Evolution Thoery

Yes. That's what I have been trying to say. trust_nobody

Well when discussing the origin of life, one does not begin contemplating where the building blocks of life came from. That's a whole other debate. We're talking about how life was formed here, not how the universe and all it's comprised of came into existence.

[QUOTE="agilefalcon16"][QUOTE="Slepanandiaz"][QUOTE="Gog"]

[QUOTE="Slepanandiaz"]Okay let me ask you this without the help of God, how did life start? Life comes from life. Sponatnous generation is a midevil belief that has no place in schools.DeeJayInphinity

So how did God spontaniously generate then?

LOL!!!!!!!!!! Is that what your priest tells you? :lol: There is not even a shread of evidence that would prove such an outrageous claim!

You have no proof that he can do anything he wants; you don't even know if he exists.

I know, right? That's what I was trying to tell him.

[QUOTE="trust_nobody"]

And these molecules came from....? See we can do this all day long, you're not wrong and you can't prove me wrong either.diz360

Not at all. Scientific method can ascribe causality to creation of long chain molecules and their evolution. Religion can provide no proof.

Scientific method suggests positive proof is required. Prooving something does not exist is futile - i.e. a pink teapot spinning round the earth. Science searches for true answers, while religion assumes it already has them but refuses to question them.

The origins of organised religion are so dubious and the burden of religious proof is impossible. Or do you believe in magic too?

[QUOTE="Gog"][QUOTE="trust_nobody"][QUOTE="Gog"]

The creation of life. What is life in the first place? I doubt anyone here can give an accurate definition of what life is. How can you say it's impossible if you can't even define what life is?

trust_nobody

Not really. Life as we know it shares some basic components which are made of chemical structures that werelargely availablein the early earth. By chance and over periods of millions of yearsthey combined into stable structuresand becameearly life. This process has likely not happened once, but dozens of times. One or two succesful forms wiped out all the others.

It's not necessarily 'religion or evolution'. It's more like: What ordinary people without evidence say OR What scientists with evidence say. At least in my opinion.

[QUOTE="trust_nobody"][QUOTE="Gog"][QUOTE="trust_nobody"][QUOTE="Gog"]

The creation of life. What is life in the first place? I doubt anyone here can give an accurate definition of what life is. How can you say it's impossible if you can't even define what life is?

agilefalcon16

Not really. Life as we know it shares some basic components which are made of chemical structures that werelargely availablein the early earth. By chance and over periods of millions of yearsthey combined into stable structuresand becameearly life. This process has likely not happened once, but dozens of times. One or two succesful forms wiped out all the others.

It's not necessarily 'religion or evolution'. It's more like: What ordinary people without evidence say OR What scientists with evidence say. At least in my opinion.

Scientific theories can only be disproven, not proven. For example, my theory says that reindeers don't fly. It's a theory that can be disproven: someone has tofindat least 1flying reindeer. Since that's not likely to happen, I can only asume that my theory is correct but I can't prove it.

Scientific theories can only be disproven, not proven. For example, my theory says that reindeers don't fly. It's a theory that can be disproven: someone has tofindat least 1flying reindeer. Since that's not likely to happen, I can only asume that my theory is correct but I can't prove it.

Gog

[QUOTE="trust_nobody"]

Yes. That's what I have been trying to say. Salvy41

Well when discussing the origin of life, one does not begin contemplating where the building blocks of life came from. That's a whole other debate. We're talking about how life was formed here, not how the universe and all it's comprised of came into existence.

The other guy is not entirely right. A scientific theory does not need evidence.All theories start just like that, as a theoretical assumption, the result of a thought processand evidence/proof is added later on to support that theory. Finding evidence for a theory doesn't prove it, it just re-inforces it. Gog

[QUOTE="trust_nobody"]

And these molecules came from....? See we can do this all day long, you're not wrong and you can't prove me wrong either.diz360

Not at all. Scientific method can ascribe causality to creation of long chain molecules and their evolution. Religion can provide no proof.

