CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why do scientists claim that Evolution is a fact when its actually a theory?
I have noticed that many people claim that evolution is a fact but why do people think its a fact when I think of it, its just a theory and it could be right or wrong. Just like the Big Bang Theory it could be right and it could be wrong.
Gravity is not a theory it is fact it can be measured and many calculations made using the results. However why Gravity exists cant be explained it is contrary to most other science.
Evolution is a theory and is full of holes - the missing links were mostly fakes and as for carbon dating that is also highly innacurate as it is based on the assumption that the world has always been as it is now.
Evolution is a theory and is full of holes - the missing links were mostly fakes and as for carbon dating that is also highly innacurate as it is based on the assumption that the world has always been as it is now.
Evolution is full of holes? Nonsense. What makes you think that we even need the missing links? The entire fossil record is merely a bonus for scientists. Evolution would have been confirmed even in the absence of the fossil record.
As for carbon dating being inaccurate, the simple fact that it is based on the assumption that the rate of radioactive decay has been constant does not make it automatically false or untrue. Not to mention, other independent dating methods confirm radiometric dating. Speed of light, Doppler effect, distance of galaxies, etc.
First off save your 25k words. It would just be a further waste of YOUR time. You need to get your head out of your ass. Which evolution are you talking about? Micro Evolution? Things changing (a little)? Yes things change (a little) but there are limits within the gene code. Beyond things changing a little (not a lot) evolution is a religion. A rock does not change into a plant. A plant does not change into an animal. etc. There has never been any proof of this nor will there ever BE any proof of this. It is purely a religious belief.
Assumptions ALWAYS make something a belief, NOT A FACT, until PROVEN true!
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard: "As for carbon dating being inaccurate, the simple face that it is based on the assumption that the rate of radioactive decay has been constant does not make it automatically false or untrue."
Why tout it as absolute truth and use it to date ANYTHING for that matter?
Speed of light is not constant! Scientists have changed the speed of light in the laboratory. So clearly you can't assume that it has always been constant.<--here we go with another assumption. The (macro) evolution religion sure does put a lot of faith in things.
Every religion of the world tries to answer the four great questions of life.
1. Who am I?
2. Where did I come from?
3. What am I supposed to be doing?
4. What happens after death?
Macro evolution tries (desperately) to answer these as well.
Well, the term "fact" isn't very concrete in its definition. "Fact" refers to things that are true. Now, in general, a well supported theory is considered true because of its ability to satisfy the Scientific Method. It is only a theory that Heroin is bad for you, but to say that it isn't a "fact" is only either arguing semantics of the word "fact" or denial of the evidence to support this theory.
Theories can be facts. Hypothesis that haven't faced the scrutiny of the Scientific Method, however, aren't true. They are suggested, and until it goes through experimentation and verification, it will never be able to hold itself as a fact.
Evolution is a theory. Creationism is only a hypothesis.
Whether Creationism is a fact or not is unknown. Evolution, however, is a fact. Until we get ground breaking evidence to somehow explain everything that currently makes it seem that Evolution is a fact when it really isn't.
Yeah - Evolution is a theory and a bad one at that riddled with holes
I have never been able to encounter anyone who has been able to seriously answer the question of "are there any holes in evolution". So tell me, what are the holes in evolution that I haven't already refute in my other response?
Gravity is a fact it exists no one knows why but it exists
No it isnt - Gravity is a force and Matter is Matter, We know that gravitational pull exists but there is no definitive scientific reasoning to explain it
Why do you say "just a theory" ? You act as if its easy for an idea in science to achieve the term "theory". But this only serves to demonstrate how little you know about science and how it works.
When you say it could be right or wrong, you are correct, but not in the sense that you are trying to make it sound like. The chance that evolution is wrong is astronomically low, to the point of not even worth considering (unless you have evidence to refute evolution, of which none has been shown to exist yet).
No, evolution is a theory because it has been proven. Since you have no clue what you're talking about, I'll post the definition for you.
Scientific Theory: 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.
Did you catch the part where it says "repeatedly confirmed" ?
so by defintion the reponsibility is for Evolutionists to prove the theory not the otherway round
Evolutionists already have met their burden of proof. If you want to refute it, its your turn for you to meet your burden of proof. Prove the theory of evolution wrong.
Evolution is a fact as well. It is a fact and a theory. I've said this before, you seem to be disagreeing with it purely on an argument over semantics. A fact in science is not "absolutely true" like you seem to think it means.
You use that cop out all the time - its your turn to take the responsibility why do you say that Evolution is a fact and dont give me that scientiific fact rubbish - The Theory of Evolution is an interpretationn of the facts and is just a theory to try to explain things. Just because we share 98% of our DNA with apes doesnt mean we are evolved from Apes. I suggest a second higly credible answer is that having made apes God decided he could do a little better and made mankind.
99.5% of my DNA is the same as yours but that doesnt make me and idiot
Then go out and find a way to test God. I assure that you will fail.
Evolution has and most likely always will be viewed as a more credible answer than God, because evolution has undergone more scrutiny than any theory since heliocentrism.
Evolution is a theory and a fact. Accept it and move on please.
Just because we share 98% of our DNA with apes doesnt mean we are evolved from Apes.
What does it mean then when a super highly complex code called DNA is X% identical to any other organism on the planet? What else could it mean besides we have a common ancestry?
I suggest a second higly credible answer is that having made apes God decided he could do a little better and made mankind.
Highly credible answer? More like baseless nonsense. First you need to prove that God exists in order to assert such a ridiculous statement.
99.5% of my DNA is the same as yours but that doesnt make me and idiot
Perhaps you should look at your own statements one more time.
Sorry but it is you who have it wrong a theory is an attempt to make sense of known facts - The theory it self isnt a fact , the theory uses facts to formulate and bolster the argument for the theory you said it yourself and I quote "based on a body of facts"
For example Evolutionists now use DNA to prove Evolution but the similarities between DNA in various species do have other explanations
You obviously have tunnel vision and cant see that there are other possibilities which explain known facts.
For example Evolutionists now use DNA to prove Evolution but the similarities between DNA in various species do have other explanations
You have failed miserably to provide an alternative explanation for why the various species have large amounts of identical DNA.
You obviously have tunnel vision and cant see that there are other possibilities which explain known facts.
No, I've done the research. You have not. Your explanations have not explained anything. Your explanations are pure fantasy and imagination. You have failed to produce any evidence for your explanations.
There are no facts or evidence to proof that it isn't true. Also, in scientific terms a 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. a theory by definition is a well proven fact!
