Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant

[jonbob]

With respect, Evolution is a theory just as much as natural selection. It's a theory that the scientific community has come up with to explain speciation.

To a scientist a theory is the most concrete thing there is that can still be repealed; they don't like to state things as fact that might just not be true. The media seem adept at mixing up hypotheses and theories for some reason. Of course, the non-scientific community can use either term, but it's not fitting to deplaud natural selection as "just a theory" because it makes it sound less than it is. Like I said, a theory is the closest thing a scientist will get to truth.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

theory is almost like a believe, but justified

 

[theotherguy]

actaully there is a very strict heirarchy in the use of theories and hypothesis and laws.

Hypothesis- The most basic scientific judgement. This is basically a guess that a scientist takes before making an experiment. The scientist may have multiple hypothesis. These are completley unproven until the experiment takes place, but are well educated. Hypopthesis proven wrong are thrown out.

Theory- After a hypothesis has been tested by multiple experiments and several scientists over a long period of time, it is called a theory. Theories generally involve several facets and rules that either mathematically or logically explain the results of experiments. Theories are often modified when parts are proven wrong by further experimentation, and if a single experiment is capable of disproving the entire theory, then it is thrown out.

Law- The law is the most highly tested, proven, and reasonable scientific judgement. This is a theory that has been consistentley proven for at least 100 years. An example of this would be Newton's laws of motion. These are almost never disproven, and are taken mostly as fact. If, however, under rare conditions, laws are proven false, they can be modified or changed. Laws are also often accompanied by a simple formula.

And as for the "bigger brains" thing, let me explain to you,

Neanderthals indeed had slightly larger brains than humans, walked upright, and had culture, gods, beleifs and burial methods. However, they were incapable of intricite speech, and were limited to slurred speech and grunts. Humans were able to breed with neanderthals, but produced sterile offspring. Humans likely overpowered them with superior speech, dogs, better clothes and better houses. Most likely, humans didnt even recognize the differences between them and neanderthals, and there is evidence that they even lived amongst each other.

and I have no idea what everyone keeps saying about "missing link", its not like there was just monkey, link, man...evolution simply doesnt happen like that...the tree probably was something like this

Austropithacaleus(a sort of chimp like creature that could almost walk upright)
coevolved with the chimp and pygmy chimp

Austropithacaleus evolved into Homo Erectus, a nearly man-like creature that walked upright, and into neanderthal. Neanderthal moved into europe, and Erectus moved into Asia

somewhere along that line, another sect of Austropithacaleus produced cro-magnum man, the precursor to modern homo sapiens

cro magnum spread into Europe and became homo sapiens, killing of the neanderthals.

then, over a period of many years, Homo sapiens moved throughout the earth and killed off all other humaniod species.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

and I have no idea what everyone keeps saying about "missing link", its not like there was just monkey, link, man...evolution simply doesnt happen like that...the tree probably was something like this

.

no by there has to be a spesie that connect modern humans to anchent man, i don't know if they found it yet or not

 

[theotherguy]

no by there has to be a spesie that connect modern humans to anchent man, i don't know if they found it yet or not

you mean a living species? that's ridiculous, most modern species have evolved from extinct species because their advantages caused them to overpower their predecessors. Such is the case with modern man, our "missing link" was austropithacaleus, which has been extinct for many millenia due to climate changes and species such as homo erectus, neanderthals and modern man replacing it.

 

[Dag]

i really don't see any problems with science and God, i don't think they even contridict each other.

Gallilaeo.

 

[Apos]

actaully there is a very strict heirarchy in the use of theories and hypothesis and laws.

Not in the case of theory and law.

Again: no amount of proof will EVER make anyone call the theory of evolution anymore than the theory of gravity will become the law of gravity (there actually ARE laws of gravity, but these are component parts of a larger THEORY). Theories are large bodies of explanation. Laws are usually simple relationships or constants that can be expressed mathematically. One is not more certain than the other, and neither is for certain.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Gallilaeo.

what about him?

you mean a living species? that's ridiculous, most modern species have evolved from extinct species because their advantages caused them to overpower their predecessors. Such is the case with modern man, our "missing link" was austropithacaleus, which has been extinct for many millenia due to climate changes and species such as homo erectus, neanderthals and modern man replacing it.

no, not living species, i know that to really prove evolution theory (not that it's not right) scientists needed one more link between the modern man and the man/monkies before him, all i'm asking if they found that link or not

 

[Apos]

iyfyoufhl, what you say sounds pretty confused: where did you hear this about "one more" link?

Realize that the implication of evolution is that there was a direct line of ancestry from ancestral apes to modern man (and also another to modern chimps, bonobos, and so on): litterally parent to child, all the way back. That's a continuum of generations, not a series of distinct "links." Unless we found the fossil of each and every generation of the EXACT line that led (only in hindsight!) to humans, we wouldn't have a "complete" fossil record of the transition. So until that point (which can't happen because fossilization is so rare), one can ALWAYS claim that we are "missing a link" somewhere in the chain.

You also have to realize that fossils are very rarely the direct ancestors of any modern species. 99% of the species that ever live go extinct. That means that while most fossils are often related to the direct ancestors of modern species, they are unlikely to BE those direct descendants, in the same way that if you picked a person out of a city at random, it's very unlikely that they would be your own father or mother. However, they might be distantly related to you.

Related to that, most of the fossils we have of various hominds are not necessarily our direct ancestors. Instead, they give us a peek at, in GENERAL, what sort of species were around at the time, and through that a general picture of what our ancestors would have been like, since these sorts of species were all closely related. Any given fossil is unlikely to be you 500th great grandfather, but more likely to be a distant cousin of his, alive at the same time as your 500th great grandfather. There is thus always lots of debate as to whether a particular fossil is part of "our line" or not. And that debate is often mistaken by laypeople for a debate over finding a missing link. Certainly there are a lot of fossils from various points we'd love to find. But we can make do just fine with what fossils we have: it's actually far more than we ever expected to find, given how rare fossilization is (in fact, our common ancestors with chimps lived in foresty areas where fossilization almost NEVER happens because there's no large silt floods and plenty of time for bacteria and predators to break down even bone before it becomes buried)

 

[Direwolf]

Gallilaeo.

Thats a contradiction between the Church and Science. Don't confuse that with a contradiction between God and Science.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Thats a contradiction between the Church and Science. Don't confuse that with a contradiction between God and Science.

yeah i was acually trying to clear that up my self, but didn't know how to put it