
f0rTyLeGz

Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 2453
- Share
- Tweet
#10

08-30-2010, 12:47 AM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So... would you be willing to call the belief system of creationists a "theory"? </div></div>
On the other hand, "theory" (according to Webster's) can be used as "notion."

When "theory" and theoretical science and Creationism are used in the same discussion, to me, there is an implication that all theories are of equal stature if people "believe" in them.

Creationism as a theory will never be proved as correct, because no of it's ideas can be tested. String theory <span style="font-style: italic">may</span> be proved as how things work.
Comment
jah_yout

Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 17760
- Share
- Tweet
#11

08-30-2010, 04:49 PM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me start a discussion

But when it comes to belief systems, when do we draw the line between a belief system and a religion?

Example:

"Jesus is God's only begotten son, born in a manger, crucified for mankind's sins, died, was buried and rose on the third day". --- People accept this as a religion.

My question is - should we consider the various statements of truth by scientists and evolutionists as its own brand of religion as well? </div></div>

truth is truth...it needs no categorization or classification...it just is...

theories is another thing.. if it has no definitive proof it is a theory or hypothesis..
both evolutionists and creationists have belief systems as well </div></div>

not exactly.

The Theory of Gravity is a truth, yet still called a Theory.

<span style="font-weight: bold">You would not in a zillion years argue that gravity is "just" a theory. Same with evolution.</span>

You are conflating theory (law) with hypothesis and there is a significant difference... </div></div>

first of all gravity can't be lumped in with evolution...they are different things;
gravity is a reality- (we all have definitive proof that something keeps us on the ground as we are not floating away)...hence a truth...despite the fact that that reality/truth can be defied...as in birds, planes, balloons, etc.;
evolution is a reality also in that organisms continually adapt to environmental & biological stimuli...(<span style="font-weight: bold">evolution</span> not to be confused with 'darwinism' or origin of life theories)..

as far as gravity being a truth AND a theory ...
a 'truth' can be a theory and a 'truth' ---as we used the example of gravity to illustrate...but i stand by my statement that something unproven has to considered a theory, but can not be considered a 'truth' until proven...
again i would refer you to mr/mrs webster's use of language & highlight excerpts:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of THEORY

1
: <span style="font-weight: bold">the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another</span>
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: <span style="font-weight: bold">the general or abstract principles of a body of <span style="text-decoration: underline">fact</span>, a science, or an art <music theory></span>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: <span style="font-weight: bold">a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light></span>
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Examples of THEORY

<span style="font-weight: bold">a widely accepted scientific theory</span>
Her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn.
There are a number of different theories about the cause of the disease.
She proposed a theory of her own.
Investigators rejected the theory that the death was accidental.
There is no evidence to support such a theory.
He is a specialist in film theory and criticism.
Origin of THEORY

Late Latin theoria, from Greek the&#333;ria, from the&#333;rein
First Known Use: 1592
Comment
jah_yout

Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 17760
- Share
- Tweet
#12

08-30-2010, 05:10 PM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
truth is truth...it needs no categorization or classification...it just is...

theories is another thing.. if it has no definitive proof it is a theory or hypothesis..
both evolutionists and creationists have belief systems as well </div></div>

My originating post put "truth" in quotes. What I implied through that is the concept of truth is what people accept as proven.

The reason for the quotes is all about the gray area of acceptance. We have scientists who dont agree on what different scientific findings mean, or even sometimes if those findings are valid. For example in science, we were once taught as truth sometime ago that atoms were the smallest things in our universe. Now we are taught that there are smaller things than atoms - so we are now at the sub-atomic level, another 'truth'. Was the original statement a lie? Not really, it was what the people accepted as proven.

That being said, I do want to focus on the belief systems - because that is where the post was really directed...

