Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No it is notsnr5557 said:Please reply with your answer.
How so?Arnie Manitoba said:No it is not
But the theory of evolution has all the attributes of a religion ... it is a "belief system"
Arnie Manitoba said:
In the purest sense , science is an attempt to figure out created things and how the creator makes everything work.
I'm with you here
Whether a scientist believes in a creator or not , is beside the point.
True, it's the actual science that's really important
DNA existed before mankind discovered it.
Well yeah
However , mankind pats the DNA scientist on the back as though "science" or "scientists" created or invented DNA.
I've never heard that. The only thing I've heard scientists doing is taking credit for having discovered this.
In the past 100 years our brightest physicists and scientists discovered the immense energy with the tiny atom , and learned how to release that energy.
Mankind hold them up as being ... "the smartest guys in the world" ... and that is fair
But not one of them can even comprehend how all that energy got into the atom in the first place. That takes some real power.
Science takes time, be patient. We may in ten, fifteen, one hundred years later from today know, or we may never know, but hopefully you don't write science or scientists off yet. I'm not saying you are, it just reads that way on my end.
All of a sudden we should realize there is something a lot smarter and more powerful than anything mankind has to offer.
God Himself claims to be that entity . He invented DNA. He invented the atom. He invented mankind.
However mankind prefers to be their own little gods and often set the Big God aside
Thus scientists are playing the role of "little gods" .... whether they realize it or not .... and whether they believe in God or not.
I completely disagree. No real scientist is saying that he or she created DNA or humanity. They would more than likely be cast out by other scientists if they claimed credit for creating creating humanity.
In some ways I do, in others I don't agree. Evolution isn't a faith, people have observed and tested evolution and have found the results consistent enough to be taught in a classroom.Arnie Manitoba said:snr5557
I agree with most of what you said .... I should also have stated that I have no problems with scientists or science , and I am sure God approves of science as well
But it is when science , and scientists try to explain the origins of everything (evolution) .... they have stepped out of the bounds of proper science .... they present a theory .... which amounts to a "belief system" .... which belongs in the religious realm .... not the scientific realm
To me that is the issue .... the mixing of science with theory (and then label it all as factual science).
Nothing wrong with theory .... but if we open the door to teaching theory in the classroom , then creationism has just as much right in the classroom as any other theory
Hope that makes sense.
It was not me who calls it the theory of evolution.River Jordan said:Arnie,
You need to look up the definition of "theory" as used in science. It's not at all what you're portraying it to be.
I have a theory that every time the evolutionist gets pressed into a corner he changes the subject and tries to shift the argument over to the goatsbeard plants or Asimov quotes.River Jordan said:You remind me of the Asimov quote...."Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
Now, science OTOH defines a theory as....
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."
If you disagree, please show me a scientific source that defines a scientific theory closer to what you're claiming.
He was responding to the fact that you don't quite understand what a theory is. He was giving you the definition, and a quote for fun.Arnie Manitoba said:I have a theory that every time the evolutionist gets pressed into a corner he changes the subject and tries to shift the argument over to the goatsbeard plants or Asimov quotes.
My theory has been 100% proven 100% of the time.
I understand what a theory is , always havesnr5557 said:He was responding to the fact that you don't quite understand what a theory is. He was giving you the definition, and a quote for fun.
I'm sorry, but you're not making much sense. You brought up the issue of the word "theory". I merely showed that you were using the term incorrectly. If you disagree with the scientific usage of the word theory that I posted, then please provide an alternative definition from a scientific source. If you are unable to do so, then my point stands.Arnie Manitoba said:I have a theory that every time the evolutionist gets pressed into a corner he changes the subject and tries to shift the argument over to the goatsbeard plants or Asimov quotes.
Your previous posts show that you don't. Hopefully you'll understand better now.Arnie Manitoba said:I understand what a theory is , always have
Scientific theories don't become facts, scientific theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs. That evolution occurs is a fact.I also understand that a theory is not a fact.
The theory of evolution is often presented as a scientific fact.
It is fair to say that the word theory can be used in many contexts .... some correct and some not correct.River Jordan said:I'm sorry, but you're not making much sense. You brought up the issue of the word "theory". I merely showed that you were using the term incorrectly. If you disagree with the scientific usage of the word theory that I posted, then please provide an alternative definition from a scientific source. If you are unable to do so, then my point stands.
Your previous posts show that you don't. Hopefully you'll understand better now.
Scientific theories don't become facts, scientific theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs. That evolution occurs is a fact.