Having supported creationism in a previous debate, all my research on the subject was based upon attacking evolution, I couldn't find any fact based evidence to back up another position.
So I just went with the old reliable attack evolution where it was weekest. But simply doing this does not take away that it is much better researched and has far more evidence that any competing theory, which are all realy just based on faith and conjecture. There are no competing scientific theories.
I realise that scientific theory is different from laymans theory just like I realise that you make a lot of it up as you go along... Fact is that The Theory of Evolution is not a fact it is based on facts.......... would you agree that these facts could be interpreted in another way............ and please stop being so rude
Fact is that The Theory of Evolution is not a fact it is based on facts
This made me laugh.
If you base something entirely on facts, your result will be a fact. If this were not true, then the whole of mathematics would fail, leaving all science to fail, and all society to fail. EG:
Please do read the link I sent you. It explains it perfectly well.
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.
Hasn't it occur to you that you are probably just being denial of the abundance and accuracy of evidence that supports the theory of evolution as also being a fact?
Others have already proven this repeatedly. Scientist are not refuting the theory of God ( yes, this is fully a theory at a scientific standpoint otherwise you are just wasting time here).
They are just reporting what evidence they can find about our origin which is available in our environment.
If we are to drop from the sky without any ancestral origin dont you think there will be evidence to this as well..which will puzzle scientist till this very day?
The truth is the environment and our universe is much more complex than the bible. Your bible is an escape from this reality.
Don't mess with faith (they say the same stuff anyway , the Bible may be a bit off but wasn't when Christ was here)
someone ought really have sat down and written what he said PROPERLY then get it signed and stamped and widely circulated ....even if they didn't have paper then And were being hunted down by the romans.
Evolution as you say, states a single cell eventually leading up to us, via natural selection and "survival of the fittest". Mmk? Again, as you say.
Genesis states that god created animals and land (of earth), sea animals and birds, ect. THEN he created man AFTER he created life (or rather it could be said a single cell organism came first, then HUMANS, yay!)
SO.
Evolution and creationism in my opinion DO NOT REFUTE EACH OTHER. They compliment each other. HOW SO?
Here's how.
Since evolution states a PROCESS of evolving, aka first cell to animals to us.
And creationist claim god created everything, from the Book of Genesis.
I say, the only differences between the two thoughts are that one (evolution) does not state whether a higher being created it, it just "was" and viola here we are, humans stemming from a previous existence of that single cell life form. AND secondly, creationists believe the earth is merely a couple thousand years old, when evolutionists claim the universe is something like a couple thousand million years old; obviously a difference in number, but merely NO difference in THAT there were previous life forms BEFORE humans then came us humans.
To me both of these theories look very similar, in terms of LOGIC and how LOGIC work. On the other hand, if you believe in genesis, it states life was created BEFORE human beings, going HAND IN HAND with evolutionary theorists. Life came first, then humans came after that original life form.
Creationists believe we were created after other life forms were there before.
Evolutionists believe we were created after other life forms were there before.
I challenge the idea that Man is descended form Apes, Supposedly Man evolved from Apes, to what we are today and some scientists use as evidence the fossil remains which seem to indicate a progression from Ape to Man. lets call Ape Step 1) and Man step 10) and the steps between were the progression. Since Man still exists and Apes still exist where are the descendants of step 2 thro 9. Theory they never existed thats why they arent here. Use of DNA is highly dubious as we have DNA incommon with practically if not all species of Birds Fish and Insects.
It is a fact that some fossils so called are actually fakes probably the most famous is Piltdown Man Darwin was also party to this particular fake...
Scientists like things like evolution it pays the mortgage so they could have other motives to go looking for evidence where there isnt any and creating there own evidence when they need it!!!!!!!!! touche pussycat
Would you like an example of Scientific theory being incorrect. For decades scientist have thought of a T Rex as a vicious Hunter. Fact is it is now accepted that the T Rex was probably a scavenger
The more I read stuff like this, the more disappointed I become with humanity. I shouldn't bother rebutting this stuff, seeing as no-one ever listens, but fuck it, sick day, nothing to do.
lets call Ape Step 1) and Man step 10) and the steps between were the progression. Since Man still exists and Apes still exist where are the descendants of step 2 thro 9.
Speciation. Your question is like asking why wolves still exist.
Theory they never existed thats why they arent here. Use of DNA is highly dubious as we have DNA incommon with practically if not all species of Birds Fish and Insects.
Are you slow or something? Similarities in the DNA record support evolution. We expect humans to share varying levels of genetic similarity with other species if evolution is true. We can expect for us to share more similarities with chimpanzees than finches, but more with finches than bacteria.
It is a fact that some fossils so called are actually fakes probably the most famous is Piltdown Man Darwin was also party to this particular fake...
This is dumb on another level. Firstly, Darwin died some 30 years before the "discovery" of Piltdown man.
Secondly, that's one fossil that was put forward by one notorious fraudster. Are you also going to accuse all the other fossils of being fake, along with all of the genetic and observed evidence we have too?
Scientists like things like evolution it pays the mortgage so they could have other motives to go looking for evidence where there isn't any and creating there own evidence when they need it!!!!!!!!! touche pussycat
I am now starting to doubt that you are a fully functional part of society.
Would you like an example of Scientific theory being incorrect. For decades scientist have thought of a T Rex as a vicious Hunter. Fact is it is now accepted that the T Rex was probably a scavenger
That was not a theory, it was a postulation at most. Despite several people telling you otherwise, you still haven't got it in your thick little head that a scientific theory is different from a laymen's theory. Please read a book, and stop embarrassing yourself. In fact, I'll make it easy for you.
Scientists like things like evolution it pays the mortgage so they could have other motives to go looking for evidence where there isn't any and creating there own evidence when they need it!!!!!!!!!
Yeah 'cos no scientist wants the fame and fortune that would come with showing another working theory. Or is it a global conspiracy like the moon landings? LOL
Its a fact in the everyday use of the word and its a scientific theory in the sense that it's scientific theory, however not all scientific theories are facts, for example the plum pudding model of the atom was a scientific theory. Go away creationists this doesn't help your argument. Due to the gold leaf experiments carried out by Rutherford, atomic theory had to modified to allow for the scatterings observed in his experiments.
The difference with the theory of evolution is nobody has produced any data for PEER REVIEW that disputes it, only inforce it.
