Evolution debate.

[The Buttery Biscuit Base]

Why are people still misusing the term theory, in a scientific sense.

hypothesis:

1. a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further verification (working hypothesis) or accepted as likely to be true. Compare theory5
2. an assumption used in an argument without its being endorsed; a supposition
3. (Logic) an unproved theory; a conjecture
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypothesis

Theory:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

To sum it up:

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

To be able to distinguish between the two is the very basis of this discussion...

 

[symyjym]

If God exists, does religion misrepresent the truth of a God?

 

[Nibble]

There's been loads of these type of debates in recent years. Stephen Fry, Hitchens's, various reverands, George Galloway, Dawkins etc. It's all to sell their books. There is simply no debate. It's a tired, irreconcileable, dull debate for those with very little imagination. You believe one or the other.

 

[CheeseRolls]

It is a theory because it is not yet completely understood or proven. A good example would be the role of random mutations in natural selection which are a key component of Darwinist evolution. It's increasingly seeming that the mutations aren't random at all, but instead are "direct mutations" which mean mutations in organisms respond to their environment rather than just randomly occur.

With all due respect, I was hoping to illicit a response from topbanana. For sure Darwin was expounding a theory, which has been put to the test for the last 150 years. However I would argue the proof for evolution lies in identifying a common ancestry and not in the mechanics of natural selection.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I don't disagree with any of that, my point was that how many people who claim to believe the Big Bang Theory on here understand it. I doubt there are many so for the others it just comes down to faith in strangers and a belief that what those strangers are doing is right.

The other point was that some of the assumptions that we are asked to make when considering the Big Bang Theory are just as mind-blowing as the idea of intelligent design. "There was nothing forever and then there was a big bang and then everything was created." Err..okay.

the thing about the big bang theory (and with all scientific theories) is that they are continually testable. Many of the ramifications of the theorised process throw up testable effects that have subsequently been proven to be correct.

For example, the distribution of the microwave background radiation left over from the very early stages of the inflation phase (very very hot) was predicted and subsequently (accidentally) discovered to be exactly as expected.

Other things such as the ratio of helium to hydrogen in the observable universe is also agrees with the levels dictated by the theorised process.

There is of course a lot of funky physics involved, but a whole raft of physical laws / theories revolve around the processes during the first moments of our uninverse including the search for the fundamental building blocks of everything, such as the Higgs field and the elusive Higgs Boson.

Clearly I'm not clever enough to derive the Big Bang theorty from first principles on my own, and there is a large element of relying upon much cleverer people who have done. However, I HAVE taken the time to read various publications from scientific authors who have gone to great lengths to explain their theories and the processes under-pinning them.

I am openly athiest (glad I don't live in the US) and trust the scientific method and the techniques it utilises. Having been brought up Catholic I asoon realised that you could ride a coach and horses through the gaps and errors in the biblical / creation myth; which is simply a relic of our ancient past, from a time when we marvelled at the heavens and saw gods all around us, as a way of explaining why nature seems so cruel - whereas in reality it's pitilessly indifferent.

 

[Buzzer]

the thing about the big bang theory (and with all scientific theories) is that they are continually testable. Many of the ramifications of the theorised process throw up testable effects that have subsequently been proven to be correct.

For example, the distribution of the microwave background radiation left over from the very early stages of the inflation phase (very very hot) was predicted and subsequently (accidentally) discovered to be exactly as expected.

Other things such as the ratio of helium to hydrogen in the observable universe is also agrees with the levels dictated by the theorised process.

There is of course a lot of funky physics involved, but a whole raft of physical laws / theories revolve around the processes during the first moments of our uninverse including the search for the fundamental building blocks of everything, such as the Higgs field and the elusive Higgs Boson.

Clearly I'm not clever enough to derive the Big Bang theorty from first principles on my own, and there is a large element of relying upon much cleverer people who have done. However, I HAVE taken the time to read various publications from scientific authors who have gone to great lengths to explain their theories and the processes under-pinning them.

I am openly athiest (glad I don't live in the US) and trust the scientific method and the techniques it utilises. Having been brought up Catholic I asoon realised that you could ride a coach and horses through the gaps and errors in the biblical / creation myth; which is simply a relic of our ancient past, from a time when we marvelled at the heavens and saw gods all around us, as a way of explaining why nature seems so cruel - whereas in reality it's pitilessly indifferent.

