Creationism Vs. Evolution

[Sociobiology]

Evolution is no longer a theory. It is a scientific fact. More than enough evidence has been presented for it. As for the thread..

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, evolution refers both to an observable fact and a scientific theory. Theories do not become facts, ever. That's not how it works.

science a condensed version



note general a green step needs to be repeated several hundred times.

and notice it never stops, there is no terminal step

[Kyraina]

there are only like a couple laws and those are newton's gravity's laws

[Ceannairceach]

there are only like a couple laws and those are newton's gravity's laws

No.

[Kyraina]

there are only like a couple laws and those are newton's gravity's laws

No.

there are few compared to theories and Wikipedia isn't the best source

[Ceannairceach]

No.

there are few compared to theories and Wikipedia isn't the best source

Yes, I know. And it serves the purpose of listing things that any scientist could easily explain in detail.

[Caecili]

Evolution is no longer a theory. It is a scientific fact. More than enough evidence has been presented for it. As for the thread..
(Image)

Actually, its still a theory. Its a theory in the same way the Einstein's Theories are Theories. A Scientific theory is a hypothesis observed repeatably to be true, and backed up with scientific fact. Creationism thus fails to be a proper theory as there is little to no evidence to back any of it up.

Actually, evolution is a fact. How evolution works is a theory, but evolution itself is a fact.
Same with gravity.

[Wikkiwallana]

No.

there are few compared to theories and Wikipedia isn't the best source

WTF? Dude, the number of scientific laws compared to the number of theories is irrelevant to the truth of evolution, and as only people like Gene Ray dispute the recognized laws outside of a cutting edge physics context, Wikipedia is an excellent source for the subject. If someone told you the sky is blue would you question them because they linked to Wikipedia?

[Kyraina]

but with gravity its a law that's the difference and gravity has been proven multiple times and not proven wrong that's the difference between evolution and laws

[Ceannairceach]

but with gravity its a law that's the difference and gravity has been proven multiple times and not proven wrong that's the difference between evolution and laws

No; evolution has been seen and observed, and is therefore a fact. How it goes about, however, is a theory.

There is no difference between the actuality of gravity and the actuality of evolution.

[Caecili]

but with gravity its a law that's the difference and gravity has been proven multiple times and not proven wrong that's the difference between evolution and laws

Same with evolution. It's been proven multiple times and not proven to be wrong.
Anyways, evolution can't be a law because it can't be expressed mathematically. Simple as that. Doesn't mean that it isn't an irrevocable fact.

[Wikkiwallana]

but with gravity its a law that's the difference and gravity has been proven multiple times and not proven wrong that's the difference between evolution and laws

You aren't even listening. Caecili was right: we have the "does" of both gravity and evolution nailed down tight, but for both the how is the only part that's a theory. And we have far more evidence for the how of evolution than we do for the how of gravity.

[Tekania]

No.

there are few compared to theories and Wikipedia isn't the best source

There is a fundamental difference between a law and a theory in that a "Law" in science does not describe a mechanism, but rather provides a formula based upon the results of repeated observation. We have few laws, because they would end up being supplanted by theories anyway (Newton's Law of Gravity for example is supplanted by Relativity Theory.... the later describes the mechanism by which the formers observations would necessitate)... And as Laws are limited only to the scope of their original observation sets, a "Scientific Law" is actually less applicable than a Scientific Theory, as Theories are expected to be universally true, while Laws need only meet the criteria of their initial observation set. There are observed criteria, due to a lack of capacity in the initial set of observations of Newton's Laws relating to Gravity which means that the laws become "wrong" in a universal sense in certain criteria and situations unavailable to Newton at the time.

[Kyraina]

there are few compared to theories and Wikipedia isn't the best source

There is a fundamental difference between a law and a theory in that a "Law" in science does not describe a mechanism, but rather provides a formula based upon the results of repeated observation. We have few laws, because they would end up being supplanted by theories anyway (Newton's Law of Gravity for example is supplanted by Relativity Theory.... the later describes the mechanism by which the formers observations would necessitate)... And as Laws are limited only to the scope of their original observation sets, a "Scientific Law" is actually less applicable than a Scientific Theory, as Theories are expected to be universally true, while Laws need only meet the criteria of their initial observation set. There are observed criteria, due to a lack of capacity in the initial set of observations of Newton's Laws relating to Gravity which means that the laws become "wrong" in a universal sense in certain criteria and situations unavailable to Newton at the time.

and theories are always changing also

[Ceannairceach]