In Science when one says 'Theory' (which is a scientific word for: "I did a lot of research and experiments until I was ABSOLUTELY sure what I had first thought about extensively truly must be how it happened/shall happen/is/was/TRUE" depending upon what we are talking about(biology/astronomy/history/bla bla bla,etc.)) it means it IS fact!
It's a 'theory'- but a very believable theory with tonnes of evidence, that without certain competition, would be considered a fact. Creationism is a bit like one of those 'how did the elephant get his trunk' stories.
Hahahaha this is silly. There is no need for evidence, no need for justification. Evolution is a simple concept. All these statements are FACTS. Roll with me here. Do you agree that:
1: All plants, animals, and everything else are different in small, but quantifiable ways (She's got blue eyes, he's got brown hair, etc)
2: some of these traits, for example blue hair, might make an individual in a species more likely to be seen than, say, someone with brown hair.
3: being seen easily means that individual is a target for predators.
4: Many traits can be passed on, for example brown hair.
5: if the blue-haired individual is eaten he can't reproduce.
There, you agree! It's simple. If you get eaten you can't have sex. If you can't have sex, you don't pass on what makes you you to your children. Your children, and their children, will be put through the exact same trials. Eventually, this creates a change in the group, as the more successful group overpowers the group that can't reproduce at the same rate. It's fairly simple.
Evolution can be scientifically verified. Evolution happens all the time in the evolution of diseases (which reproduce in far more massive exponential rates than more complex animals such as vertebrates whose evolution can only be witnessed in millions of years).
For example 90% of bacteria gets killed off by a change in environment, such as an antibiotic, except for a 10% that has an antibiotic resistance trait. This 10% is unaffected by the antibiotic. Having no obstacles, the 10% multiply to replace the 90% gap and become the new majority.
Sometimes bacteria will share antibiotic-resistant traits with other bacteria (sexual reproduction), allowing other bacteria to make use of the resistance. We invent a new antibiotic to kill off 90% of them, and the cycle repeats again.
This is why doctors tell you to never stop taking your meds (even though you already feel good), to make sure that 100% gets killed off and that evolution never happens.
Basically, evolution is all about traits undergoing natural selection, with the traits that help in survival in the current environment (such as resistance to antibiotics) multiplying, and with those that don't getting deleted.
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
This is a false dichotomy. Though nothing can truly be declared as fact in this world, evolution is as close as you're going to get. A theory is, by most arbitrary definitions, a fact. Not in the laymen sense of a guess, but in the scientific sense; a hypothesis which has gone through the rigor of the scientific method, and has reached a point where the explanation it provides is both verified and sensible. This is what most people would call a "fact".
I might have been impelled to write my own argument, but I have just finished a fatiguing repudiation of capital punishment. All the facts which are necessary to the rebuttal are to be found in the argument above, and to add any more would be entirely futile. I shall upvote it (I was permitted to do so twice, for some reason) so that all may observe the futility of their own additions.
I submit that it is time for those who would refute science, to properly educate themselves in its terminologies.
Addendum
And to attempt to subvert any matter by semantic argument is unworthy of us all.
The problem with scientists is that they dont know when they are licked - having ego's the size of The known Universe helps. being as we say know it alls - yet the truth is a fact is a fact. it is 100% the case, there is no doubt. It can not be disputed. As sure as night follows day No is not an option.
Whereas a theory being scientific or otherwise is not a fact and a theory is something that can not be proven as it is an assembley of various facts ordered in such a way as to make the theory seem possible. The theory itself is not a fact. I rest my F in case
History is littered with scientific theory that after a few decades or centurys is found to be not the case at all
The problem with scientists is that they dont know when they are licked - having ego's the size of The known Universe helps. being as we say know it alls - yet the truth is a fact is a fact. it is 100% the case, there is no doubt. It can not be disputed. As sure as night follows day No is not an option.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I'll take it English isn't your first language, so could you please clarify this?
Whereas a theory being scientific or otherwise is not a fact and a theory is something that can not be proven as it is an assembley of various facts ordered in such a way as to make the theory seem possible. The theory itself is not a fact. I rest my F in case
Again, this is nonsensical. Following this line of reasoning, one can assert that gravity is not a fact.
Scientific Theory: 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.
You got that right, it is a theory, as well as a fact.
Creationism and intelligent designs are only hypothesis, they don't even qualify as theories.
I understand that DNA similarities between us and apes is used as your so called proof that evolution is a fact. For example
DNA Variation between humans can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)
Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.
Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans
75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans,
The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans
About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.
These figures do not prove evolution, they are small facts that can be used to explain a theory
Imagine this - It could be argued that a BMW and a Mercedes are 99% similar technically speaking made of the same materials and using the same technology. Although a BMW is not related to a Mercedes and will never evolve into one. However both were designed by humans who have come up with similar outputs ie the products, having started with a blank sheet as it were.
This would suggest design and creative processes. I conclude we do not know that Apes evolved into Man as the theory conveniently tells us it happened over a vast amount of time. Whereas I know a BMW didnt evolve into a Mercedes because I have lived long enough to make the observation for myself.
These figures do not prove evolution, they are small facts that can be used to explain a theory
Why do they not? How else are we going to have this insanely complex thing called DNA, and have it be X% identical to our own? This implies a common ancestry. No evidence refutes this. Lots of other evidence supports this.
As for the Mercedes and BMW, they do not operate on evolution through natural selection or DNA, they do not pass down their DNA, reproduce, etc. Therefore, your analogy does not apply here. You cannot compare inanimate objects to living things in this situation.
I conclude we do not know that Apes evolved into Man as the theory conveniently tells us it happened over a vast amount of time
We have already witnessed macro evolution. What makes you think humans are immune to it when we share essentially the same biological processes as most other living animals?
It's obviously a theory, but let me ask you this srom.
Do you believe that there was a past of the universe and now you are here, in the now. In other words, do you feel that humans came after the creation of other life forms, for example sea creatures and birds?
Genesis states that before "adam and eve" were born, the land, sea were created and animals populated both the land and sea BEFORE humans were created. So therefore, you should believe in the theory of evolution as well. Don't you think?
The theory of evolution directly refutes how god created the animals and man kind.
Evolution says that from the first cell, all life was evolving through natural selection. Eventually through enough generations of natural selection, man arose.
I believe in Genesis it says that God created all the animals and that god created Adam, and then took the man's rib and made Eve. Evolution does not state anything like that.
So how anybody can believe in Genesis, and believe in evolution, that makes no sense to me. Because they directly refute each other.
