eChipmunks - Another lesson for christians on "theory"..?

Another lesson for christians on "theory"..?

The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts: Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago; Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history; Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors; Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change. Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

Public Comments

fancy way of admitting a theory is not fact comparing evolution theory to gravity? nice touch! only, gravity is a contiuous fact and evolution is still just a theory. Hey evolution guy? How does evolution explain the more than 2000 distinct languages and the various dialects within, not to mention the vastly different rules of grammar within those 1000's of languages? Oh right, evolution has never even attempted this question that is reasonably adressed in the one book called the Bible.
ding! fries are done!
Yes and modern man evolved from Adam and Eve. That is, of course, unless you can TANGIBLY PROVE that without any aid or assistances pools of inorganic chemicals can produce organics. We've NEVER observed that in real world situations. It is simply a theory. A theory that has about as much proof as God, hence God is also a valid theory.
Have you looked at the fossil evidence, evolution just cannot be proved, and it should be with fossils but it is not there or dont you know how to read.
they are not all "facts" because science has alll ready proven carbondating is not true and that is how they came to the conclusion the earth is 2 billion years old...if carbondating has been disproven what is next...Science is its own worse enemy
Ok - evolution is a viable theory. I also belive in the Big Bang origin of the universe. But the history of the universe, or life on earth, is not a religion topic - it's natural science. Those who think evolution disproves Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or native American religions are simply misguided. Some of these misguided people are athiests trying to disprove religions - some of the misguided people are religious people trying to "defend their faith." Both are fighting a battle over ground that is meaningless.
I didn't see a question but I'm with you. At least theories about evolution make sense. Unlike the theists theories about a man in the sky with a stone book with everyones name on it. Sounds like Zues and his thunderbolts theory went out the window a long time ago. Get ready for the rest of the theist theories to go bybye in the same fashion. It is unavoidable.
One thing you state to be a "fact" is not. Natural selection was Charles Darwin's contribution to the theory of evolution, but it has not been supported well by the fossil evidence. It accounts for change within species, but not for the development of new species. But as a Christian, thanks for the lesson. Here's a lesson for you: the word "Christian" should be capitalized.
i stopped reading here ---> Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago; not fact ... conjecture ...
It is very hard to prove theories in things such as biology because biology is so varied there are almost always exceptions which prevent biological theories from becoming laws. One example is the cell theory, however, viruses are an exception. As the first cell would have as well. So when people say ha, evolution is only a theory they should realize that it is so hard to make a law in the field of biology.
The word theory, in context of science and religion, ultimately does not mean proof. By your own definition then, the theory of God exists and does not imply uncertainty. It may be that life appeared on earth more than 2 billion years ago, but your "fact" does not say who created this life. Life forms indeed have changed, but does not explain who created this life. The "fact" is, you cannot explain, even by a "coherent group of general propositions" how life got started. You can with science explain how life has changed and mutated but you cannot explain the initial spark. The "theory" of God has alslo proved itself in practice, it has useful applications in all areas as well :) But thanks for the "lesson" anyway.
Evolution occurs, this is a fact. But there are different kinds of evolution, amongst one is punctuated equilibria. This theory of evolution suggests that evolution occurs in sporadic bursts followed by no change. But Charles Darwin's theory has serious flaws in it. He mentioned it in a letter to his friend that several "links" were missing from that chain.
Hey, just quit it. God has spoken to men: "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken ..." (Isa. 1:2) He seeks men to know Him: "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." (John 4:23) He has spoken through His Son: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" (Heb. 1:1-2). He gave His Son so that dying men might live: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16). Men can have a future life only through God's gift: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 6:23). He has a purpose with men and the earth: "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isa. 45:18, 23). There is a glorious future not only for men but for the earth: "And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word: But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD." (Num. 14:20-21).
Evolution is a fact. God is a myth.
Fact: The scientific method was first developed and advocated by Sir Francis Bacon. He was Christian. Fact: You are pedantic. Fact: You cannot answer this question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsP6AdWY21BE7obpBoMvx2nd7BR.?qid=20070518191333AA8l76U
Most Christians got about two sentences into your question and picked up "The Bible in Pictures" instead.
Let'sTorque... I have a question for you. Why are evolutionist--those who are supposed to be scientifically-minded--as evangelical as the creationists these days? Does it matter whose creation myth I believe? Frankly, I'm tired of this argument--both sides. If either side were so confident about their viewpoint, they wouldn't keep trying to push it off on others. Fact is, Faith is Faith--be that a faith in a higher intelligence or faith in a human system.
who cares what christians think. the people banning science books are not on here so all you're doing is pissing off people who like to listen to hymns on their way work. who cares how we got here. let's worry about what we are doing while we're here. i'm starting my own religion about how we should all drink and worship the pretty girl who just brought you another drink (if you want you can insert handsome guy but i myself prefer pretty girl) and that the inventor of sake is the most divine person to walk the face of the earth. alcohol is older than religion and science so screw you both. you can have sex with or marry whoever you want, noone will tell you that you're stupid because of a study some dead guy did and you only have to believe me if you really want to, no pressure at all.
I will make a conscious decision, that despite the insults hurled from yourself on people who have a different view trying to prompt narrow minded Christians with little background in the area to make angry replies and look to the world like they are intolerant and stupid, to not address your opinions and instead offer a reasonable explanation for why some people have a different point of view. Everyone accepts that things change. Despite the backlash of some people about certain terms being used for description they still accept that everything changes over time. The problem I have with believing macro evolution is that there just is not sufficient evidence of it actually happening. There has been plenty of documented micro evolution but what you are describing above is a viewpoint just as valid as a view of creation. Both lack solid evidence that can be re-created in a lab. The difference is that creation does not try to claim that. For evolution (of the macro variety) to actually become a theory scientifically it would have to be tested in some way and it simply cannot because it would occur over millions of years. This holds the "theory" of macro evolution to actually being a hypotheses. People who want to push this idea lump it together with micro evolution by just saying evolution because micro evolution is an actual theory ( a tested framework for explaining a phenomenon). I fully believe in micro evolution and also fully believe in creation as the best explanation for not only how life came to be but also what the purpose of life is. Without this world-view I have a very hard time understanding human values and the structure of society. I also have a hard time understanding where everything came from. To reach my main point in this is that science can only explain what it can test and some people have taken science to try to prove what science just cannot prove.
You aren't saying anything that both we and they don't know. They will continue to trot out the "It's just a Theory" non-argument as if it hasn't been debunked a thousand times a day.