Scientific method suggests positive proof is required. Prooving something does not exist is futile - i.e. a pink teapot spinning round the earth. Science searches for true answers, while religion assumes it already has them but refuses to question them.

The origins of organised religion are so dubious and the burden of religious proof is impossible. Or do you believe in magic too?

[QUOTE="Salvy41"]

[QUOTE="trust_nobody"]

Yes. That's what I have been trying to say. trust_nobody

Well when discussing the origin of life, one does not begin contemplating where the building blocks of life came from. That's a whole other debate. We're talking about how life was formed here, not how the universe and all it's comprised of came into existence.

Without the universe nothing would exist. By your logic, debating the origins of everything is relevant to almost everything that has ever been debated and so should always be brought into such debates.

How is it necessarily a "whole other debate" when without the universe life would not exist? trust_nobody

You have a point there. A certain amount of elements must already have been present to start talking about the origin of life. Evolution theories assume that life was not created with the birth of the universe, but only much later.

Actually, a theory without any evidence to support it isn't a theory, but a hypothesis.Zagrius

[QUOTE="Salvy41"][QUOTE="trust_nobody"][QUOTE="Salvy41"][QUOTE="trust_nobody"][QUOTE="Gog"]

The creation of life. What is life in the first place? I doubt anyone here can give an accurate definition of what life is. How can you say it's impossible if you can't even define what life is?

trust_nobody

There is no current scientific theory on the origin of life which suggests that life came into existence naturally merely by 'appearing' out of 'thin air'...

Out of nowhere? More like out of organic molecules.

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

Actually, a theory without any evidence to support it isn't a theory, but a hypothesis.Zagrius

Yep, people are using the word theory out of context. Don't call the creationism hypothesis a "theory" because it implies that there's actual evidence for it.

Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

Stealth-Gunner

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

Silver_Dragon17

I cant believe some people think that we come from monkeys! It's absolutely ridiculus! How can they teach this thoery (which is a thoery is a guess) in schools? Who agrees with me it should not be taught?

EDIT: Bad spelling

Slepanandiaz

you're right! magically appearing on this planet makes MUCH more sense! *end sarcasm*

[QUOTE="diz360"]

[QUOTE="trust_nobody"]

And these molecules came from....? See we can do this all day long, you're not wrong and you can't prove me wrong either.Yongying

Not at all. Scientific method can ascribe causality to creation of long chain molecules and their evolution. Religion can provide no proof.

Scientific method suggests positive proof is required. Prooving something does not exist is futile - i.e. a pink teapot spinning round the earth. Science searches for true answers, while religion assumes it already has them but refuses to question them.

The origins of organised religion are so dubious and the burden of religious proof is impossible. Or do you believe in magic too?

Why do you say that? There's plenty of evidence for it. I believe one of the outputs from the big bang was "time" in the way we know it. Perhaps if you found out a bit more about it, it would seem less magical and more scientific to you.

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

Silver_Dragon17

Well I think a god somewhere is ridiculous but it seriously is not any different than the teapot. The teapot is not to be taken seriously obviously but it's something to think about. Tell me how an invincible god that has always existed and knows everything makes more sense than a teapot rotating the sun/earth/whatever.

[QUOTE="Gog"]

Scientific theories can only be disproven, not proven. For example, my theory says that reindeers don't fly. It's a theory that can be disproven: someone has tofindat least 1flying reindeer. Since that's not likely to happen, I can only asume that my theory is correct but I can't prove it.

trust_nobody

Gog - I think that's the wrong way round. Science looks for positive proof, not disproof. I.e. it looks for what reindeer's do, rather than don't do. The burden of proof, once ascertained, is far more powerful than any argument to disprove.

Proof turns theories into facts. Theories are meaningless without physical evidence to support them. Without supplemental evidence. a theory is about as useful as a religious prediction.