There is a fundamental difference between a law and a theory in that a "Law" in science does not describe a mechanism, but rather provides a formula based upon the results of repeated observation. We have few laws, because they would end up being supplanted by theories anyway (Newton's Law of Gravity for example is supplanted by Relativity Theory.... the later describes the mechanism by which the formers observations would necessitate)... And as Laws are limited only to the scope of their original observation sets, a "Scientific Law" is actually less applicable than a Scientific Theory, as Theories are expected to be universally true, while Laws need only meet the criteria of their initial observation set. There are observed criteria, due to a lack of capacity in the initial set of observations of Newton's Laws relating to Gravity which means that the laws become "wrong" in a universal sense in certain criteria and situations unavailable to Newton at the time.

and theories are always changing also

Yes. But facts don't change, and evolution is a fact.

[Tekania]

There is a fundamental difference between a law and a theory in that a "Law" in science does not describe a mechanism, but rather provides a formula based upon the results of repeated observation. We have few laws, because they would end up being supplanted by theories anyway (Newton's Law of Gravity for example is supplanted by Relativity Theory.... the later describes the mechanism by which the formers observations would necessitate)... And as Laws are limited only to the scope of their original observation sets, a "Scientific Law" is actually less applicable than a Scientific Theory, as Theories are expected to be universally true, while Laws need only meet the criteria of their initial observation set. There are observed criteria, due to a lack of capacity in the initial set of observations of Newton's Laws relating to Gravity which means that the laws become "wrong" in a universal sense in certain criteria and situations unavailable to Newton at the time.

and theories are always changing also

Theories change because they are subject, as mechanisms, to be revised based upon new data... Laws need only meet the confines of their stated applicability (that is, a scientific law is only expected to be true where from the vantage of its initial observation criteria, and simply becomes inapplicable outside of that criteria...), a theory must predict observed results in a universal sense. But "Theories" describe a mechanism... That Evolution of Life (including Human Life)occurs is a fact, the mechanisms by which this life evolved is the theory (in the context of evolution). Theories describing these Mechanisms in Evolution are genetic drift, natural selection, etc... However, the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezing life out in a perfectly formed state isn't one of them.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Anyways, evolution can't be a law because it can't be expressed mathematically. Simple as that. Doesn't mean that it isn't an irrevocable fact.

Can't be expressed mathematically YET

[Florin and Atlantis]

Anyways, evolution can't be a law because it can't be expressed mathematically. Simple as that. Doesn't mean that it isn't an irrevocable fact.

Can't be expressed mathematically YET

Math is (for example) used to explain physics. Evolution does involve physics. EVERYTHING involves physics. The cells you are made of our composed of atoms that are composed to neutrons and protons and electrons that are composed of even smaller particles that all interact with rach other to do things. Each time they do something a mathematical equation can accompany it. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, think of the absolutely crazy things that happen on the quantum scale. Hell, crazy things are happening on the quantum scale in my brain in order for me to even type this post!

H2O is a mathematical equation itself. 2H (H being hydrogen atoms) + 1O (O being an oxygen atom) = H2O. Aka water.

Math is also used in chemistry, and evolution is a chemical process as well. Same with biology. I don't think there is a single actual science that doesn't use math in one form or another.

Of course, if I'm wrong about any of that, I'd love for someone with an actual physics or chemistry degree to come in here and correct me. I only learned this stuff from reading, not by going to classes.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Of course, if I'm wrong about any of that, I'd love for someone with an actual physics or chemistry degree to come in here and correct me. I only learned this stuff from reading, not by going to classes.

What I mean is, while certain evolutionary aspects can be expressed mathematically, especially statistically, the number of constants and variables involved is so large even simple organisms in isolated cultures can't be expressed as an equation now. But potentially, with enough computing power, it could be expressed somehow - although it might require Matrix level of simulation

[Kyraina]

i have no idea what you said but i think it has to do with mutation in evolution

[Parallax Inc]

Evolution is the process by which a population of a species becomes a species distinct from the "Parent" species through Natural Selection over many generations.
Evolution is demonstrable and accepted as scientific fact. It has Nothing, Absolutely Nothing to do with the Origin of Life. Darwin titled his book "the Origin of Species" for a reason.
Evolution does not preclude faith in a higher power.
Evolution is dot diametrically opposed to creationism, or even antagonistic to it. Guided Evolution is possible and happens every day when a farmer or rancher or breeder chooses two organisms to breed for a desirable set of traits. If WE can do It then Why can't the Infinite, Almighty, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent JHVH do it?
Evolution Does Not Preclude Creationism. Not even Abiogenisis or Panspermia preclude Creationism. The beauty of faith is that it can fit anywhere.