Evolution as you say, states a single cell eventually leading up to us, via natural selection and "survival of the fittest". Mmk? Again, as you say.
Genesis states that god created animals and land (of earth), sea animals and birds, ect. THEN he created man AFTER he created life (or rather it could be said a single cell organism came first, then HUMANS, yay!)
SO.
Evolution and creationism in my opinion DO NOT REFUTE EACH OTHER. They compliment each other. HOW SO?
Here's how.
Since evolution states a PROCESS of evolving, aka first cell to animals to us.
And creationist claim god created everything, from the Book of Genesis.
I say, the only differences between the two thoughts are that one (evolution) does not state whether a higher being created it, it just "was" and viola here we are, humans stemming from a previous existence of that single cell life form. AND secondly, creationists believe the earth is merely a couple thousand years old, when evolutionists claim the universe is something like a couple thousand million years old; obviously a difference in number, but merely NO difference in THAT there were previous life forms BEFORE humans then came us humans.
To me both of these theories look very similar, in terms of LOGIC and how LOGIC work. On the other hand, if you believe in genesis, it states life was created BEFORE human beings, going HAND IN HAND with evolutionary theorists. Life came first, then humans came after that original life form.
Creationists believe we were created after other life forms were there before.
Evolutionists believe we were created after other life forms were there before.
Does it say in the bible that the 7 days of creation where 24 hour days? If not then each day could of been billions of years instead of 24 hours. Thus supporting the fact the the universe is billions of years old.
I'd have to look back in genesis for that specific answer, however i don't fully believe in the bible so you're asking the wrong person.
However, to me numbers do not matter, whether life was created yesterday and we're here in the blink of an eye, or life was created billions upon billion years ago, the past matters to me, but not to the point where I stress in my mind the vast numbers. That is how mad scientists and people are formed. I like to keep my mind in modern times because that's what I can control or not control, I simply can't control what happened in the past but I do have say for now and into the future.
I'm not saying numbers don't matter, they do. However I feel the value of numbers matter more than the number itself.
it says that there was 6 days of creation you said Does it say in the bible that the 7 days of creation we dont know if there was 24 hour days or not. In the bible it says that there are somethings that we can not know. like that we dont know if it was a 24 hour day or not. see what im saying
Creationists believe we were created after other life forms were there before
Terrains,lush greenery various creatures...THEN humans. It is much too simplified to be believable.. As if the bible want us to think like children when we could think like scientist.
Evolutionists believe we were created after other life forms were there before'
You simply copied and pasted my reply then state "ALL LIFE ORIGINATED FROM SIMPLER ORGANISMS"
I agree and how does this refute creationists? Creationists still believe something created something before and here we are. In fact I'll spell it out for you. How about I believe a higher being started the first "domino", the first SIMPLE ORGANISM, brouhah. AND here we are after all those bajillion years to now.
Ah but now were speaking god so it gets all hectic and crazy, yet I still believe what evolutionists believe, just slightly different.
Do you realize this observation means very little in this debate? Since we could all casually agree that there has to be a land to be stepped on and other life forms exist to be fed on by us humans. Hooray the bible got this right. Simple human observation. Humans were not created, they evolved from simpler organism. Creationism mentions that humans came out from the hands of some Lego collector.. Big difference. This suggest humans are not from earthly origin but Secret Garden
I do believe all of life was created, this is where the roads separate. You obviously dont. And I still believe humans are earthy origin, just as the single cell "in the beginning" of the universe was from the universe origin.
The difference between you and I are I feel we were placed here, or rather, something started everything; aka the "domino effect".
So fuck off, my replies have MUCH to do with this topic.
Really nice how you twist words around.. The topic is wether the evolution theory is a fact or not. You did not state your point but mentioned how similar creationism and evolution is. Which as I have mentioned, clearly not. The earth was once a magma coated sphere until asteroids hit the earth containing H20 particles which caused vapours... THAT was how water first came to place. Are micro-organisms that uncommon in the universe? NO. Certain nearby planets have traces or it no matter how small or insignificant. The only difference is WE had the water which grants evolution. This is purely by chance. What I have mentioned are convincing thoery unlike your assumptions or believes. So YOU fuck off. Go watch Discovery channel.
Child I've watched, read, thought, have spoken, and have much better quality and quantity valued discussions and thoughts than you have I'm sure of it.
You say "by chance", I say not so much. And I'll stick by my beliefs as they are sound. What you have mentioned are nothing but mimicking what you've seen on the discovery channel, what I have mentioned are not common, especially not on this site.
You say "by chance", I say not so much. And I'll stick by my beliefs as they are sound.
How can your beliefs be sound if they are not based on evidence but merely on gut feelings?
What you have mentioned are nothing but mimicking what you've seen on the discovery channel, what I have mentioned are not common, especially not on this site.
His beliefs are nevertheless supported by evidence and science.
My beliefs are supported by evidence. Evolutionary theory IS evidence and does support my theory, you choose not to accept it.
There is no evidence to support that my god started the domino effect, that's hardly what I try to show people. The evidence I present is that another theory (NOT fact) evolutionary theory, supports my other theory that god created mankind and the domino effect it started can be explained through evolution. So yes Sherlock, it's obvious that no man has 100 percent evidence to support their opinions, yet you claim skywh (or whoever the fuck) has 100 percent evidence.
I am not trying to refute or deny the evolutionary theory yet you attempt to say my claims and beliefs have no evidence, that's complete bullshit; you believe in the evolutionary so much (as do I), yet because you claim my theory has "no evidence" you say I have no evidence to support my claim.
I am telling you man, evolutionary theory support my claims. What then?
My beliefs are supported by evidence. Evolutionary theory IS evidence and does support my theory, you choose not to accept it.
Then, we are on the same page? I may have misunderstood you. I saw the following:
He wrote: Creationism mentions that humans came out from the hands of some Lego collector.. Big difference.
To which you replied somewhere in your response: Well here another fucking simple observation.
I do believe all of life was created, this is where the roads separate.
It appeared to me that you believed in creationism as opposed to evolution. My apologies if I misinterpreted.
The evidence I present is that another theory (NOT fact) evolutionary theory, supports my other theory that god created mankind and the domino effect it started can be explained through evolution.
Evolution does not support your theory that god created mankind which caused some domino effect. Evolution explains a mechanism through which changes within a species and speciation occur. The bible says that God created man from dust, then took mans rib and created a woman. Evolution does not state this. This is a direct disagreement between the two. Assuming you think the story of genesis and evolution are in agreement.