I'm not saying science is wrong - Bold Seagull's reply to me is spot on, I'm just saying that some of the concepts that science relies on in its models are as mind-blowing (to me anyway) as the concept of intelligent design. Take the concept of 'before time'. I know that it can be described scientifically - I even studied a bit of this when I was at University - but it doesn't make it any less esoteric, beautiful and beyond my comprehension.

And that's why I'm agnostic.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

One of the common mistakes creationists make is to suggest that because science can't explain everything, then creationism is true. This ignores the fact that just because science can't explain something, it doesn't mean creationism is the only alternative. It's patently not.

I don't want to be offensive, but in my opinion anyone who actually 100% believes in creationism is either thick or stubborn.

 

[Nibble]

Religious faith is okay, if you mean it and it makes yours and other people's lives better, fair enough. Don't for one second insult both our intelligence by trying to convince me any of it is actually true though.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

It is my understanding that God exists in some form. Through science, philosophy and good old fashioned intuition I have reached that conclusion..

How have you come to that understanding? Were you unaware of the God hypothesis, and there to be no mention of a God in any literature would you reach the same conclusion, or are you simply trying to fit the observations to a hypothesis?

 

[daveinprague]

Alien visitors in our distant past make more sense than a 'god'.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Alien visitors in our distant past make more sense than a 'god'.

I'm reading Zecharia Sitchin's classic The 12th Planet. Some crazy ideas, but a lot of very meticulous analysis of biblical / Sumerian / Mesopotanian / Egyptian / Greek myth, histories and pictoral records.

Edit: But you're right - these theories are more plausible than the belief that there is an invisible voyeur impassively watching our every move and thought.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Evidence of intelligent life has, allegedly, been found on Mars, but is, apparently, being suppressed by NASA, because of the effect it will have in destabilising existing religious beliefs.

A few interesting photos taken by NASA and the ESA in the following link. I'm just open minded, not a conspiracy theorist, by the way.

http://www.secretmars.com/the evidence

 

[daveinprague]

like this little gem...

 

[Don Quixote]

Incorrect. The book was written 200 years after Christ but 4200 years after their so called creation theory started!



His beliefs would seem to uphold the suggestion he is an idiot. (in my opinion)


As for the debate itself, surely Ham shoots himself in the foot with his idea that secularist have hijacked science and then he goes on to differentiate between observational science and historical science and argues that as you want there to prove evolution or the big bang then you can't prove it. But doesn't that completely destroy his own beliefs as the people who wrote the bible weren't there at the beginning either!!!

Religion is a load of old cock purely to pacify people who are scared of death and don't trust their own judgement and hide behind 'the will of god'.

I am quite certain that the old testament was written long before jesus was alive,

 

[daveinprague]

I'm reading Zecharia Sitchin's classic The 12th Planet. Some crazy ideas, but a lot of very meticulous analysis of biblical / Sumerian / Mesopotanian / Egyptian / Greek myth, histories and pictoral records.

Edit: But you're right - these theories are more plausible than the belief that there is an invisible voyeur impassively watching our every move and thought.

It just seems to make a lot more sense.
Think religion is just a control tool to keep people in line personally.

 

[El Presidente]

Evidence of intelligent life has, allegedly, been found on Mars, but is, apparently, being suppressed by NASA, because of the effect it will have in destabilising existing religious beliefs.

A few interesting photos taken by NASA and the ESA in the following link. I'm just open minded, not a conspiracy theorist, by the way.

http://www.secretmars.com/the evidence

Has intelligent life been found in Croydon?

 

[Don Quixote]

It just seems to make a lot more sense.
Think religion is just a control tool to keep people in line personally.

Don't you think Atheism is too?

 

[daveinprague]

Don't you think Atheism is too?

Not sure that not believing in fairy tales is particularly dangerous is it? ...Or maybe it is...

 

[Nibble]

Gods/Religion/Faith are a hangover from when less developed peoples couldn't explain natural phenomena and early farmers who wanted a good harvest. That's all.

The early religions worshipped earth and the seasons for what they symbolised and celebrated them for the food and rebirth they gave. Makes sense.

I really don't think it helps us to be believing in Gods at this stage in our evolution and it's really not a tool for bettering the human race.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Don't you think Atheism is too?

Atheism is the absence of belief in God. It has no other defining or qualifying criteria. There is no unifying characterisation of who can be an atheist other than not believing in God. How can this be a control tool?