Scientific theory isn't science people.
Nuclear physics isn't science.

Evolution has been tested time and time again and it has produced the same results.
I have told you exactly that already. Why don't you listen?

Auriel, we don't have an attitude towards you because you believe in something different from anyone else, we here in Gnet are a freakin' fruit salad of different beliefs. It is your attitude that faith and science are related that is under criticism.

We are NOT trying to persuade you from your belief, we are trying to argue the point against classifying science and faith together.


Most here do have respect. There are occasional trolls and jerks and whatnot but in this thread in terms of the issue, it is not personal disrespect but logic and reason we are defending (or refuting). This really can be an interesting discussion but it means that if you put your personal beliefs out in public to be viewed, you have the opportunity (and risk) of learning something new or at least different from other people with vastly different upbringing and experience than what you have.

You believe what you do because you were brought up that way, and to read other people questioning that upbringing with raw observation and critiques can be unnerving, but it is also exhilarating when we realize the truth and find ourselves standing in the light of that truth.

But you are absolutely correct in standing firm in your personal belief in terms of faith. In terms of science however, we must accept whatever the known facts reveal and conclude.

I am a Christian whose life was saved by becoming a follower of Jesus, but I can also tell you that the critical thinking applied by Goths and others here does not give Goths a bad name, it gives them credit to their higher faculties and powers of observation, and gives them a bloody good name.

These are the kinds of minds that question authority, and that is a good thing to the benefit of all.

I like how you explain things.

It's a scientific theory, just like big bang cosmology or plate tectonics. You don't have to be able to recreate the entire phenomenon in every particular under controlled laboratory conditions. You just have to have reproducible results from experiments which yield information about observable physical phenomena.

Theories are a part of science. The theory of gravity is still the theory of gravity, but that hardly means it's unscientific.

Why should your religious beliefs be entitled to "respect" (which apparently means, "silent deference"). Think about it. Everything else in public discourse - politics, art, whatever, is open to questioning. It's only with religion that we've had this idea that you're not allowed to talk about it (which I'm happy to say, is rapidly crumbling). Why should that be the case?

My favorite Onion article of all time:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I can provide definitions and bold the relevant ones, as well...

Theory:

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

When you use the word "theory," you're using the second definition I listed above. The problem is that since we're talking about science, that definition does not apply, whereas the definition that I put in bold do apply.

We all believe something different. Some of us are Christian. Some of us are pagan. Some of us are atheists. Some of us have no idea what the hell we are. We're not arguing with you because of your beliefs, but rather because you refuse to listen to what others have to say.

It seems that you're trying to change other people's minds just as much as you claim they're trying to change yours. Don't complain about people doing the same exact thing that you're attempting.

And why should we show you any respect when you are disrespectful to us?

I love us.

All you have told me is that you support and believe in a THEORY. How can we accurately perform tests to PROVE evolution when the process takes far longer than the human lifespan?
Furthermore, your inability to comprehend my posts is astounding.

The process of Evolution isn't long and is very noticeable in some life forms.

First of all, there are some that are trying to persuade me to change my beliefs or calling me stupid because of them. That comment was directed at those individuals, not at anyone who can respect my views, or provide different, interesting, and intelligent insights.
Secondly, I do not wish to persuade anyone. I am posting my view over and over again, but words are being put in my mouth, and I have yet to see someone do anything but judge or invaildate what I am saying. This is supposed to be a post where we can talk about the differences in evolution and creationism, not a post where myself and my views are degraded because they are different.
Thirdly, I do not believe that science can prove either. Science has proven through looking at past animals and making assumptions and drawing conclusions about evolution. This is a science because it has been PROVEN. We cannot properly test this theory on HUMAN BEINGS through scientific method because the process of evolution extends thousands of years. Human evolution IS A THEORY, as we have limited PROOF of our ancestry. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. It is my opinion that many believe in it because it provides some tangible answer as to where we come from, which is something every human being wants to know. However, I don't believe the answer is that simple.