So yes Sherlock, it's obvious that no man has 100 percent evidence to support their opinions, yet you claim skywh (or whoever the fuck) has 100 percent evidence.
This has nothing to do with whether someone has 100% evidence for their opinions, nor does it have anything to do with skywh's claims or opinions. You seem to support some creationism evolution combo theory, which doesn't make much sense to me. Could you elaborate more?
I am not trying to refute or deny the evolutionary theory yet you attempt to say my claims and beliefs have no evidence, that's complete bullshit
Again, my apologies. It appeared to me as if you were saying creationism was the answer.
you believe in the evolutionary so much (as do I), yet because you claim my theory has "no evidence" you say I have no evidence to support my claim.
If you truly believed in evolution as I do, then I wouldn't be disagreeing with you. But you support some creationism-evolution hybrid theory instead, I'm curious as to the details of this idea. Could you explain more?
I am telling you man, evolutionary theory support my claims. What then?
Based off of what you've told me so far, I disagree. Although, you haven't told me much. So explain your claims to me.
"The bible says that God created man from dust, then took mans rib and created a woman. Evolution does not state this. This is a direct disagreement between the two. Assuming you think the story of genesis and evolution are in agreement."
Creationists or creationism should NOT directly correlated with judaism, or merely christianity. It's commonly spoken with christianity but I do not believe in creation simply because I was brought up a christian. I believe everything was created for many reasons. One of these reasons are because the whole universe so happen to do all of its magnificent things, and we humans are the "end all" of evolution, so far as we know.
Human beings, or namely, our minds, are very special, and of course we apply special to ourselves, but yet when looking at a broader range of things, our minds are the most complex thing that we can think or see. This special-ness speaks loudly to me.
Evolution states organisms survive because they are "stronger" than the weaker ones, physically, mentally, organically, ect. It terms of nature versus nature, it's obviously both. And so the DNA involved with who we are now to when the "first" organism became on this earth, it's astonishing, and sure it may look like "it just happened", but I apply value to it, I have to, my mind MUST apply value because I believe humans are special, that's my evidence as far as how or why I view humans to be special; we've got freewill, our minds are the most complex things we can think or see, and to even question the "how or why did we get here", there are many explanations, and all of them still seek those same answers.
If we did not question our existence I feel these discussions would be obsolete, so technically, the fact that we DO question these things, it must mean we're special in some shape or form.
We're a tiny speck amongst even the imaginations of mankind, yet some choose to believe, some don't, nonetheless our minds are capable of tremendous things.
Evolution describes a process, point A to point B, to point C. We're at point B, point A was the "beginning of the universe" and point C is the future yet to come. Logically this is obvious.
Creationism states we were created, we were given opportunity to choose this way or that, regardless of said illusions of free choice, we've got it, it's there, regardless of metaphysics and extra dimensional status quo. What matters to us is the current, not the past or future, when you strip it all down to its core.
One of these reasons are because the whole universe so happen to do all of its magnificent things, and we humans are the "end all" of evolution, so far as we know.
The universe existing as it is does, does not mean that it was created intelligently. This sounds like intelligent design now. Humans are not the "end all" of evolution. Humans are still evolving. The only difference is there is little evolutionary pressure from the environment, predators, the weather, etc, since we have overcame virtually all of them with the brains evolution has crafted for us.
our minds are the most complex thing that we can think or see
I do believe I read somewhere that the human brain is the most complex known object in the universe.
I agree with what you say in the next paragraph for the most part. Our brains are what sets us apart from all other animals.
Creationism states we were created, we were given opportunity to choose this way or that, regardless of said illusions of free choice, we've got it, it's there, regardless of metaphysics and extra dimensional status quo.
Creationism states we were created by some supernatural being. But this does not make sense, for there is no evidence to support that conclusion.
Mark, as far as we know, NOW speaking we are the end all. Of course we're evolving everyday, generation by generation, but honestly do you think if you were alive 10,000 years from now and another special evolved from humans that you would NOT be able to have an intelligent conversation with it?
Besides that, it's not the point. The point is now, currently, we are the most complex thing we can think of and see of the known universe; the potentiality of something is not the same as the actuality of something. And as I said above, actuality states regardless of the next evolving human being called X, Y, Z, we'd still have conversations (among other related issues) with it that we could not have to any other species before the hominoid species. Know what I mean?
This fact means a lot to me. One could say "well you do not know for sure if we could relate to the more evolved us" but I would say "I do not know for sure, what I do know is that if our minds are the most complex thing as we know, then what comes after (regardless of it surpassing being the most complex) we'd be able to have complex conversation with it) as opposed to us as the species before us.
Creationism states we were created, first of all. The part after that is questionable, as far as was is a supernatural being, or was it "just because". Either way, we are here because life created us. This is evidence of the creation of our existence. Within logic, you cannot have point B without point A being there in the first place.
Mark, as far as we know, NOW speaking we are the end all.
The same could be said of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, up until that point. Perhaps an asteroid will come and destroy us within the next century, and allowing something like sentient intelligent birds to exist with brains far superior to ours.
but honestly do you think if you were alive 10,000 years from now and another special evolved from humans that you would NOT be able to have an intelligent conversation with it?
I don't exactly understand the question. Are you asking if I'd be able to have an intelligent conversation with a human 10 thousand years from now? The difference between me and this human would be many times larger than me speaking to a caveman 1 million years ago. So intelligent conversation? Not by their standards. A conversation? I don't see why not.
Know what I mean?
I agree for the most part.
Creationism states we were created, first of all. The part after that is questionable, as far as was is a supernatural being, or was it "just because".
No, creationism specifically states it was a supernatural being. Most refer to this supernatural being as the Abrahamic God. Creationists have tried to mask it as "intelligent design" more recently though. If you want to define creationism as simply "life was created" then all scientists would be creationists by that definition. Scientists and creationists disagree on how life was created. Creationists believe it was a supernatural being, like the Abrahamic God. Scientists believe it was through a natural process as demonstrated in the Miller Urey experiment.
Within logic, you cannot have point B without point A being there in the first place.
Point A being the first cell, correct? The Miller Urey experiment shows that organic molecules can form from inorganic materials. Namely, amino acids. A basic building block of life.
"Creationists have tried to mask it as "intelligent design" more recently though. If you want to define creationism as simply "life was created" then all scientists would be creationists by that definition."
Creationists aren't trying, they're doing. Although my beliefs first stemmed from the Abrahamic god (simply because I had no choice who how my parents raised me), I still believe that life was created, as scientist agree on.
