By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ebw on 07 January 2012
Edit Thread
MaulerX said:
bouzane said:
MaulerX said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
MaulerX said:
But isn't the theory of evolution.....a theory? Until this very day scientists have not been able to prove with any type of certainty that evolution is what got us from ape to human, even though that's exactly what they're pitching. And to be honest, there are plenty of non Christians that don't believe in evolution for that very reason. A theory is a theory.


Please read: http://notjustatheory.com/ Don't worry, it's short and easy to digest.

 

And the fact still remains that science has not proven evolution with any type of certainty, as referenced in that very link you posted. IMO the different meanings of the word "theory" become irrelevent as long as that fact remains. Ironically, it is people in the scientific community that refuse to accept things that have not been proven to a certainty.

 

Personally I believe that some things have evolved, but that not everything has evolved. If certain things evolved from an origin, then how did the origin came to be?  I believe that there are questions that we may never know the answer to.


Gravity is just a theory genius.


My understanding is that Gravity is a law, but a theory is used to explain WHY it happens.


The THEORY of gravity was Newton's explanation for WHY planets were observed to move according to Kepler's laws.  One can quibble about the universality of the inverse-square hypothesis (and one would be well-justified in questioning that), and one can ask deeper questions about WHY the inverse-square law occurs, but gravity itself was a fantastic explanation for the non-obvious phenomenon of the shape of planetary orbits (based on decades of painstaking astronomical observations).

Creationism is a horribly unsatisfying explanation: it's no better than saying the reason planets travel around in ovals is "because God likes that shape".  When small discrepancies were found in the orbit of Uranus, we didn't throw out gravity as being hopelessly flawed and say "I guess God must have wanted a twist there"; we used it to construct a theory that there was an undiscovered planet (we know it as Neptune).  When small discrepancies were found in the rotation of Mercury, we didn't throw out gravity as being hopelessly flawed and say "who are we to understand God's whim?"; we used it to confirm the (rather shocking) predictions made by Einstein's relativity.

Pointing out gaps that current evolutionary theory can't explain perfectly is a fine part of the scientific tradition.  But throwing out a rational explanation and offering only a truism that is as irreducible and useless as "God designed it that way" as the replacement?  That should be offensive to any person who values thought over dogma.