[QUOTE="Yongying"][QUOTE="diz360"]

[QUOTE="trust_nobody"]

And these molecules came from....? See we can do this all day long, you're not wrong and you can't prove me wrong either.diz360

Not at all. Scientific method can ascribe causality to creation of long chain molecules and their evolution. Religion can provide no proof.

Scientific method suggests positive proof is required. Prooving something does not exist is futile - i.e. a pink teapot spinning round the earth. Science searches for true answers, while religion assumes it already has them but refuses to question them.

The origins of organised religion are so dubious and the burden of religious proof is impossible. Or do you believe in magic too?

Why do you say that? There's plenty of evidence for it. I believe one of the outputs from the big bang was "time" in the way we know it. Perhaps if you found out a bit more about it, it would seem less magical and more scientific to you.

According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions. Sure sounds like magic to me.

[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Yongying"][QUOTE="diz360"]

[QUOTE="trust_nobody"]

And these molecules came from....? See we can do this all day long, you're not wrong and you can't prove me wrong either.Yongying

Not at all. Scientific method can ascribe causality to creation of long chain molecules and their evolution. Religion can provide no proof.

Scientific method suggests positive proof is required. Prooving something does not exist is futile - i.e. a pink teapot spinning round the earth. Science searches for true answers, while religion assumes it already has them but refuses to question them.

The origins of organised religion are so dubious and the burden of religious proof is impossible. Or do you believe in magic too?

Why do you say that? There's plenty of evidence for it. I believe one of the outputs from the big bang was "time" in the way we know it. Perhaps if you found out a bit more about it, it would seem less magical and more scientific to you.

According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions. Sure sounds like magic to me.

[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Yongying"]

The big bang theory sounds a bit magical don't you think?Yongying

Why do you say that? There's plenty of evidence for it. I believe one of the outputs from the big bang was "time" in the way we know it. Perhaps if you found out a bit more about it, it would seem less magical and more scientific to you.

According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions. Sure sounds like magic to me.

That was a quick bit of research! - Very thorough...

[QUOTE="Yongying"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Yongying"]

The big bang theory sounds a bit magical don't you think?diz360

Why do you say that? There's plenty of evidence for it. I believe one of the outputs from the big bang was "time" in the way we know it. Perhaps if you found out a bit more about it, it would seem less magical and more scientific to you.

According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions. Sure sounds like magic to me.

That was a quick bit of research! - Very thorough...

A few points I'd like to make after reading this thread:

- The theory of evolution states that monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor
- In science, the term "theory" is pretty much synonymous in meaning to "explanation"
- The teapot example is just as credible as the existence of God - can't prove it; can't disprove it.
- The proof sought to verify scientific theory is both positive and negative - positive = theory is strengthened; negative = theory is amended for the better.
- The "God is not bound the universal rules" and similar rationalisations are far too convenient and were most like coined as foolproof clauses for the dogma rather than credible explanation
- Religion should not be taught in school because that is when the indoctrination begins. Leave it until the kids are older.

I'm confused, what is this actually about? are we debating whether Evolution is true or false, or are we debating whether it should be taught in schools or not?SpaceDragonMan

[QUOTE="trust_nobody"][QUOTE="Gog"]

Scientific theories can only be disproven, not proven. For example, my theory says that reindeers don't fly. It's a theory that can be disproven: someone has tofindat least 1flying reindeer. Since that's not likely to happen, I can only asume that my theory is correct but I can't prove it.

diz360

Gog - I think that's the wrong way round. Science looks for positive proof, not disproof. I.e. it looks for what reindeer's do, rather than don't do. The burden of proof, once ascertained, is far more powerful than any argument to disprove.

Proof turns theories into facts. Theories are meaningless without physical evidence to support them. Without supplemental evidence. a theory is about as useful as a religious prediction.