The other question is "who, if, or what" created life and this is where things become extremely complicated.
I like to keep things simple yet complex within logic. And within logic it is obvious that since we are here, existent, then we were created, life was created for it to be in existence; I am a creationist. Naturally, all of mankind should be a creationist in that retrospect, if they believe already said things to be true, not including the abrahamic parts.
I guess that is correct. Creationists have done a good job at masking it as intelligent design after they failed to get creationism to be taught in schools, they attempted to change it to something more scientific sounding.
I still believe that life was created, as scientist agree on.
Doesn't everyone agree that life was created? You're leaving out a crucial detail though. You believe a higher power had some role in the creation of life, whereas most scientists believe it was through some naturalistic cause. The evidence does not support the idea that a higher power had a role in life's creation.
I like to keep things simple yet complex within logic. And within logic it is obvious that since we are here, existent, then we were created, life was created for it to be in existence
It is obvious that we are here because life was created to be in existence? No, from a purely scientific perspective, there is no exact reason (at the very least, it's not obvious) for us to exist. We are likely the product of a naturalistic creation. Not a supernatural creation. There is evidence for the former, none for the latter.
I am a creationist. Naturally, all of mankind should be a creationist in that retrospect, if they believe already said things to be true, not including the abrahamic parts.
You're using a definition of creationism that neither creationists nor scientists nor anyone uses. You've created your own definition of the word. I cannot find a definition of creationism/creationist that means "life was created". They all tie in a higher power or God.
There is evidence for the latter (as said previously) yet people like you choose to ignore and state the evidence is not evidence. Intelligent design, complex nature, human beings, ect.
These evidences are fine by some people, like myself, yet not enough for people like you. Yet in your way of thinking you rely upon scientific method to be enough when I say scientific method is not nearly enough evidence to dispute my theories and beliefs. Quite the pickle.
There is evidence for the latter (as said previously) yet people like you choose to ignore and state the evidence is not evidence. Intelligent design, complex nature, human beings, ect.
No, there is no evidence for the latter currently. Intelligent design, complex nature, and human beings, are all arguments from incredulity. "Because I cannot think of any other way for them to form, it must be god". It is you and others who choose to ignore the scientific evidence for a naturalistic origin of life.
These evidences are fine by some people, like myself, yet not enough for people like you.
Because your "evidence" is nothing more than a logical fallacy. It is an argument from incredulity. "Because the universe is so perfectly in balance, as is our solar system, as is our planet perfect for life, it must have been a god".
Intelligent design creationism (often referred to as intelligent design or "ID") is a pseudoscience that maintains that certain aspects of the physical world, and more specifically life, show signs of having been designed, and hence were designed, by an intelligent being (usually, but not always, the God of the Christian religion).
Yet in your way of thinking you rely upon scientific method to be enough when I say scientific method is not nearly enough evidence to dispute my theories and beliefs. Quite the pickle.
If you have a method superior to the scientific method, I and the rest of the world would like to hear it.
My god.. you are the most smug and rude 'elder' I have ever met, bragging about your experience.... If you support that evolution is a fact then go ahead but dont make it sound like it is the same as creationism in which when I disagree you make a huge fuss out of it. All that fuckfuckfuck leaves me no mood in replying you creationism-evolution hybrid mess.
Aw, please don't let the word "fuck" redirect your attention. My intentions or direction are not intended to offend people. I cuss and use vulgar words out of context sure, yet the reason why I use them are within context as far as seeing which people focus so much on how I say something, than what I am saying. I'm not cussing up a storm, I've used fuck probably 15 times on this site, maybe more.
Either way, I do not brag about my experiences, I simply believe and have confidence in my thoughts, do you not have confidence in your beliefs?
I really do not care if you reply to my responses or not, I cannot control you nor anyone else but myself.
Do you even know a format of debate which includes formal speech as far as possible. And you are the type that never admits you are wrong since you keep saying those 'my belief' nonsense. The topic is 'Why do scientists claim that Evolution is a fact when its actually a theory?'
And apparently the right answer is that it is a thoery that has been proven correct multiple times enough to be considered fact. THERE!. DISAGREE OR NOT STATE YOUR FACT. Don't put contradicting statements to show how unique you are if so then take it somewhere else. 'Skywh(whoever the fuck it is)' I have my initials spelt in it and probably so do you. And I would love nothing more than to rip your heart out. I have nothing against the word but use it wisely.
I am the type that admits I am wrong as much as I admit I am right. You obviously have a problem with that. I say "skywh (whoever the fuck it is)" and you want to rip my heart out. That's fine with me, i'm sure you're not the first person who has wanted to rip my heart out. Ask my ex girlfriend or perhaps ask an American hating person overseas somewhere who hates Americans. I'm positive there are people out there who would like only to rip your heart out. Welcome.
Once again, I do not intend to offend you I simply use my words in context already set before my response. I retaliate in accordance to words of others.
I do believe all of life was created, this is where the roads separate. You obviously dont. And I still believe humans are earthy origin, just as the single cell "in the beginning" of the universe was from the universe origin.
Evolution relies on evidence, your position does not.
The difference between you and I are I feel we were placed here, or rather, something started everything; aka the "domino effect".
But you have no evidence to bring forth that would justify that belief.
In my opinion, I think the Miller Urey experiment has shed some light on this issue. Their experiment showed that amino acids (a basic building block of life) could be formed from inorganic materials.
So fuck off, my replies have MUCH to do with this topic.
Why are you so angry? Calm down, I'm never angry in my responses.
I am not angry, far from it. My choice of "vulgar" words just come out, without intent of anger. Besides I am not directing this portion of my words towards you, they were directed to skywh.
I say, the only differences between the two thoughts are that one (evolution) does not state whether a higher being created it, it just "was" and viola here we are, humans stemming from a previous existence of that single cell life form.
Genesis states that God created man from dust, then breathed life into him. Evolution says man was created through successive generations of natural selection. These are refuting.
To me both of these theories look very similar, in terms of LOGIC and how LOGIC work.
You are simplifying it way too much. If you leave it alone and don't contaminate it with your over simplification, then they refute each other. God says he created man from dust. Evolution says man was created through generations of natural selection over billions of years.
If you want to ignore all of that and say: Creationists believe we were created after other life forms were there before.
Evolutionists believe we were created after other life forms were there before.
then yes your statement would be logically sound, but it would also be an over simplification that ignores virtually all the details of the story of Adam and Eve and the Theory of Evolution.
