View Single Post
  (#15 (permalink)) Old
ThisWillDestroyYou Offline
I've been here a while
ThisWillDestroyYou's Avatar
Name: Michael
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Posts: 1,050
Join Date: July 5th 2011

Re: Non-Literal Interpretation of Genesis, how do you explain genealogies? - May 24th 2015, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by Little Miss View Post
How is gravity a theory? The guy who thought of gravity was a Christian and there have been so many tests to prove it is true. But I gave you my opinion. You don't need to go be rude about my opinion thank you very much.
Look up the definition of a scientific theory. Not one from a creationist who warp the meaning, but from a credible source of someone who actually works in the field. So, let me use a pretty credible source: National Center for Science Education.

They define a theory as follows:
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Thus, a theory in science is different than the word theory that we typically hear in speech.

Essentially a theory is something that has A LOT of evidence to support the idea of something based on known facts. In other words, a theory is something that can have so much evidence that it is hard to reject it, so much so that it can almost become a law. However, in science, nothing is ever technically "proven" as you say. There is evidence to support an idea, and that idea can be accepted, or there is lack of evidence and an idea can be rejected. There is no proof.

Proof is subjective. For example, I can provide you with evidence of gravity. But, you're still free to reject it because perhaps my evidence hasn't convinced you, and thus hasn't been PROVEN to you. This does not mean that there isn't evidence to support the idea of gravity. Rather, there is, but this doesn't mean it's proven.

This is how I view evolution. There is so much evidence to support it, that it's absolutely ridiculous to even consider rejecting it. Anyone with an honest mind who researches it will see that evolution is as just a grounded of a theory as gravity. Thus, in essence, when you reject evolution, you are rejecting a near fundamental law of biology, and rejecting something with nearly as much evidence as gravity. So, to you, in the way you word it, I could tell you evolution has already been proven (though I wouldn't chose those words).

I will also tell you, while Isaac Newton was religious, so was Charles Darwin at a point in his life. However, it doesn't matter what a persons religious views are in science, so long as they contribute to knowledge and growth of the field. Hats off to Darwin and Newton alike. Both brilliant. I don't care about either of their philosophical views of religion.

The reason we say that nothing in science is ever proven, just supported, is because unlike a religious text, it is always evolving to what we discover and know. Therefore, new discoveries could erase and destroy the theory of gravity, and give rise to a new explanation, the same way something could erase and destroy the theory of evolution and give a new explanation for the diversity of life. That's the beauty of science. In fact, a great majority of science is about trying to destroy current scientific knowledge. It's not afraid of being "disproven" (for lack of a better word), like creationism. Rather, it WANTS to be disproven because that's what makes science exciting!

I would also like to point out that what you said about gravity: "There are so many tests that prove it's true," is exactly what a theory is. I would just re-word it and say that there are many test which provide evidence for it, and therefore, strongly suggest the theory to be true. The details in the words are more important.

The idea is this: While gravity exists, we don't doubt this. We jump up, we fall down, the paramount question is HOW does it work? And this is why it's a theory. It isn't about whether we fall down when we jump. It's about how. So, while you may drop a pencil to the ground and say, "Proof of gravity," it's not really because it doesn't explain how. Sure the force could be defined, but not the how.

Please read this before responding with arguments that I think will arise from my post:

Lastly, I wasn't rude, and even if I was it was warranted. I didn't ask for your opinion about creationism anywhere in this thread. I asked for people who accept a non-literal version of Genesis. So, if you prefer people not to respond rudely, perhaps you should be slow to speak, as the Bible says. Especially when this topic clearly doesn't involve your viewpoint, and so I don't really care to hear your opinion because it wasn't the purpose of this thread. Sometimes it's best to keep your opinion to yourself, particularly when someone isn't asking for it. Thank you very much.