Again, that isn't true. For something to be a scientific theory it must have evidence supporting it. Without evidence it's merely a hypothesis.

[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Yongying"][QUOTE="diz360"]

[QUOTE="trust_nobody"]

And these molecules came from....? See we can do this all day long, you're not wrong and you can't prove me wrong either.Yongying

Not at all. Scientific method can ascribe causality to creation of long chain molecules and their evolution. Religion can provide no proof.

Scientific method suggests positive proof is required. Prooving something does not exist is futile - i.e. a pink teapot spinning round the earth. Science searches for true answers, while religion assumes it already has them but refuses to question them.

The origins of organised religion are so dubious and the burden of religious proof is impossible. Or do you believe in magic too?

Why do you say that? There's plenty of evidence for it. I believe one of the outputs from the big bang was "time" in the way we know it. Perhaps if you found out a bit more about it, it would seem less magical and more scientific to you.

According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions. Sure sounds like magic to me.

so i guess modern day bombs are magic to you too then since they explode too eh?

[QUOTE="Yongying"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Yongying"][QUOTE="diz360"]

[QUOTE="trust_nobody"]

And these molecules came from....? See we can do this all day long, you're not wrong and you can't prove me wrong either.ArmoredAshes

Not at all. Scientific method can ascribe causality to creation of long chain molecules and their evolution. Religion can provide no proof.

Scientific method suggests positive proof is required. Prooving something does not exist is futile - i.e. a pink teapot spinning round the earth. Science searches for true answers, while religion assumes it already has them but refuses to question them.

The origins of organised religion are so dubious and the burden of religious proof is impossible. Or do you believe in magic too?

Why do you say that? There's plenty of evidence for it. I believe one of the outputs from the big bang was "time" in the way we know it. Perhaps if you found out a bit more about it, it would seem less magical and more scientific to you.

According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions. Sure sounds like magic to me.

so i guess modern day bombs are magic to you too then since they explode too eh?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

[QUOTE="ArmoredAshes"][QUOTE="Yongying"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Yongying"][QUOTE="diz360"]

Zagrius

so i guess modern day bombs are magic to you too then since they explode too eh?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

The definition of magic from dictionary.com

1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.
2. 1. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
   2. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.

and the definition of supernatural also curteousy of dictionary.com

1.of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

its distinguishable because we can explain it...magic deals with that which cnat be explained by natural laws.

Obviously he meant that in the eyes of someone who doesn't know better. If you went to some medieval town with a flamethrower and started burning houses, they'd claim that an evil warlock started throwing fireballs, because it would look like magic.Zagrius

ehhh i get that point but considering we here know better whats more magical? an explosion sending out matter in the universe or an omnipotent being snapping his fingers and creating everything?

[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="trust_nobody"][QUOTE="Gog"]

Scientific theories can only be disproven, not proven. For example, my theory says that reindeers don't fly. It's a theory that can be disproven: someone has tofindat least 1flying reindeer. Since that's not likely to happen, I can only asume that my theory is correct but I can't prove it.

Zagrius

Gog - I think that's the wrong way round. Science looks for positive proof, not disproof. I.e. it looks for what reindeer's do, rather than don't do. The burden of proof, once ascertained, is far more powerful than any argument to disprove.

Proof turns theories into facts. Theories are meaningless without physical evidence to support them. Without supplemental evidence. a theory is about as useful as a religious prediction.

Again, that isn't true. For something to be a scientific theory it must have evidence supporting it. Without evidence it's merely a hypothesis.

Again, that's what I said. I said theories need proof. Please read posts before violently agreeing with them.

Again, that's what I said. I said theories need proof. Please read posts before violently agreeing with them.

diz360

The problem is that you use the terms wrong. First, a theory can't become a fact, it will always remain a theory. Also, "theories are meaningless without physical evidence to support them" isn't entirely correct as a statement, as you can't have a theory without evidence supporting it. That's a hypothesis.