Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[Valjean]

while 3 totally unguided random frequencies have effectively a 100% chance of sounding horrible

Guy, I'm not following you at all. What are you talking about?

So micro v macro is a big deal, there IS an inherently fundamental difference.

This I've seen before -- the notion that small changes can't accumulate to produce big changes.
Macro is just an accumulation of micro changes.

Well, there is an politician that were campaigning about making Evolution theory into facts. And so somebody need to tell him and corporation that is sponsoring him to let them know that it is facts, not assumptions anymore. Do you know what are facts? Facts is something that is proven to be that cannot be change or disputed over. Like the sky is blue, that is a fact, not an assumption. But theories has sent a lot of people into prison for life that weren't true, but the little amount of factual evidence that they had pieced together to come up with their own theory which are assumptions. And so if you want to go around claiming that evolution is facts but not a theory; and so then that you go should go to one of them science boards and complain to them about changing theories into facts.

The theory of evolution is both theory and fact -- they are not mutually exclusive. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Facts are not "...something that is proven..." Science does not prove things, that's the job of mathematics.
A theory, in science, is not like a theory in a courtroom or in everyday speech. It does not mean conjecture or guesswork. In science it has a different, technical definition.

 

[PackJason]

"Believe" isn't the right word. I understand and accept the fact of evolution by random mutation and non-random natural selection.

This is called The Theory of Evolution as a simplified term.

 

[PackJason]

I don't even know what most of the other stuff you listed is about ... but it looks like gibberish.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

people insist in believing that scientific theories means speculations.
In that case my theory is that they are idiots.

 

[habiru]

What is this idiot's name?

You look!, we have found the missing link and it is breathing.

How in the world are we going to fit this into the link?

I don't think it's possible to be removed or separated from
the presence of an omnipresent being. So the whole "hell-
as-separation-from-God" idea is pretty much DOA.



-

That's a very beautiful parable but to reiterate my main point I still fail to understand how we are not under law

I see much of that scripture as being from the perspective
of the individual person. I don't think God actually shuts
anyone out or forgets anyone.

If Psalm 139:7-12 has anything to say about it, one can't
be outside of His presence even if they tried.




-

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

 

[habiru]

people insist in believing that scientific theories means speculations.
In that case my theory is that they are idiots.

But then why is it is still called theory not like the rest of the scientific facts?

 

[بِسْم الله]

Even if these scientific theories are actually scientific fact, cant that be the way that God has made these aspects of his creation to operate. These evidences are just observations of the creation of God.

 

[بِسْم الله]

It's almost as if "science-minded" people think that because they can explain how something works that means they have explained who made it

 

[PackJason]

But then why is it is still called theory not like the rest of the scientific facts?

You need to learn the difference between a scientific theory and the word "theory" as used in common language.

 

[PackJason]

Even if these scientific theories are actually scientific fact, cant that be the way that God has made these aspects of his creation to operate. These evidences are just observations of the creation of God.

This is a much better way of looking at it than just denying the science in my opinion.

 

[PackJason]

It's almost as if "science-minded" people think that because they can explain how something works that means they have explained who made it

Many of us don't presume that there had to be a "who."

 

[بِسْم الله]

This is the teachings of Islam that with all due respect seems to be rejected by other religions. From my observation many religious people view these two realms as contradictory. Religious and scientific. As if there is some competition going on. Muslims believe that Allah created all things. If it exists Allah created it. Allah has also subjugated that creation to us and given us the intelligence and ability to observe and utilize what he has created. There is no contradiction or competition.

 

[بِسْم الله]

Regarding the who, as part of observing the natural world around us we deduce logical rulings by which we are forced to operate. I.e. If I saw a building I would assume it had an architect

 

[YmirGF]

It's almost as if "science-minded" people think that because they can explain how something works that means they have explained who made it

We don't presume there was a who involved in the making.

 

[PackJason]

Regarding the who, as part of observing the natural world around us we deduce logical rulings by which we are forced to operate. I.e. If I saw a building I would assume it had an architect

Yeah, this is an age-old argument. The problem with it is that one is still left with the problem of explaining who created the creator.

 

[بِسْم الله]

For that building to not have an architect it invalidate reason. If we invalidate reason observation becomes a mute point. If we accept randomness pinpointing cause and effect would be irrelevant. It would disturb the natural order of logic and reason. It's a contradictory approach

 

[YmirGF]

Regarding the who, as part of observing the natural world around us we deduce logical rulings by which we are forced to operate. I.e. If I saw a building I would assume it had an architect

Anthropomorphic projection much?

 

[PackJason]

For that building to not have an architect it invalidate reason. If we invalidate reason observation becomes a mute point. If we accept randomness pinpointing cause and effect would be irrelevant. It would disturb the natural order of logic and reason. It's a contradictory approach

So then it invalidates reason to claim that god didn't have a creator.

 

[بِسْم الله]

And this concept is the pivot point. We say God is. He was never created. I assume you would disagree, but this is our belief. We can both agree I think, that every created thing has a creator.

 

[بِسْم الله]

So then it invalidates reason to claim that god didn't have a creator.

The key difference is that God is not a created thing. The creation/creator paradigm is not applied because God wasn't created