Is Evolution a Scientific Law, Theory, or both?

[TheArmyGuy]

I'll go for the big bang theory, but I don't care what anyone believes. It's all OK and natural to me what people believe.
Just people that take the bible literally, word by word, piss me off. The bible is a book of good stories with good morals.
Not exact rules you should follow if you were to commit yourself to christianity.

[Ad Bot]

[Narkro555]

Okay, read this

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Speciation, otherwise referred to as macroevolution, has indeed been observed. There was another experiment done that also observed it, but I can't find it right now.

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

"Believe"
God cannot be a viable explanation for scientific anomalies or phenomena. It is based on uncertainty and blind following. There is no proof to it besides "I believe." This thread is for intelligent debate; keep your "one true faith" out of it.

[blaman]

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.

This entire post was handicapped and you should feel bad for making it.

[TheArmyGuy]

"Believe"
God cannot be a viable explanation for scientific anomalies or phenomena. It is based on uncertainty and blind following. There is no proof to it besides "I believe." This thread is for intelligent debate; keep your "one true faith" out of it.

The point of religion is that you have to be 100% convinced and keep convincing yourself or else the whole thing won't work. It's a soften-up to harsh events humans have no control in (think disease and death) which can actually mentally help you as long as you truly believe that there is someone out there to back you up.

Also clone you are handicapped and have no idea what the god particle is.

[Electrk]

Clone doesn't know what he's talking about, ignore him.

[devildogelite]

Theory=/=Fact

Learn2whattheorymeans

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


Theories are based on facts, what about the theory of gravity

[Mysteroo]

Okay, read this

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Speciation, otherwise referred to as macroevolution, has indeed been observed. There was another experiment done that also observed it, but I can't find it right now.
"Believe"
God cannot be a viable explanation for scientific anomalies or phenomena. It is based on uncertainty and blind following. There is no proof to it besides "I believe." This thread is for intelligent debate; keep your "one true faith" out of it.

I don't know if that's macroevolution, besides, just making new species doesn't make it macroevolution. If you breed dogs you get all sorts of species of dogs, but they're still a dog. I'd call that microevolution.
     What's wrong with the word "believe?" Don't you "Believe" in evolution? Obviously if people are debating on it, we're not certain of evolution, and personally I think some people follow it blindly. I don't think any so called proof of evolution is enough to prove it true. So how is it any different than intelligent design?

[blaman]

No, you don't know what you're talking about.
Gravity used to be a theory, now it's a law.
Many theories have become laws.

Gravity is a theory, described by laws.

[Clone v.117]

This entire post was handicapped and you should feel bad for making it.

I fail to see why it is bad, I listed off the stupidest "causes" of the big bang I have heard over the years, all of those words are from other people not myself.

[devildogelite]

I don't know if that's macroevolution, besides, just making new species doesn't make it macroevolution. If you breed dogs you get all sorts of species of dogs, but they're still a dog. I'd call that microevolution.
     What's wrong with the word "believe?" Don't you "Believe" in evolution? Obviously if people are debating on it, we're not certain of evolution, and personally I think some people follow it blindly. I don't think any so called proof of evolution is enough to prove it true. So how is it any different than intelligent design?

WHAT? How about when the Earth was the center of everything. How about spontaneous generation not being true. Just say you believe in god and stop trying to use science.

[Mysteroo]

I fail to see why it is bad, I listed off the stupidest "causes" of the big bang I have heard over the years, all of those words are from other people not myself.

I've also heard that the big bang used to be "millions of lightyears in diameter" then it shrunk to thousands, then hundreds, then as small as a period at the end of a sentence, and finally some came out and said nothing exploded! Nothing at all!

WHAT? How about when the Earth was the center of everything. How about spontaneous generation not being true. Just say you believe in god and stop trying to use science.

What does that have to do with anything? Those things weren't religious beliefs, they were things widely thought of to be fact by everyone, like evolution.

[Electrk]

People seem to get hypothesis and theory mixed up a lot.

[Narkro555]

I don't know if that's macroevolution, besides, just making new species doesn't make it macroevolution. If you breed dogs you get all sorts of species of dogs, but they're still a dog. I'd call that microevolution.
     What's wrong with the word "believe?" Don't you "Believe" in evolution? Obviously if people are debating on it, we're not certain of evolution, and personally I think some people follow it blindly. I don't think any so called proof of evolution is enough to prove it true. So how is it any different than intelligent design?

That is macro evolution. They are one in the same: Evolutionary change above the species level. Some more proof:

http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html#speciation

I don't believe in Evolution. I accept it as a valid scientific theory, and possibly a law. The scientific definition for "Theory" does not imply uncertainty. "Believe", however, does. Intelligent Design is simply the Bible's creation myth being attempted indoctrinated into society. Intelligent Design is no more valid then all the other hundreds of religious creation myths.

There is immense proof towards Evolution as a theory, and now a law. To deny it has enough proof is nothing short of ignorance.

[Clone v.117]

People follow scientific speak blindly, people do research and follow it intellectually.
People follow religion blindly, people do research and follow it intellectually.

Neither is proven right or wrong, so what is there to talk about.

Oh, right.

Still, theories aren't as questionable as people think, people often get theory and hypothesis mixed up a lot. See, theories are backed up by tons of evidence, hypotheses are often just what people expect to happen.

Things may be backed up by many facts but still aren't a fact themselves.

[SeventhSandwich]

Electrk is a loving dumbass and an example of why science needs to be taught better in schools.

The terms, "Theory" and "Scientific Law" have incredibly specific definitions. A theory is an explanation to a fact/observation. A law is an observation found in nature that is always found true within nature.

Theories don't, "graduate" into scientific laws, and laws are in no way, "better" or, "more true" then a theory.

How the forget did you guys pass your elementary school science programs?

There is immense proof towards Evolution as a theory, and now a law.

Evolution is not a scientific law nor will it ever be. The very premise of evolution is an explanation in itself which violates the criteria for a, "scientific law".