So... <span style="font-weight: bold">would you be willing to call the belief system of creationists a "theory"?</span> </div></div>

<span style="font-size: 11pt">yes- if you follow webster's dictionary:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of THEORY

1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: <span style="font-weight: bold">abstract thought : speculation</span>
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6
<span style="font-weight: bold">a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture</span>
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Examples of THEORY

a widely accepted scientific theory
Her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn.
There are a number of different theories about the cause of the disease.
She proposed a theory of her own.
Investigators rejected the theory that the death was accidental.
There is no evidence to support such a theory.
He is a specialist in film theory and criticism.
Origin of THEORY

Late Latin theoria, from Greek the&#333;ria, from the&#333;rein
First Known Use: 1592</span> </div></div>

hmm

<span style="font-weight: bold">abstract thought : speculation</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture</span>

I see the emphasis (extracted above) - but if you believed in the creation as narrated in the Christian Bible, how could you see that as theory? You cant. </div></div>

i see it as a theory because i can't find anyone who can verify that it happened the way the book of genesis said it did...they go by faith, or plausibility & try to corroborate whatever it's possible to...scientists have claimed east africa as the most likely origin of humanoids...the book of genesis does mention east africa:
GENESIS 2:4----<span style="font-style: italic">And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia</span>.

i have not found one person who has the definitive knowledge of the origin of all this...
so until we reach that point, i view many things as theories...humanity is still trying to figure out many things
Comment
rudemonk

Senior Member

Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 4737
- Share
- Tweet
#13

08-31-2010, 12:50 AM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me start a discussion

But when it comes to belief systems, when do we draw the line between a belief system and a religion?

Example:

"Jesus is God's only begotten son, born in a manger, crucified for mankind's sins, died, was buried and rose on the third day". --- People accept this as a religion.

My question is - should we consider the various statements of truth by scientists and evolutionists as its own brand of religion as well? </div></div>

truth is truth...it needs no categorization or classification...it just is...

theories is another thing.. if it has no definitive proof it is a theory or hypothesis..
both evolutionists and creationists have belief systems as well </div></div>

not exactly.

The Theory of Gravity is a truth, yet still called a Theory.

<span style="font-weight: bold">You would not in a zillion years argue that gravity is "just" a theory. Same with evolution.</span>

You are conflating theory (law) with hypothesis and there is a significant difference... </div></div>

first of all gravity can't be lumped in with evolution...they are different things;
gravity is a reality- (we all have definitive proof that something keeps us on the ground as we are not floating away)...hence a truth...despite the fact that that reality/truth can be defied...as in birds, planes, balloons, etc.;
evolution is a reality also in that organisms continually adapt to environmental & biological stimuli...(<span style="font-weight: bold">evolution</span> not to be confused with 'darwinism' or origin of life theories)..

as far as gravity being a truth AND a theory ...
a 'truth' can be a theory and a 'truth' ---as we used the example of gravity to illustrate...but i stand by my statement that something unproven has to considered a theory, but can not be considered a 'truth' until proven...
again i would refer you to mr/mrs webster's use of language & highlight excerpts:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of THEORY

1
: <span style="font-weight: bold">the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another</span>
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: <span style="font-weight: bold">the general or abstract principles of a body of <span style="text-decoration: underline">fact</span>, a science, or an art <music theory></span>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: <span style="font-weight: bold">a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light></span>
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Examples of THEORY

<span style="font-weight: bold">a widely accepted scientific theory</span>
Her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn.
There are a number of different theories about the cause of the disease.
She proposed a theory of her own.
Investigators rejected the theory that the death was accidental.
There is no evidence to support such a theory.
He is a specialist in film theory and criticism.
Origin of THEORY

Late Latin theoria, from Greek the&#333;ria, from the&#333;rein
First Known Use: 1592
</div></div>

but the problem with your statement is that not all theories are of equal value or bear the weight of evidence, and so are discarded. like the flat earth. that was a 'theory' as we are using the word.

evolution and gravity may be different things but we are discussing theories- there are tons of different theories all validly and scientifically proven and provable- they are testable and repeatable. this point is very very important and is where we part what can be considered a real theory from something that is a hypothesis or even simply speculation.

there isn't any doubt that evolution occurs. it's provable. it's testable, or to use the scientific term, falsifiable. if something is falsifiable, and yet stands against the falsification, then it must be true.

for example, to use evolution, if man and ape share common ancestry, then we would expect to find evidence of such descent. And so we test our hypothesis. Say, genetic scars. We know the genome bears retroviral sequences, which are only inserted by viruses, and which are then ONLY passed down through inheritance as base pairs and sequences copy and replicate. So if man and ape had a common ancestor, we might expect to find these genes. And we do. So there can be no doubt, man and ape share ancestry in our distant past we branched from the same branch of the giant tree of life. We also know that this is true because we can actually *apply* this knowledge, to other pursuits, and it works. We can make predictions and test them.