So not, that does not work. Nor is it even honest to ignore such vast amounts of detail from both sides of the story.
1. They don't. Yeah you've got a lot of people saying it's fact but the real scientists aren't saying that.
2. Sometimes you can't really call something fact even though it's almost definitely true. In the scientific world theory is often the most solid something can be.
2. Sometimes you can't really call something fact even though it's almost definitely true.
Do you know what a scientific fact is? I'll post the definition for you:
an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)
If you had done your research, you would realize that fact does not equal absolute truth. But let's be honest, we know you don't do much research. That would be too burdensome for you after all.
While there is evidence for the subject of Evolution, it is only a theory. There is no definitive proof on the subject. Sure, we have EVIDENCE, but not absolute confirmation. How can we be sure? Have we watched a bird grow larger wings to survive its environment? No. Has God descended from the heavens and said he evolved us? No. There is no absolute confirmation of evolution, making it only a theory. (BTW, I believe in evolution, so dont have a go lol)
You must not know what a theory is. I'll post the definition for you:
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.
Pretty much it means that a theory is about as close to the truth as you can get. No theory is absolute, including the theory of gravity. But I don't see you doubting gravity, do I?
Have we watched a bird grow larger wings to survive its environment? No.
We have already witnessed macro evolution before.
Has God descended from the heavens and said he evolved us? No.
Correct. God says that he existed forever and created us from nothing. Definitely 5 billion times more believable and scientifically proven than that pesky evolution nonsense that actual scientists with real degrees keep promoting.
There is no absolute confirmation of evolution, making it only a theory.
I must ask, do you have any idea what you're talking about? You don't even know the definition of a theory in science. Only a theory? Seriously? I feel sorry for you...
(BTW, I believe in evolution, so dont have a go lol)
Then why do you seem to take the stance of "well, it hasn't been absolutely confirmed, so there's a chance it might be wrong..." ??
You havent answered what I said, so I repeat, a theory is an interpretation of facts it isnt actually factual it self thats why it is theory and may be wrong
"You must not know what a theory is. I'll post the definition for you:
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."
Yes. A theory is explanation based on facts. This. IS. Evolution. An explanation of what we have witnessed, backed by facts and evidence.
Pretty much it means that a theory is about as close to the truth as you can get. No theory is absolute, including the theory of gravity. But I don't see you doubting gravity, do I?
"Have we watched a bird grow larger wings to survive its environment? No.
We have already witnessed macro evolution before."
Have we? I didn't realise that we have witnessed somethng in our brief existance that takes thousands of years.
"Has God descended from the heavens and said he evolved us? No.
Correct. God says that he existed forever and created us from nothing. Definitely 5 billion times more believable and scientifically proven than that pesky evolution nonsense that actual scientists with real degrees keep promoting"
I think this bit is the best. I have already told you I believe in Evolution. I am an Atheist, I was using a religous perspective in m view to simply show other sides off to the rest of you. If you take that as a sign that I am Christian, I pity you. Real degrees? Watch out everybody, we have a badass over here. I have a real degree, so I think we'll leave that one here.
"There is no absolute confirmation of evolution, making it only a theory.
I must ask, do you have any idea what you're talking about? You don't even know the definition of a theory in science. Only a theory? Seriously? I feel sorry for you..."
No my friend, after this, I pity you.
"(BTW, I believe in evolution, so dont have a go lol)
Then why do you seem to take the stance of "well, it hasn't been absolutely confirmed, so there's a chance it might be wrong..." ??"
Because it is better to see both sides of the arguements then just not being able to see past your own narrow mind.
As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented. - talkorigins
Be glad that you were wrong! You learned something at least.
I think this bit is the best. I have already told you I believe in Evolution. I am an Atheist, I was using a religous perspective in m view to simply show other sides off to the rest of you. If you take that as a sign that I am Christian, I pity you. Real degrees? Watch out everybody, we have a badass over here. I have a real degree, so I think we'll leave that one here.
No, I did not think you were a christian. You seemed to be taking the position of "I believe in evolution, but we MUST REMEMBER guys that it's ONLY a theory and it could be wrong!". But this stance is foolish. You may as well be saying "I believe in heliocentric theory, but REMEMBER GUISE it's ONLY a theory so it could be wrong!". Please do think about the things you type.
May I ask what degree you have? I know it's not evolutionary biology.
No my friend, after this, I pity you.
I'm afraid you don't see the irony in this. You are the one who said "only a theory". As if Evolution can somehow become better than a theory. You're only advertising your ignorance on the subject.
Because it is better to see both sides of the arguements then just not being able to see past your own narrow mind.
Narrow mind? I've done the research, I've considered all sides, there is so far no credible alternative to evolution. Only baseless hypothesis that want to be believed on blind faith or pseudo science.
You pretend that evolution has a reasonable chance of being wrong, but this is simply not true. The Theory of Evolution is about as certain as heliocentric theory. Why aren't you doubting that we orbit the sun?
After all, by your logic, we might be wrong and the earth may in fact be the center of the universe.
creationism and evolution cannot exists side by side because creationism implies that all the animals where created before adam and eve. But this would not explained species that evolved since man
knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
I'll give you a challenge, come up with another theory and put it out to scientific review.
The only other explanation is that there is a world wide conspiracy that only Paleontologist, Biogeographists, Developmental biologists, Morphologists, and Geneticst and any other discipline whos research independently points to evolution are aware of.
ALL 99.85% OF THEM! RIGHT ACROSS THE WORLD. US, China, Iran, Pakistan, Europe, Russia, South Affrica, Egypt, South America, Middle East. etc etc.
How they manage to organise and maintain this conspiracy must take up most of their time.
We don't know if they are right or if they are wrong. A theory is a fact until materially proven wrong. All theories are thought as true by the scientist until proven wrong, not proven right.
It is still a theory. Why? May i ask who among here have seen the evolution? None of course.There are no witness accounts of evolution. Based on the fundamental laws of science. Observable data are presumed to be true if one may utilize human senses upon it. Thus if any one in this forum has seen, smelled, tasted, felt, or heard the evolution, speak, for him have i offended. Thus none will do so since the event was not seen upon contact and thus still assumed as a theory until a caveman time travels to tell the tale.
You another theists that doesn't know what scientific theory means?
May i ask who among here have seen the evolution? None of course.There are no witness accounts of evolution.
Same things can be said with god.
