Do you believe in evolution?

[Nash B.]

Obama believes in evolution, so the opinions quoted above are thus refuted by plain, easy to understand evidence.

And the notion that you can argue logically has been refuted by plain, easy to understand evidence.

[mustangguy289]

Do I believe things evolve over time? yes.... Do I believe ALL people came from Monkeys? NO

[The King]

And the notion that you can argue logically has been refuted by plain, easy to understand evidence.

First, you must understand what constitutes an argument, which you obviously do not.

Second, you must understand what contitutes logic, which you obviously do not.

Third, you must understand what constitutes evidence, which you obviously do not.

Notions? Now that's more your speed.

[Nash B.]

First, you must understand what constitutes an argument, which you obviously do not.

Second, you must understand what contitutes logic, which you obviously do not.

Third, you must understand what constitutes evidence, which you obviously do not.

Notions? Now that's more your speed.

Go re-read the two posts you quoted and your response to them and tell me if that's your notion of a logical argument.

[The King]

No

[Maddhattter]

Right. No doubt we evolve and adapt, but "Evolution" is just a theory as well as Creation. I chose to believe in Creation.

Your choice to believe in either means you have a belief in something (sorry to burst your bubble, racrguy).

Evolution is just a theory, the same as Creation, when referring to things in colloquial language. Once you enter the realm of scientific definitions, things become very different.

A theory is the highest honor an explanation can get in science. Creation is not a theory like Gravity, Germ, Relativity, etc. Evolution is, by contrast.

While you are free to believe what you want, it is misleading to claim that a colloquial theory and a scientific theory are the same, or carry the same intellectual validity.

You appear to be attempting to conflate contextual definitions when referring to belief as well. As creation is hinged on a creator god/gods of some kind, you must have faith to believe in creation, as opposed to evolution. So, to believe in evolution, a scientific theory, and to believe in creation, a religious scientific hypothesis that has, thus far, not been made scientific theory, are two very different things. I had hoped you had learned about contextual definitions after we spoke in The Theology Corner.

http://www.creationevidence.net/

If anyone REALLY wants to hear both sides, instead of just going off of what you heard in public school, I would suggest taking a trip to Glen Rose after hitting up the museum down town.

http://www.creationevidence.org/

That is, if you're serious about hearing both sides.

With all the talk on these sites about the bible, and the Abrahamic God being said creator of his creation hypothesis, you can be sure that you can get a fair and unbiased view on scientific research.

I know when I want information on biology, which is what evolution is, I go to a man whose only claimed education in demonstrable sciences are a high school diploma, a Master’s Degree in Archaeology, and a Doctoral Degree in the Philosophy in Education. Loads of education and experience in biology there.

If anyone REALLY wants to hear both sides, instead of just going off of what you heard in public school, I suggest actual research and education in the topic of evolution, which a quick search on google will indicate that Carl Edward Baugh, Founder and Director of Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, Texas has not done.

That is, if you're serious about science.

[Trick Pony]

A theory is the highest honor an explanation can get in science.

That would be a law.

[Maddhattter]

That would be a law.

No, that would be theory.

Due to lack of time, I'll just post this up for your review.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

[John -- '02 HAWK]

No, that would be theory.

Due to lack of time, I'll just post this up for your review.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

youve got it backwards its even in your link

[Nash B.]

Before or after this part?

"Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory."

[Rick Modena]

Well fucking played, sir.

You know how I roll, ninja...

[Maddhattter]

So, what's the difference? Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.

It seems that we are talking past each other.

Science does not grant "law" status. Science only grants ideas with the title of hypothesis or theory. I'm not saying, nor did I intend to claim, that theory or law is better than the other. What I intended to state was that theory is the highest honor science can bestow. However, rereading my post, I can understand how it may have been read that way.

So, the word I was looking for was accurately theory.

Even if I was wrong, Denny'd be implying that germ theory was just something we believed because "it's only a theory, it's not a law....". But if the words are interchangeable, as El_Camino implies, that still puts us back to square one in that evolution being a theory does not remove ANY credibility to the concept.

As the creation model is only a theory in the colloquial sense, it would not have the same protection for it's validity.

[John -- '02 HAWK]

Science does not grant "law" status. Science only grants ideas with the title of hypothesis or theory. I'm not saying, nor did I intend to claim, that theory or law is better than the other. What I intended to state was that theory is the highest honor science can bestow. However, rereading my post, I can understand how it may have been read that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

[The King]

^^^^^
Advice: don't use Wikipedia as a primary source.

[Maddhattter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

"A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation."

The very first line on the page. How does this contradict what I said again? Your definition still puts theory in a position to be given as a title from science where law is a descriptor!! Reading comprehension FTW!!

I'm also just going to sit aside and giggle at the fact that you managed to get called out by The King on a legitimate issue.