Is Evolution a Scientific Law, Theory, or both?

[blaman]

Yes it can.
If you have a theory about me not having a dog, you dont know for sure. But if you come to my house and see that I do have a dog, that is no longer a theory, it is fact.

Scientific theories are a little different.

[Ad Bot]

[Mysteroo]

Micro evolution is definitely fact. If you breed enough dogs you'll get all sorts of different types of them. But I don't think there's any proof or anything of evolution beyond that. It's never been observed that if you breed dogs enough, you'll get something that isn't considered a dog anymore.
     Evolution usually means both micro and macro, and only one of those is a proven fact. So no, I don't think it should be considered law.

[Planr]

since you guys are such the experts on this, why dont you go email a bunch of scientists and prove them wrong. you guys certainly seem to know what you're talking about

[Clone v.117]

Yes it can.
If you have a theory about me not having a dog, you dont know for sure. But if you come to my house and see that I do have a dog, that is no longer a theory, it is fact.

That doesn't really fit the situation, Evolution has not been proven to a tee, if it had it wouldn't be a theory, until it is proven that it is or is not true and is no longer a theory it can then be considered fact.
The point is you may be able to prove you have a dog, but evolution itself is not proven.

[Mysteroo]

since you guys are such the experts on this, why dont you go email a bunch of scientists and prove them wrong. you guys certainly seem to know what you're talking about

Not all scientists believe evolution as fact. My grandfather for example didn't believe it, and he was a scientist
Oh wait, I think you were talking about something else. Nevermind, I didn't read the first page very much lol

[Mulch]

well, I don't care.

Then don't post.

[Fracture]

Not all scientists believe evolution as fact. My grandfather for example didn't believe it, and he was a scientist

Well hes stupid and not looking at facts.

I dont understand how scientists can believe that god created the universe, being as there is no evidence beyond the bible. Especially when there are so much more evidence for the big bang.

[Mulch]

Well hes stupid and not looking at facts.

I dont understand how scientists can believe that god created the universe, being as there is no evidence beyond the bible. Especially when there are so much more evidence for the big bang.

The bible isn't even evidence. How Christians consider it a holy book is beyond me.

[Clone v.117]

Well hes stupid and not looking at facts.

Theory=/=Fact

Learn2whattheorymeans

[Mysteroo]

Well hes stupid and not looking at facts.

That's a bit uncalled for

I dont understand how scientists can believe that god created the universe, being as there is no evidence beyond the bible. Especially when there are so much more evidence for the big bang.

I don't see any evidence for the Big Bang, I believe in God because it just makes a lot more sense to me then the Big Bang or evolution does. Well, there's other reasons too but I don't feel like listing them

[TheArmyGuy]

If a theory is proven it becomes law.
Theory is also a very stupid word.
Because gravity is a theory too.

[Fracture]

Theory=/=Fact

Learn2whattheorymeans

Im not pointing to the theory of evolution, but to the other facts we have about our planet.

[Mysteroo]

Im not pointing to the theory of evolution, but to the other facts we have about our planet.

I don't believe any of those facts point to the Big Bang any more than they point to an intelligent designer.

[blaman]

Well hes stupid and not looking at facts.

I dont understand how scientists can believe that god created the universe, being as there is no evidence beyond the bible. Especially when there are so much more evidence for the big bang.

Someone of intelligence would acknowledge the possibility of a god of some sort creating existence. They should only be considered handicapped when they start believing first century human born fairy tales.

[Clone v.117]

The big bang theory (remember that word) seems to keep changing, I have seen many a point from scientists over the years about it and every time it is something new.

First it was when there was nothing, no universe or anything, but there were two particles there (because magic) and they collided and made the universe.

Second it was that the universe was once a compressed form of infinite mass (where it was, how it got there, why or how infinite mass even exists i know not) but yeah then it made a universe too.

Thirdly (I saw this in some documentary bullstuff) instead of god creating it it was a god particle, yeah get that, apparently the universe was made by a "god particle" that was all particles at once and could do and be anything.

I don't listen to that stuff anymore.