It is still a theory. Why? May i ask who among here have seen the evolution? None of course.There are no witness accounts of evolution. Based on the fundamental laws of science. Observable data are presumed to be true if one may utilize human senses upon it. Thus if any one in this forum has seen, smelled, tasted, felt, or heard the evolution, speak, for him have i offended. Thus none will do so since the event was not seen upon contact and thus still assumed as a theory until a caveman time travels to tell the tale
So you don't think gravity is real either? Oh and evolution has been observed.
Yes it is true that none have seen God in his true form. But his being manifests through his creations and teachings in the art of faith. Obviously gravity is real for it can be felt and observed.
I am not saying that there are no possibilities that evolution is possible. Science can explain many things but there still things that Science has not fully explained. Science is also a way to understand God through his creations.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Radioactive decay results from unstable reactions of elements from that we may say that radioactive decay results from elements. Then again, who crated the elements?
What created the the protons, neutrons, and electrons?
Alas these virtual particles have also started from something are they not? The farthest point from which Scientists theorize is the big bang theory. Then again, who or what started the big bang? We can say that it may be a probability of random phenomena but this randomness led to the creation of all things. Then why are these things created and what is the purpose of the creation of everything? Then, if this random scenarios of happened so easily, why are things the same after billions of years? Therefore we may say that there is an omnipotent being keeping things in check.
Its like an anchor. You can`t see it but its being is manifested in the surrounding observations. The ship does not move and stays afloat. Yet thee anchor is present but not seen. Just as our existence.
Based from the laws of Physics, matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So therefore basing it from the former it would mean that matter and energy was present in the start of the universe. Therefore what made them this way? Would saying that they were just present all this time fundamental enough to be a valid explanation?
Radioactive decay has no cause but their components came from something. Therefore the process would not take place if not for a motion that created its components.
"Virtual particles come into existence from nothingness"
Then would nothingness be valid enough for the human mind to accept as a fundamental reason for its existence. Surely its existence resulted from such an action. It may either be someone or something.
Based from the laws of Physics, matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So therefore basing it from the former it would mean that matter and energy was present in the start of the universe.
Different rules and laws apply for quantum physics.
Therefore what made them this way? Would saying that they were just present all this time fundamental enough to be a valid explanation?
If I were forced at gun point to come up with my absolute best guess based upon no evidence for the start of the universe? I would say it is one of two things.
1. That there is an infinite series of universes, each hitting against each other every once in a while, therefore creating another universe and this continues for infinity.
2. That virtual particles gave rise to the universe.
Don't ask me to defend them though. They are blind speculation based on no evidence.
Radioactive decay has no cause but their components came from something. Therefore the process would not take place if not for a motion that created its components.
You're only adding an extra unnecessary step though by saying radioactive decay must have some sort of prior mover. Then all you have to ask is what caused the thing that caused radioactive decay?
Then would nothingness be valid enough for the human mind to accept as a fundamental reason for its existence. Surely its existence resulted from such an action. It may either be someone or something.
If that is what the evidence shows, then it has to be.
As for whether it may be something or someone, we have no reason to believe it is a someone. We have reason to believe it was a something, for that is how every natural process in the universe is. Something caused that natural process.
"Different rules and laws apply for quantum physics."
It would only mean that Science in itself contradicts its own laws. Such as different theories about the universe such as the big bang theory and the infinity theory. Therefore much is still unknown regarding the origin of man as we know it.
"If I were forced at gun point to come up with my absolute best guess based upon no evidence for the start of the universe? I would say it is one of two things.
1. That there is an infinite series of universes, each hitting against each other every once in a while, therefore creating another universe and this continues for infinity.
2. That virtual particles gave rise to the universe.
Don't ask me to defend them though. They are blind speculation based on no evidence."
These are good guesses my friend but such things are only considered theories and i am sure you treat them as such. Since no further evidence is present to back these up.
"You're only adding an extra unnecessary step though by saying radioactive decay must have some sort of prior mover. Then all you have to ask is what caused the thing that caused radioactive decay?"
What i meant was that for a process to take place, its components must be present enough for it to take place. Therefore what would be the origin of these components such that would pave the way for this process?
"If that is what the evidence shows, then it has to be.
As for whether it may be something or someone, we have no reason to believe it is a someone. We have reason to believe it was a something, for that is how every natural process in the universe is. Something caused that natural process."
We also have also have a reason to believe that it is someone since it is indeed lacking of evidence. There may also be a possibility that these natural processes may result from the actions of a what or a who. Nothing is certain but beliefs shine light upon what is dully revealed.
It would only mean that Science in itself contradicts its own laws.
I know of no two scientific laws that contradict with each other. Each scientific law applies to its own set of special circumstances regarding the natural world.
Such as different theories about the universe such as the big bang theory and the infinity theory
Theories are not laws, therefore they are not examples of science contradicting its own laws. Competing theories does not mean science contradicts with itself either. Competing theories just means that there are multiple possibilities for this certain aspect of reality, and that more evidence is needed to figure out which of the theories explains the phenomena most accurately.
Since no further evidence is present to back these up.
Then why do some people believe in god, despite no evidence?
Therefore what would be the origin of these components such that would pave the way for this process?
I don't know the answers to these questions, and neither does anyone else. Nobody knows how the universe began.
We also have also have a reason to believe that it is someone since it is indeed lacking of evidence.
If the "someone" is lacking in evidence, how do we have reason to believe it was "someone" ?
There may also be a possibility that these natural processes may result from the actions of a what or a who.
I'm not ruling out god's existence as outright impossible. I am only saying that based on the evidence we have, as well as lack of evidence for god's existence, it can be reasonably concluded with a good degree of certainty that no god exists.
Nothing is certain but beliefs shine light upon what is dully revealed.
Beliefs have no affect on the truth. If the answer to 2+2 is 4, but all 7 billion people on the planet believe it's 5, the answer is still going to be 4. Therefore, belief has no bearing on the truth.
In religion truth is only a single aspect of it. Having religion does not require any proof that there is certainty in our beliefs. It may look stupid to some intellectuals but it has some sort of benefit in its own way. It triggers emotions in human beings to face the challenges in daily life. Believing in someone that would take care of you somewhat helps. Even though you don`t see it and it has no proof, it gives us Christians a calmness that everything will be alright even though things get out of hand. You may not feel it since you have different beliefs but I take no offense of your decision.
No, this doesn't make sense. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. We know that evolution happens, we've observed it. It doesn't "graduate" the word theory and become the "Law of Evolution". Evolution has already been confirmed thousands if not millions of times.
Scientists do not just do things for a temporary period of time, they're always trying to learn things.
