Debate on evolution / creationism

What a good thread.

In the modern Scientific epoch, a "theory" is an explanation of a "fact," which is a phenomenon.
To rephrase this, observations (massive objects attract) are facts, while explanations (massive objects have more gravity to them, which causes this attraction).

Basic reading comprehension allows you to see that most explanations are simply word puzzles that guide your reasoning to fitting the facts together.

The problem with evolution, however, is that the common colloquial usage of the term refers to both the theory and the fact. One fact is that, over time, genetic variation in populations changes in predictable ways given certain pressures. Another fact is--wait a second

You didn't read Darwin's actual treatise, did you?

Fuck off and pick up a book.

>Speak for yourself. Back up the claims that 'Gravity is a fact, and so is evolution'
Both have scientific theories surrounding them. I don't need to back that up with sources, it takes a quick Google search.

Now, as for both being facts:
livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
>"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
The theory of gravity, and the theory of evolution, are a compendium of knowledge that is able to explain every single observation on a certain subject and is able to explain and predict new evidence.

So, we have facts and observations ("light bends around a massive object", "populations change their genetic composition over time"), and then we have theories that explain them ("light bends because of gravity", "populations change because of evolution") and that have been proven time over time. They can also account for new evidence.

>and that science is not an ideology.
Folks here will respond to your question: answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006013110636
> Ideology
>(n.)The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
>(n.)A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

>Epistemology
>(n.)The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

Science is epistemology, not ideology.

>And when's the last time you used the scientific method in your work?
Currently I'm proving that a certain type of business can be built using a certain type of methodology. Ideally this will be useful for later works.

>> Ideology
>>(n.)The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
>>(n.)A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
>>Epistemology
>>(n.)The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
>Science is epistemology, not ideology.
Science clearly fits the (second) definition of ideology better here than epistemology. Science is an object of study in epistemology, scientific theories are the doctrines and beliefs that form the basis of science as an ideology.

>debate
not Veeky Forumsence lol
is the problem with this board that science is too broad for anyone to give a shit? I just like math for the memes I really don't care bout science and never have.

>Science clearly fits the (second) definition of ideology better here than epistemology
>A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Belief: dictionary.com/browse/belief
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction:
a belief that the earth is flat.
>Science does not deal with opinions. It's about making observations and to determine why those observations happen in the most objective way possible.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
a statement unworthy of belief.
>Science does rigorous tests to determine whether an explanation is valid or not.
3. confidence; faith; trust:
a child's belief in his parents.
>Not science. Science deals with observations.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
the Christian belief.
>Science is not a religion because science doesn't deal with faith. You don't have to have "faith" in science; science is demonstrable and repeatable.

Doctrine: dictionary.com/browse/doctrine
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government:
Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
>Science holds no views on morality or politics.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively:
religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject:
the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
>I'd accept these as the teaching of the scientific method could be a doctrine.

However, science doesn't form the basis of any system; science IS those systems, and science itself isn't a belief or conviction.

No one asked your opinion.

>2. something that is taught; teachings collectively:
Bingo.

Omitting the final part of my post? An ideology forms the basis of any other system. Science doesn't; science is its own system which breaks down to different types of science.

>science doesn't form the basis of any system
Of course 'science' as a philosophical framework doesn't form the basis, but the body of teachings are the scientific theories, which do form the basis of the system

dictionary.com/browse/system
>an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole:
>an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought

>but the body of teachings are the scientific theories
Wrong.

The body of teachings is the scientific method. Theories are a consequence of the application of the method. And the scientific method is... well, a methodology. A set of steps. Like cooking. Cooking isn't an ideology, it's a set of steps that will lead you to a product. And the application of science will produce knowledge.

>computer scientist

>Wrong.
I don't understand, are you saying scientific theories aren't taught?

>The body of teachings is the scientific method.
For an epistemologist science (the scientific method) is an object of study but they are not concerned with scientific theories, while scientists don't study the scientific method but use it to produce scientific theories. Similar to how mathematicians (in general) aren't logicians, but use logic to produce mathematical theories.

Okay hold on right there

>something that is taught; teachings collectively:

The scientific method can be taught. I'm not saying that you need to "study" the scientific method in the sense of trying to find a deeper truth, but that it has to be learned, together with the current theories, in order to produce new theories and thus knowledge.

The theories are not taught just for the sake of it, but rather to spare scientists the effort of doing all of those discoveries on their own. The discoveries are a product of science, not the cause of it, and they don't form part of any other system rather than science itself, which is then used by others to create innovations.

>The discoveries are a product of science, not the cause of it, and they don't form part of any other system rather than science itself, which is then used by others to create innovations.
Is this not what I've been saying this whole time?

