I hate to stir anything more up but I can't resis

---

So you've come to be a proponent of the scientific theory of evolution? And reading an up-to-date book precipitated the epiphany? Interesting.I was going to refer you to this blog article on the same subject as the one you put at the beginning of the thread: A Natural Selection.The issue is the depth with which you seem to hold your views, based on scant evidence. If you want to change your opinion, fine, but wait until you've accumulated enough data before you grasp them for dear life.Your opening premise, that science just proffers opinions, opinions that have the same validity as religious views, is a non-starter. It's just plain wrong. Science, when done properly, is objective. The atomic and evolutionary theories are not just opinions.Next, are you ready to tackle the question of whether God is a just being? Or even fair and balanced?

Originally Posted By: HCl

The atomic and evolutionary theories are not just opinions.

If they are theories, as you state, then they are merely proposed explanations as opposed to irrefutable facts.

No, they are not "merely proposed explanations". You need to understand the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis". They are both backed up by huge amounts of observational and experimental evidence.I recall a Jehovah's Witness telling me that evolution is "just a theory". I realized right there that he did not understand what science is. Science does not "prove", but he didn't understand that theories are not wild-ass guesses.Science is not for people whose psychological makeup insists on having absolute answers, where absolute answers are not a rational possibility. Some people take comfort in the various current mythologies. Such is the human condition. This is how we evolved. But people throw logic out the window when they think that if an opposing idea can be disproved, then their own idea must be true. Faith-based proofs, in any case, are a non-starter.

Originally Posted By: HClNo, they are not "merely proposed explanations". You need to understand the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis". They are both backed up by huge amounts of observational and experimental evidence.I recall a Jehovah's Witness telling me that evolution is "just a theory". I realized right there that he did not understand what science is. Science does not "prove", but he didn't understand that theories are not wild-ass guesses.Science is not for people whose psychological makeup insists on having absolute answers, where absolute answers are not a rational possibility. Some people take comfort in the various current mythologies. Such is the human condition. This is how we evolved. But people throw logic out the window when they think that if an opposing idea can be disproved, then their own idea must be true. Faith-based proofs, in any case, are a non-starter. Hey, I'm not the one that called them theories. You did that, my friend. And theories are proposed explanations. Theories can be backed up with observational and experimental evidence, but they are still theories as opposed to conclusive fact.You say these things are not theories, but then you go on to say that science cannot offer absolute answers. In the absence of absolute answers, a theory remains a theory. It seems you're reading a lot into my statements that just aren't there.

There is no "conclusive fact" about the functioning of the natural universe, if by that term you mean "proof". There is science, which over time converges on the correct explanation, and there is mythology. You can choose either of the two, or you can choose not to accept anything, and say, "I don't know, and there's no way to know".

If I were to say the word 'Niggers' would i be banned from the forums?

=/ why would you say it?

Don't ask me, ask an admin. My guess is no, and certainly not if you put it in quotes.

Muahahahaaha my evil plan of sabotaging this thread worked! Sorry, i just have an extreme dislike of religion.

High jacking a thread is pretty common, so welcome to the club.

You're way late. It's already dead, Jim.

Jim's Pizza? I love that place!

Originally Posted By: HClThere is no "conclusive fact" about the functioning of the natural universe, if by that term you mean "proof". There is science, which over time converges on the correct explanation, and there is mythology. You can choose either of the two, or you can choose not to accept anything, and say, "I don't know, and there's no way to know". Then we agree.Good.

I come back to this thread because I like its name. I just can't resist.

Dude, I'm trying to focus.

Dude, I'm trying to care.

Dude, why bother? The thread isn't exactly supportive of religious beliefs so why try to derail it? It is (or at least was) a thread on science. Now its on the definition of a scientific theory, which for clarification for Damien is actually held above facts in the scientific world. It takes an awful lot of work to create a theory.For more good videos for this kinda stuff, check out the "... Made Easy" series by Potholer54, or for this topic specifically, check out his Scientific Method Made Easy video.

Mmmm, I've had a few questions about how evolution was able to cause certain things. The only one I can think of is how the two sexes came about, since life, as far as I'm aware, started without sexes. Figured I'd ask you since you said you've done quite a bit of researching of topics dealing with evolution.

Many of people don't understand what a scientific theory is. When someone says, "It's just a theory", you can be pretty sure that person does not. He's implying that it's just a guess, or at best, an educated guess.
A theory is a proposition. So is the idea that I'm standing on the Earth, the sky is blue, and if I let go of something, it will fall down rather than up. But the ideas that monsters live in my basement, I'll get $5 million if I give a Nigerian my bank account number, or the voices in my head can predict the movements of the commodity market are also propositions.
"A theory is a proposition" is a virtually empty statement. "A theory is only a proposition" is a political statement, with an incorrect implication.
[Speaking of which, does thor yet have any concrete evidence to support his "WMDs were trucked out of Iraq just before the invasion" theory? The movement of trucks alone is not very convincing, unless your mind is made up _a priori._]

They actually used an extensive network of subways to move the WMDs.