Creation vs. Evolution

[Midnight Star]

Yeah! It took me about a dozen tries, but I finally got the link to work!

-----

Mike.

 

[Midnight Star]

With all due respect, you do not understand the process, I will try over the next few days to put together something reasonable succinct to help you to understand it. If you walk way from that with Collins' view of a prime mover who set it all in motion billions and billions of years ago, that fine with me, there is no data to prove or disprove that ... that is truly a matter of faith.

Feel free to post it here. It sounds like some interesting reading

-----

Mike.

 

[Soggy]

That must be why gravity was downgraded from law to theory. If it remained law it would present an obstacle to the theory of evolution. After all, gravity could fail (thus falsifying the theory) just as marble statues could wave their hands thus validating the theory.

Nice try, chief.

The Law of Gravity is the effect. Apples fall from trees.

The Theory of Gravity explains the phenomenon.

 

[Midnight Star]

Clearly, you are:

What i've written isn't entirely unsubstantiated, not as your thinking - as has already been covered before. So it is indeed a valid theory ... simple in it's form, and perhaps it's understanding, metaphysical only in the involvement of an unknown (inferring God). It would be interesting to see things play out as time progresses.

-----

Mike.

 

[Midnight Star]

Nice try, chief.

The Law of Gravity is the effect. Apples fall from trees.

The Theory of Gravity explains the phenomenon.

Isnt gravity a sub-set of electromagnitism? And diving with otters would be fun!

-----

Mike.

 

[Soggy]

What i've written isn't entirely unsubstantiated, not as your thinking - as has already been covered before. So it is indeed a valid theory ... simple in it's form, and perhaps it's understanding, metaphysical only in the involvement of an unknown (inferring God). It would be interesting to see things play out as time progresses.

Is it testable and falsifiable?

 

[Thalassamania]

Actually, it's just another theory.

-----

Mike.

Let’s try and get on common ground:

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean. Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

1. Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses are advanced so that they can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. When a layman refers to as “just a theory,” is something that has not even made to the level of a hypothesis.
2. Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven multiple hypotheses and verified multiple times by independent groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory.
3. Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal. It can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true. Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A slingshot has one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back. A scientific law is like a slingshot, simple, direct and unchanging. (Stay with me ... let the wrist rockets and such go by the way).

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged. A theory is like the automobile. Components of it are often changed and/or improved upon. This is done without changing the fact that it's a car, or similary the overall truth of a theory as a whole. Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

Cribbed and modified from: WILSTAR.COM

 

[Midnight Star]

Nice try, chief.

The Law of Gravity is the effect. Apples fall from trees.

The Theory of Gravity explains the phenomenon.

Then why wouldn't God theorize the phenomenon of life?

-----

Mike.

 

[Midnight Star]

Is it testable and falsifiable?

How so? Please don't just conclude without giving an explanation or reason?

-----

Mike.

 

[Soggy]

Isnt gravity a sub-set of electromagnitism?

Yes, my mistake. There is no 'law' of gravity except in Newton's Principia.

And diving with otters would be fun!

Definitely. Very intelligent and curious animals. I'd love to try it some time. Hopefully they don't bite!