>A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
the set of doctrines = scientific theories
the system = science (as in the whole of knowledge derived from the scientific method, NOT the scientific method itself)
note this isn't a grand statement, the word system is very general

Science was great at one time when they objectively interpreted data. Now it's become it's own religious system with unsupported beliefs that people blindly follow.

>Now it's become it's own religious system with unsupported beliefs that people blindly follow.
This, scientism has gone much too far

Desu you are correct.

there's no point in comparing the two. One is rooted in faith, the other in empirical evidence.

1. God manifests itself in the Laws of the Universe
2. He created the Universe, Earth and us using this laws
3. Being gay is a sin
4. He does not intervene with *Magic* but natural fenomena, that are complicated but entirely understandable
5. Understanding the Universe and its laws is understanding God

This is legitimately the best argument I've ever seen in favor of creationism.

...

It has never been observed that life can come from non-life. Ever. I'd love for someone who believes in evolution to tell me how this is possible without relying on fairytales that scientists currently preach like lightning striking mud. Thats beyond stupid with no evidence to support it in anyway.

Life cant come from non-life.

>implying life didn't come from the universal AC

...

why does this shit tier bait thread have so many responses?

Christ-Chan memes

Except buildings, cars and paints do not have genetics, genetic variation, able to replicate, differential reproductive success, made of organic chemicals capable of replication and many other functions. But yeah its exactly the same.

youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU
This may give you some information. If you truly think that life came from lighting striking mud you are mistaken. Educate yourself about general chemistry and biochemistry. Plus the beginning of life has fuck all to do with evolution. Evolution still stands even if life was created. Unless all the evidence is a lie.

That link proves nothing. It's just a guess. Scientists have been trying to create life from non life for decades, almost a century. Still nothing. If we cant do it in pristine laboratory conditions how more unlikely for it to happen in the open on its own. The beginning of life has a lot to do with evolution considering its what modern science ties together.

Should we also have a flat earth debate thread?

The spherical earth is about as fake as germ theory.

KYS. Have you ever sailed around the world? Sit down.

HOLY SHIT DUDE, CALL THEM

THEY KNOW HOW TO REVERSE ENTROPY

Neither does the Cosmos, according to you.

The odds could be a trillion to one
but with many times that trillion of worlds in the universe the odds are on the side of life.

Can anyone explain why evolution would allow melanin receptors to exist in the vaginal walls of human females?

This is the problem
"Theory" as scientist use it, such as for the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution, is The
simplified framework by which the action of a particular distinct object can be, to some degree of
accuracy, estimated. It's not perfect because it doesn't take into account every little stupid thing that
changes it minutely, but it's significantly better than taking a random guess.

>educate yourself
get fucking bent, you're not here to debate Evolution if you're not going to acually try to educate and
persuade the other side.

>computer scientist
HA

>Worshipping a kike on a stick

(to concur with your point, my dude)
You do realise that the earth was without life for a good few hundred million years (after the ocean
formed)? and after that it took a billion more for multicellular life to get going?
If the odds were 1,000,000,000,000:1 (That's A TRILLION TO ONE) then assuming a chance at life
forming every hour, in a given ~114 million year period it would be 50/50 Odds for life to form!

given that the earliest fossilised microorganisms are from 3.77 billion years ago and the oceans formed
4.41 billion years ago, to give a good 640 million years between ocean formation and the first life
(assuming fossils are from some time around the earliest life), I'd say that a trillion to one is giving abiogenesis a run for it's money

>get fucking bent, you're not here to debate Evolution if you're not going to acually try to educate and
>persuade the other side.
Please learn how to read, I told the poster to educate himself/herself on the philosophy of science, not evolution.

evolution isnt teleological. there wasn't sufficient disadvantage from having melanin receptors in vaginal walls, therefore it was not eliminated.

You're either a troll or have a mental disability.

Theory is the quantitative framework used to accurately describe physical phenomena. Massive objects attract and species change over time are two physically observable facts. The theory of gravity and the theory of natural selection explain the phenomena.

Just to clarify, rather than trying to 'enlighten' others to what you believe is true, you opt to tell them to 'educate themselves' even thought their 'incorrect views' are literally a product of educating themselves? nicememe.jpg

The existence of viruses today is a strong case for abiogenesis.

Also, kill yourself.

>not believing in gravity

Scientism is sort of like an ideology but science is not at all. Science is a way of objectively looking at the natural world.

>Science is a way of objectively looking at the natural world.
What an uninformed thing to say, nothing humans do is objective. Not to say this is a slight against science, but it's certainly not objective by any means.