Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Wikipedia is not a scientific site, better to read true science websites
-
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!
If Theory of Darwin is fact, not theory, then Darwin Theory is wrong in its title already?
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
I can help here......
The TOE is a scientific theory because it is testable,
ie, it has predictions which could be verified or falsified..
It is also a fact because it has been tested so much
with no failure that it rises to the level of being factual.
Moreover, there are no competing theories.
I also caution against reading phrases to label of things,
& taking each word literally in a manner which misunderstands
what is labeled. Imagine applying literalism to "atomic wedgie".
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I have my own definitions.
The theory of evolution is a biological theory about how species change over time.
Cosmology, the Big bang scenario, and the formation of structure (galaxies, stars, etc) are NOT part of the theory of evolution. There are some who try to confuse the issue and merge them, but they tend to have a non-scientific axe to grind.
Not by anyone actually familiar with any of those.
The Big Bang theory is cosmology.
The 'theory of cosmic evolution' isn't a term from any cosmology text, although it certainly could mean the changes in structure of the universe over time.
Darwin's theory is about biology and has been changed and extended in the 150 years since Darwin.
Social Darwinism is a false concept of social systems that is at best loosely tied to Darwin's ideas.
Of these, only Darwin's ideas and extensions are *correctly* described as the Theory of Evolution. The rest are completely different subjects.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
That's completely wrong. That's the definition made by Creationists.
Since the theory of thermodynamics as well as gravity also applies to big bang and cosmology, which means then that gravity is wrong too and heat doesn't exist.
Last edited:
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Wrong. Social Darwinism is bs pseudo-science and not valid even a little.
BBT and C.E. are Astrophysics. ZIP to do with Biology.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
To those, who wants this thread to be murdered: it is the sub-forum, there are present both Creational Scientists and Darwinists.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Here are some definition of the Theory of Evolution:
What is evolution?
What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?
And I could go on.
Now provide a link and quote to a source that included Big Bang, Social Darwinism and all other things you claim belongs in ToE, and I'm quite certain it'll be a website or source from a Creationist group. Your definition, or the Creationist definition, isn't the same one as the one used by the actual scientists. If you want to criticize something, do it on their own turf, their own ground, not based on what you want it to be. Don't use definitions that are wrong and misleading, because that's just creates strawman arguments.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
But what your theory presents here, is not Darwinism or creationism or? it is your own theory.
Maybe it should be called the theory of Questfortruth?
Keep in mind: there’s been many superseded theories!
And micro evolution — even macro evolution between Genera — has supporting evidence.
But one of these discoveries that Darwinists use for evidence — genetic similarities — is flawed. Based on genes, we’re more closely related to bananas than honey bees.
Go figure.
We’re closer cousins to a Plantae-Kingdom organism, than to an Animalia-Kingdom lifeform!
Source: Scientists Map Acorn Worm DNA, And Learn A Lot About Humans In The Process | HuffPost
The similarities in genetics, is evidence that only one blueprint was used (from only one Engineer and Designer), as opposed to several blueprints from many different Sources.
Last edited:
And that is why you fail.
Only if it rose to the level of being a hypothesis, let alone a theory.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, that is the claim of well known conman, ironically ex-con, and well known idiot Kent Hovind.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
"Creational Scientists" is both an oxymoron and poor English.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Well, it does at least indirectly.
I disagree. Think about it...
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
How pathetic. questfortruth has had the meaning of a scientific theory explained to him dozens of times, yet he CONSTANTLY starts the exact same OP over and over again. Truly sad.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
ROFL... which is why you are always so consistently WRONG.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Their relationship is so weak that cosmology could be completely wrong and evolution could still be true.
Imagine a God that created the universe, and then he/she/it/they created evolution to produce life. It's not an impossible or contradictory scenario, hence, the relationship between cosmology and evolution is very circumstantial. Just think about that evolution was discussed and reasoned before big bang theory and modern cosmology even existed in Darwin's time.
The issue most anti-evolutionists have isn't with evolution, but with naturalism. Naturalism requires that cosmology, evolution, and so on are all true, that all things came into being without a divine influence. But even then, deism suggests that God kicked off the big bang and then it all happened on its own, so you can actually have a god-belief and still believe naturalism to be true.