So while yes birds of the air can temporarily escape the effect of gravity through aerodynamics and how they evolved to fly, they can not escape the earth. Gravity is the weak/strong force. It's not that Gravity is defied, not at all, by birds. They are still bound to it. Man has the power to defy gravity through technology.

we actually shouldn't be using webster's inclusions of somewhat colloquial inclusions to help define scientific concepts as they relate to science.

in that regard, science is quite clear as to what a theory is, hypothesis, etc. that is why it gets confusing to lay people and science itself does not often make itself approachable. creation is not a theory at all, it's a patchwork of guesses and ignorance, it's falsifiable, and it is and has been.

it just makes people comfortable to believe it.
Comment
jah_yout

Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 17760
- Share
- Tweet
#14

08-31-2010, 09:46 AM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

there can be no doubt that man & ape share ancestry...

but man and fish or insects also share common ancestry if you take it back far enough...all living things consist of cells consisted of whatever proteins make them up...the materials needed for life are the same intra-species...

evolution is a theory that does NOT explain the origin of life...

you are completely against the <span style="font-style: italic">theory</span> of creationism but to say it is not a theory and that it is just patchwork guesses & 'ignorance' is condescending and naive...
why is it that you would have the answer to the origin of life when no one else does?

not so long ago (the 1800's) bloodletting was commonly accepted by western scientists as a useful method of treating disease...now it is completely discredited;

theories & hypotheses can change as time goes on...
but to not know a thing and call others who don't know either "ignorant" is a bit much unless you wear that label as well...
Comment
rudemonk

Senior Member

Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 4737
- Share
- Tweet
#15

08-31-2010, 01:12 PM

Re: "Most xxxxx believe in yyyyy" - faith vs science?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">there can be no doubt that man & ape share ancestry...

but man and fish or insects also share common ancestry if you take it back far enough...all living things consist of cells consisted of whatever proteins make them up...the materials needed for life are the same intra-species...

evolution is a theory that does NOT explain the origin of life...
</div></div>

that's because evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life. evolution does not deal with the origin of life, and never did. that is something different. but yes science is close to unraveling that mystery too.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you are completely against the <span style="font-style: italic">theory</span> of creationism but to say it is not a theory and that it is just patchwork guesses & 'ignorance' is condescending and naive...
why is it that you would have the answer to the origin of life when no one else does?
</div></div>

i am against calling creation a 'theory' because it makes a lot of unsubstantiated and unprovable claims. it's not testable, therefore not really a theory. it's speculation, mostly from ignorance. if i said I believed that the world was created out of the dead body of a frost giant, my 'theory' according to your usage, would bear just as much weight as anyone's.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
not so long ago (the 1800's) bloodletting was commonly accepted by western scientists as a useful method of treating disease...now it is completely discredited;

theories & hypotheses can change as time goes on...
but to not know a thing and call others who don't know either "ignorant" is a bit much unless you wear that label as well...

</div></div>

yes that is what i mean. we have enough knowledge now to know that most bible claims if not all when it comes to genetics and man's origin are false. as to there being a creator, at best we can claim not to know, but can narrow down hypotheses by what we do know...at this point there is no logical reason to assume a creator. That doesn't mean there isn't. But it's not right to put creation at the same level of factuality as what we do understand.

there are a lot of things we can be ignorant of. like algebra. i'm totally ignorant when it comes to most higher math lol. to be ignorant is not necessarily a slight. to remain so, however, and rather vehemently or willfully...I think that does merit a small dose of impatience or frustrating disdain?
Comment

Previous 1 2 3 template Next

Working...

X