AS FOR MY PERSONAL BELIEF: I don't discredit either theory. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, the passage in the first chapter of Genesis says (variably depending on the version of the Bible) that "God shaped man from the dust of the Earth." To take this literally is to imply that you believe that we are made of dirt. To take it figuratively, as it is meant to be taken, that passage could be interpreted as both:
Creationists are right because God created modern man; Evolutionists are right because it describes how He did it. AGAIN, this is my opinion and if you don't agree with it, cool. But for those of you who seek to change my beliefs- KNOCK IT OFF. For those of you who can respect it, I will show you the same courtesy.
NOW FOR THE LAST TIME AND IF YOU DON'T GET IT, DON'T RESPOND TO IT: I do not think teachers should influence a child's religion. That is a parents decision, and more than that the child's decision, and there are bound to be teachers that will try to answer religious questions that young and curious minds are bound to have. This should not happen. Teachers should only teach the ANIMAL evolution THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN. I am against teaching HUMAN evolution in science class, BECAUSE IT IS A THEORY, NOT A SCIENCE.
To support my claim http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/...0about%20human
Written by Darren Gordon, Member of the Penn State University's Origins Club

For full site reference:
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faqsci.htm

In some, yes, but not in humans.

Evolution is the changing of a gene pool. This can be observed in humans.

Father Gregor Johann Mendel was a Christian, and yet he brought God's glorious universe to light with his famous experiments that he termed Natural Selection. His subject was the humble yet pretty pea flower, which, like humans, uses DNA to pass on its attributes.

Over the relatively short period of eight years he was able to describe with proven accuracy the percentages of possible outcomes of the progeny of tall and short peas, different colored flowers, wrinkled or smooth seeds etc.

He saw evolution take place over eight years.

There is no shame or contradiction in respecting the observations of science
and having faith. But faith should not be brought into the science class. It belongs in humanities, not the sciences.

BWUHAHAHAHAHA! that made my first laugh of the day! Thank you.

Thanks for providing an intelligent and different perspective, without cussing at me, trying to persuade me, or degrading my point of view.

I remember that in science class. I agree to some extent..."which, like humans..." There is much to be said about various commonalities in the evolution of DNA. This is exactly why I don't fully reject the theory of human evolution in it's entirety. I also don't fully reject the idea because, humans are animals, mammals particularly. The commonalities within mammal DNA and being able to prove such and such about Chimps or Whales can provide us with great ideas and leads into the study of human evolution.

You're right about that, on a small scale. On a larger scale it takes far longer.

And what stops the process from building up mutations?

I have to go to bed, but I'll get back to this soon. The short version:

1) I thought I made this clear, but the fact/theory distinction you are drawing is based upon colloquial understandings of those words, and those understandings do not apply to science. Saying that something is "just" a theory is meaningless in scientific terms. Unless you want to toss out gravity, atoms, and... well, everything, you're barking up the wrong tree with this line of argument. "Proof" doesn't apply either. Proofs are for math. Maybe I'll have to explain all this in detail at some point.

1) Evolutionary theory passes all the normal standards for a scientific theory, including the standard of testability. I will provide specific examples.

2) Human evolution is not in some special category. We have a pretty clear picture of how humans evolved (in the broad strokes - the same way everything else did).

3) I would like to persuade you to drop your religious beliefs, but if you don't want to talk about it, it's not like I can force you to. That said, I do not want you to "show me the same respect". I don't hold unsubstantiated beliefs which have to be hidden from scrutiny because they can't stand up to examination. What you see as respect is in fact rather the opposite from my perspective, because it suggests otherwise.

Oh man. Tell me I'm not going to have to rip those links apart. I don't think I will be able to stay cool through that.

Which is why the fossil record is so awesome!

For some reason I read this as:

"And what stops the process from building up chihuahuas?"

O_o

I bet I took the wrong pills this morning. Or forgot to take them at all!

Okay...Lets just say that God does exist. God doesn't want to be found does he? If an omnipotent entity of immense power, and intelligence wishes to remain hidden, then why would humans be the ones to find him.

What if God created the ' singularity ' , which caused the big bang?

Had to say that!

Alright well, that's entirely off topic! I do agree with that theory, and to my knowledge scientists have been leaning towards that theory in recent years more than other theories. Unfortunately, there isn't enough proof to make it a science.
Also scientists have found that they ways that they previously measured the age of the universe is incredibly innaccurate. I haven't recently looked into where they are at with that as of now.

As far as why he wouldn't want to be found out or why humans would be the discoverers of this, that is entirely beyond me. The only insight I can provide is Gen 1:28 (or 27, I don't have my Bible right here with me), "And God said Let us make man in our image..." (KJV) It seems consistent through out the Bible that he favors us...perhaps because of this? As an added note this is all speculation on my part.

That reinactment of the big bang is idiocy. They should be developing vaccines for AIDS, instead of playing God. Its fun pretending to be God, but in truth isn't really that neccersary.