First Baseman
Retired athlete
No, lol, I don't doubt the existence of germs. I have never read anything about this theory you mention. Do you have a link?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Big Bang or Evolution have more direct evidence
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
No, lol, I don't doubt the existence of germs. I have never read anything about this theory you mention. Do you have a link?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/germtheory.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
You laugh at that, but it is "only a theory" as you say.
Then there's this:
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
Is this a Poe, or are you really being serious? How many times do we have to explain what a scientific theory is, and that theories can also be facts?
When we use the term in something like "theory of evolution," we are not using it in the colloquial sense of conjecture. What, in your opinion, would be a fact?
SkepticThinker said: ↑
How about germ theory? Is that a fact? Or do you doubt the existence of germs because it's
"just a theory?"
Apparently our baseman's just popped in from the 17th century, to judge from his apparent scientific literacy.
How about germ theory? Is that a fact? Or do you doubt the existence of germs because it's
"just a theory?"
Apparently our baseman's just popped in from the 17th century, to judge from his apparent scientific literacy.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Theories are not "facts," they are models of interpretation that have heuristic value and predictive efficacy. There is far more varied relevant data for evolutionary theory than for the Big Bang theory. But that is both a strength and weakness for evolution in this comparison. It is a strength for evolution in the sense that this theory generates far more predictions that can then be tested. It is a weakness in that evolutionary theory, though impressive, can be exposed to crippling weaknesses that don't encumber the Big Bang theory.
Microbiologist Michael Behe has effectively exposed some of these weaknesses at the cellular level by his case for irreducible complexity in various microscopic molecular machines like the flagellum. He was even subjected to a court case on this--a kind of Salem witch hunt, but I see no credible explanations from orthodox evolutionists that effectively counter his case. Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box," has never to my mind been adequately countered. Irreducible complexity refers to the fact that certain microscopic systems utilize machine like components whose parts are each essential to function and cannot plausibly be conceived as the result of slow, gradual, incremental, adaptive change.
Similarly Oxford biologist Rupert Sheldrake has countered conventional evolutionary theory with a fascinating defense of "morphic resonance" as a key component of evolution. The fact is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but only with the development of life forms once life emerges. And consciousness is a relevant but scientifically unknown variable, whose relevance to random selection and genetic mutation is unknown. Threads on both Behe and Sheldrake would, I think, be very stimulating and productive. There are several YouTube videos for both.
It won't do to solve all these problems by simplistically appealing to the vast period of time life has been evolving on earth.
Microbiologist Michael Behe has effectively exposed some of these weaknesses at the cellular level by his case for irreducible complexity in various microscopic molecular machines like the flagellum. He was even subjected to a court case on this--a kind of Salem witch hunt, but I see no credible explanations from orthodox evolutionists that effectively counter his case. Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box," has never to my mind been adequately countered. Irreducible complexity refers to the fact that certain microscopic systems utilize machine like components whose parts are each essential to function and cannot plausibly be conceived as the result of slow, gradual, incremental, adaptive change.
Similarly Oxford biologist Rupert Sheldrake has countered conventional evolutionary theory with a fascinating defense of "morphic resonance" as a key component of evolution. The fact is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but only with the development of life forms once life emerges. And consciousness is a relevant but scientifically unknown variable, whose relevance to random selection and genetic mutation is unknown. Threads on both Behe and Sheldrake would, I think, be very stimulating and productive. There are several YouTube videos for both.
It won't do to solve all these problems by simplistically appealing to the vast period of time life has been evolving on earth.
Last edited:
Faronator
Genetically Engineered
So your source is a public funded organization trying to sell something?
Carbon dating? Fossils? Sedimentation? Any of that make sense to you? Either you have a mental handicap or you refuse to acknowledge the truth. With a response and source like that - you should stick to fastballs and chewing tobacco.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Did you notice that they mentioned that they had proved things in the Harvard article? There is no such rigid proof in the theory of macro-evolution or Big Bang Theory or relativity. That is what I'm talking about. There is a big difference between a theory that has been proved and ones that haven't.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Opinion noted. If you refuse to review the evidence presented then that's on you.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Why would you even put them up for comparison? I can't think of any legitimate reason and it would be disappointing if your only aim was to trigger the pointless argument that inevitably occurred.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Secularists often resort to name calling and such when they have been shown to be wrong. Oh well.
McBell
Unbound
Except in this case you have not shown anyone to be wrong.
You have only further revealed your own ignorance.
I take that back.
You also revealed that you are not interested in truth or fact and are overly proud of your ignorance.
Sadly, instead of learning anything, I suspect you are merely going to whine and try playing the martyr.
Rather difficult to take you seriously/.
Faronator
Genetically Engineered
I prefer unbiased evidence not someone trying to sell me something or promising to prove something to me...after I spend money.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Que sera sera.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
There is no such thing as an absence of bias among men. Good luck with that.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life. If you do not know Him you cannot know truth. This explains your confusion.
McBell
Unbound
Faronator
Genetically Engineered
What about tribes that have never even HEARD of organized religion much less HIM? They don't know the truth about.....
McBell
Unbound
Because it seems people believe in evolution for the most part and not so much the Big Bang, yet they both have direct evidence. I even thought the Big Bang easier to prove cause with evolution we can't take pictures of the past like we can with the cosmos though fossil record is super close to that criteria.