Evolution, IMHO, should be taught as a theory - that is, a proven, useful tool for scientific inquiry. Not as Something to oppose Creationism.

[Caecili]

Evolution is dot diametrically opposed to creationism, or even antagonistic to it. Guided Evolution is possible and happens every day when a farmer or rancher or breeder chooses two organisms to breed for a desirable set of traits. If WE can do It then Why can't the Infinite, Almighty, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent JHVH do it?

The problem with this is that farmers control insemination and breeding pairs, whereas in the wild animals will choose the most suitable and available mate every time. If God were truly guiding evolution, we would see evidence of breeding patterns different from the norm.

[Farnhamia]

Evolution is the process by which a population of a species becomes a species distinct from the "Parent" species through Natural Selection over many generations.
Evolution is demonstrable and accepted as scientific fact. It has Nothing, Absolutely Nothing to do with the Origin of Life. Darwin titled his book "the Origin of Species" for a reason.
Evolution does not preclude faith in a higher power.
Evolution is dot diametrically opposed to creationism, or even antagonistic to it. Guided Evolution is possible and happens every day when a farmer or rancher or breeder chooses two organisms to breed for a desirable set of traits. If WE can do It then Why can't the Infinite, Almighty, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent JHVH do it?
Evolution Does Not Preclude Creationism. Not even Abiogenisis or Panspermia preclude Creationism. The beauty of faith is that it can fit anywhere.

Evolution, IMHO, should be taught as a theory - that is, a proven, useful tool for scientific inquiry. Not as Something to oppose Creationism.

I agree, for the most part, but when Creationists themselves oppose creationism to evolution, we haven't much choice but to meet them on the field and take up the dispute. To let creationism go unopposed is folly.

[F1-Insanity]

Evolution is dot diametrically opposed to creationism, or even antagonistic to it. Guided Evolution is possible and happens every day when a farmer or rancher or breeder chooses two organisms to breed for a desirable set of traits. If WE can do It then Why can't the Infinite, Almighty, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent JHVH do it?

Because it ('jhvh') is not real? Something that does not exist, cannot 'breed' two or more organisms for a desirable set of traits.

Evolution Does Not Preclude Creationism. Not even Abiogenisis or Panspermia preclude Creationism. The beauty of faith is that it can fit anywhere.

And the ugly of faith is that it doesn't survive contact with science anywhere. Wherever religion is scientifically testable, it has already been proven false.

Evolution, IMHO, should be taught as a theory - that is, a proven, useful tool for scientific inquiry. Not as Something to oppose Creationism.

Evolution is a theory sustained by tons of evidence, creationism isn't even a theory, its pure bs.

[Unchecked Expansion]

The problem with this is that farmers control insemination and breeding pairs, whereas in the wild animals will choose the most suitable and available mate every time. If God were truly guiding evolution, we would see evidence of breeding patterns different from the norm.

Well, if it was divine guidance, it would appear normal because it's always been that way. But then, the difference between an invisible god that only affects the worlds through undetectable control of the physical laws of the universe, and physical laws of the universe is non-existent. It's essentially calling science God

[Wikkiwallana]

Can't be expressed mathematically YET

Math is (for example) used to explain physics. Evolution does involve physics. EVERYTHING involves physics. The cells you are made of our composed of atoms that are composed to neutrons and protons and electrons that are composed of even smaller particles that all interact with rach other to do things. Each time they do something a mathematical equation can accompany it. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, think of the absolutely crazy things that happen on the quantum scale. Hell, crazy things are happening on the quantum scale in my brain in order for me to even type this post!

H2O is a mathematical equation itself. 2H (H being hydrogen atoms) + 1O (O being an oxygen atom) = H2O. Aka water.

Math is also used in chemistry, and evolution is a chemical process as well. Same with biology. I don't think there is a single actual science that doesn't use math in one form or another.

Of course, if I'm wrong about any of that, I'd love for someone with an actual physics or chemistry degree to come in here and correct me. I only learned this stuff from reading, not by going to classes.

I don't have a chemistry degree yet, but I am trying to get one. The problem with trying to mathematically express something like evolution is complexity. Just expressing all the steps involved in the interactions between a small number of relatively simple molecules can take up reams of space, as you have to list each step and there can end up being more steps than initial reactants. Fore example, this is a simple reaction with only 3 reactants in aqueous solution. Tall those chemicals are tiny compared to biological compounds, and there more such compounds than I could count in just one living organism, interacting in even more ways. Mathematically expressing the full biological process of a single organism just from its fertilization/budding/mitosis/whatever to the first time it reproduced would literally take more space than I could comprehend.