Remember - Evolution is only theory, not a scientific law

[Alvecia]

Yeah, I get it, I'm just not keen on the language typically used to describe it. A minor nitpick I guess.

Natural Selection is a term that Darwin used a century and a half ago, and it's simply stuck is all.

Damn you, Darwin!
*shakes fist*

[Pulau Singapura]

Natural Selection is a term that Darwin used a century and a half ago, and it's simply stuck is all.

Damn you, Darwin!
*shakes fist*

Wasnt Darwin a white nationalist?

[Alvecia]

Damn you, Darwin!
*shakes fist*

Wasnt Darwin a white nationalist?

Once I recover from the whiplash caused by the abrupt change in conversational direction I'll ask why it's relevant.

[Ifreann]

Damn you, Darwin!
*shakes fist*

Wasnt Darwin a white nationalist?

No.

[Virtannis]

Damn you, Darwin!
*shakes fist*

Wasnt Darwin a white nationalist?

No.
"Darwin was strongly against slavery, against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species", and against ill-treatment of native people."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_D ... d_opinions

[Pulau Singapura]

Wasnt Darwin a white nationalist?

No.
"Darwin was strongly against slavery, against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species", and against ill-treatment of native people."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_D ... d_opinions

Didnt he have this thing called Social Darwinism?(Which the Nazis sorta used)

Well, maybe they just made up Social Darwinism

[Alvecia]

Wasnt Darwin a white nationalist?

No.
"Darwin was strongly against slavery, against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species", and against ill-treatment of native people."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_D ... d_opinions

Which makes sense given the subject matter for which he is famous.

[Alvecia]

No.
"Darwin was strongly against slavery, against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species", and against ill-treatment of native people."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_D ... d_opinions

Didnt he have this thing called Social Darwinism?(Which the Nazis sorta used)

Well, maybe they just made up Social Darwinism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Da ... f_the_term

[Imperializt Russia]

No.
"Darwin was strongly against slavery, against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species", and against ill-treatment of native people."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_D ... d_opinions

Didnt he have this thing called Social Darwinism?(Which the Nazis sorta used)

Well, maybe they just made up Social Darwinism

The Nazis didn't understand what natural selection was.

[Kilobugya]

The problem I have here is that saying natural selection discriminates and selects for stuff kind of implies that there is something controlling it, which isn't really the case, I just can't think of the right words to explain it.

Well, it's not like there is a judge or jury giving scores to organism. It's just that some organisms happen to have more offsprings, because they are better at catching food, or at avoiding predators, or at attracting mates, or at resisting diseases, at ... so there are more copies of the genes of those organisms in the next generation. It's a purely mechanical process, a direct consequence of "imperfect replication", without anything controlling it.

[Ifreann]

No.
"Darwin was strongly against slavery, against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species", and against ill-treatment of native people."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_D ... d_opinions

Didnt he have this thing called Social Darwinism?(Which the Nazis sorta used)

Well, maybe they just made up Social Darwinism

Darwin didn't have anything to do with Social Darwinism.

[The Ik Ka Ek Akai]

Evolution may not be confirmed to a point, but creationism is impossible, thinking that the earth is less than 6000 years old and the sun and all planets revolve around it.

Creationism and evolution cane be reconciled to each other, to a point. Who knows, the 7 days may have been actually 7 billion years, lol



And the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 meters a day, if its a billion years it would be a white dwarf by now

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html

[Virtannis]

No.
"Darwin was strongly against slavery, against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species", and against ill-treatment of native people."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_D ... d_opinions

Didnt he have this thing called Social Darwinism?(Which the Nazis sorta used)

Well, maybe they just made up Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism is basically a later ideology which applies natural selection to human society, in most forms it is pseudo-scientifically claims for the so called "superiority" of one group over another (Such as ultranationalism, racism).
However Darwin himself didn't believe that, though he did believe that there are civilized and barbaric cultures, and that the civilized culture should replace the barbaric ones for the benefit of all mankind.

[Godular]

Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws.

Don't use words you don't understand. The title to your OP is bad enough in showing your staggering ignorance about the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law, but in the very first sentence of your post you show another bout of mind-boggling foolishness in not knowing the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. Do please learn the subject matter before opening your yap.

They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific.

You're half right. Creationism is not purely scientific. The Theory of Evolution however is eminently scientific and accounts for all the evidence.

A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted.

Your flaw is in using theory and hypothesis interchangeably in regards to a scientific theory. E for effort but you still gotta re-take biology next year.

And even a scientific law's position can be challenged when there is a new discovery. Believing in one of the two is an act of faith. Both have flaws, and both cannot explain one thing or another:

Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter

Doesn't need to. The Big Bang Theory handles that.

Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from

How merrily misrepresenting of you. Any other deliberately obfuscating creationist talking points you'd care to spew?

Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.

Or whose god it is, or that there is a god at all, or that anything else it purports is at all confirmable by the same standards used to gauge the veracity of the mountains of evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.

Or look at the bloody evidence... oh wait it all supports the Theory of evolution.

[spoiler= OP's opinion]Theistic evolutionist. Period.[/spoiler]

Ain't that nice. Still wrong though.

[Alvecia]

Creationism and evolution cane be reconciled to each other, to a point. Who knows, the 7 days may have been actually 7 billion years, lol



And the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 meters a day, if its a billion years it would be a white dwarf by now

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html

If anything surely the sun would massively expand once it reaches the red-giant phase

[Kilobugya]

Creationism and evolution cane be reconciled to each other, to a point. Who knows, the 7 days may have been actually 7 billion years, lol

If by "creationism" you mean "God created the universe" and nothing more, sure. You can say a god created the Earth and the solar system as they were 4 billions years ago, or that they created the big bang 13.7 billions of years ago, and then let the events unfold according to law of physics, including evolution. There are some other problems with that, but it is compatible with the theory of evolution, and it's more or less what the catholic church nowadays say (but it took them centuries). But then you reject the Book of Genesis, or at least you consider it to be a metaphor. Which not what "creationism" usually mean.

[The Intergalactic Russian Empire]

If someone hasn't mentioned it, I'll just put this here
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
So when something is science is a theory it's not just a hunch or something, it's an idea generally considered true based on a body of facts that have been confirmed true in observations and experiments that can be repeated by others. There is no pure scientific law, because in a few decades there might be some breakthrough in science that completely debunks a current scientific theory.

[Ifreann]

If someone hasn't mentioned it, I'll just put this here
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
So when something is science is a theory it's not just a hunch or something, it's an idea generally considered true based on a body of facts that have been confirmed true in observations and experiments that can be repeated by others. There is no pure scientific law, because in a few decades there might be some breakthrough in science that completely debunks a current scientific theory.

Scientific laws aren't a rank up from theories, or some kind of rule scientists aren't ever going to change. Laws describe, often mathematically, some particular phenomenon. The law of gravity can be used to calculate how much force an object will experience due to gravity. If we learn something new about gravity, we'll adjust the law of gravity accordingly.

[Luna Amore]

"[Creationists] make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." - Isaac Asimov

There isn't a main topic of discussion and you never stated your opinion. All in all, it's a borderline baity and bloggy OP. Locked.