A literal 6 24-hr days?

You can believe that, but it doesn't make it true.

Being a grammar nazi, I want to say species-not kind.

A more accurate definition of Macroevolution would be "microevolution over a long period of time".

As do many Christians, with the exception of God having a hand in it.

Very true, and evolutionary theory does not say anything like this.

Who cares what atheists believe? We are talking about scientists and people who accept evolution. Evolution is *NOT* the same thing as an atheist. Evolution is not a religion, it's a theory.

You tell me, you are the biblical literalist-not I.

 

Meatros,

Read the definition again, but truly give some thought to it this time.

theory, as compared here, implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena [the theory of evolution];hypothesis implies an inadequacy of evidence in support of an explanation that is tentatively inferred, often as a basis for further experimentation [the nebular hypothesis]; law implies an exact formulation of the principle operating in a sequence of events in nature, observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions [the law of the conservation of energy]
-Webster’s New World Dictionary

Notice that theory is an “inexact” formulation of principles, a formulation that cannot be shown to operate empirically. A scientific law is an “exact” formulation of principles that can be shown with unvarying uniformity empirically. Evolution is a theory because it is not empirical, or in other words, it is not demonstrable through observation and experiment. One may interpret the facts in such a way as to conclude they imply considerable evidence in support of a theoretical principle, but this does not equate with being able to demonstrate the principle in the environment or the laboratory. If it were demonstrable, it would be a law and there would be no debate as to its validity. There would be mathematical formulations that would give exacting detailed proofs as to its operations.

I am going to refrain from making presumptions about your motives on this issue. Possibly you came to this erroneous belief because you think that theories, which often address higher order problems that cannot be studied empirically, are somehow special and elevated in science. They are not, but simply deal with the things that are just beyond our understanding. Theories receive a lot more attention, discussion, and research, but this does not elevate them “authoritatively” above law. A theory does not have the authoritative weight a law has. Within the bounds of their scientific statements, laws are conclusive, theories are not. From this perspective a law speaks with commanding authority with regard to its subject matter, a theory speaks from a lesser, weaker position, a position that can be challenged by new evidence. This is as clearly as I know how to state the difference between law and theory. If you have a scientific source that will dispute what I am saying let’s have it and I will contend with them.

[ June 04, 2003, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Faith, Fact & Feeling ]

 

Aww c'mon, J6, even you don't follow that rule. Check out the thread I started concerning what does Genesis One really say. Do you disregard Copernicus and all the astronomers since and believe, instead, there is a solid dome over our heads that holds back the water from falling in on us? 'cause if you don't, then you are just as guilty as anybody for believing science instead of what the Bible says.

Another example of where I bet you will do this is when the Bible tells us that all the flying insects - such as flies and grasshoppers - have four legs. Do you join with me in believing they actually have six, or do you stick with believing the Bible?

Really, I'm serious. Neo literalists such as yourself simply fail to realize how much they've
already departed from the literal teaching of the Bible.

 

I feel this is a hopeless battle as you seem intent on defining things differently then the scientists who use them. You do not post any links to your assertions.

Read these links as they explain better then I:
What Science is and is not:

+

And to reinforce the "proofs are for math":

Proof and Science

+

Here's theory:

Common myths about science:

Take from the above:

If you can't understand this basic difference, I really don't know how else to explain it to you.

When you read about science you read a SCIENCE BOOK not THE DICTIONARY.

 

Why interpret the first, but not the second. As has been shown Genesis 1 contradicts 2.

So what makes it alright for you to interpret what you feel like and chastise those who interpret things differently?

 

In the Hebrew, there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

 

Cite?

 

Dr. Bernard Northrup, Hebrew scholar and professor (retired) and personal friend.

Feel free to ask him.

http://www.ldolphin.org/genages.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/taphon.html

http://www.jewishkansascity.org/fview_message.asp?forumID=144&messageID=964 -- referenced by a rabbi in terms of the accuracy of his understanding of Hebrew

http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html -- a little over halfway down in "Testimony of the Bible" you will find we referenced him extensively and that he was very helpful in some translation matters.

He has done extensive work through the years traveling, upon request, to various countries where translations of the Bible were being done for various languages, to check the accuracy against the Hebrew and Greek. He is a respected scholar of these languages.

Other explanations:
http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR133.htm
http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con005.asp
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20010812.htm

It is poor hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) to read two separate accounts (the creation of the earth as a biosphere in Genesis 1 and the creation of a single garden and the happenings therein in Genesis 2) and then cite the differences in the two accounts as contradictory.
from http://www.garden-of--eden.com/

Hope that helps.

 

I see, so it's only acceptable to interpret the bible in the fashion that you and these people accept.

Interesting.

 

Meatros,

Listen, if I can disagree with most scientists on most issues, don’t think that I’m afraid to challenge this issue of definitions, especially since I have a pretty good idea where this definition bending on the part of scientists comes from to begin with. I have read what you said, plus many other discussions I have come across. Let me ask you a question. If macro-evolution was observed in the environment, and could be replicated in the laboratory, would it still be a theory? If not, what would it be? Think about it, if it was as unfailing, as reproducible as the effects of gravity, would it still be called a theory? The obvious answer is no. The definitional issue around the terms “theory” and “law” have only become important to the “philosophy” of science since they have involved themselves in unprovable theories around origins. I have no problem standing opposed to scientists or you on this issue. I believe myth #1 is a biased perspective by its author. Please take note of myth #8 (Scientists are Particularly Objective) on the page you linked.

 

I don't think you are afraid to challenge the definitions. In fact I think that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. This is attested to your claims that a *scientific* theory can magically change into a *scientific* law. Do you have ANY sort of evidence to support this? No.

Yes, the theory of evolution will always be a theory. Just like the theory of relativity or the theory of gravity.

Gravity IS a theory! Didn't you see the quote from Newton???:

In other words, he discovered the Law of Gravity[/i], but he didn't discover the theory of gravity.

No but you continually and stubbornly refuse to accept that you are mistaken.

Did you happen to ignore all the other links I've posted? You haven't posted diddly in way of what scientists think of theories and laws.

You keep asserting utter nonsense in the vain hope that someone will believe you.

Call evolution a hypothesis if you like, at this point I don't care, but you are redefining the terms scientists use in a vain effort to not have to admit that you are wrong.

 

BTW-since bias seems to be an issue, what about the Answers in Genesis site I gave you that contradicted what you said? Did you forget about that one?

 

Why are you so mad and insulting if you believe you are right? It seems to me if you are so sure of yourself your feelings would be in check. You just can’t stand it if someone disagrees with that great god you have made out of science can you? My logic is impeccable, and it really doesn’t matter what you site or what you believe. BTW, you didn’t answer my question about if evolution was demonstrable.

I disagree. I think evolution is more along the lines of myth, or wild pagan imagination, and will be proven false. If it was demonstrable it would be a law though. Relativity may very well be good science. Einstein’s book was one of the first science books I read back a couple decades ago. I don’t agree with all the speculation around origins that is made in conjunction with its tenets, but the behavior of space, time and matter at extreme states has some empirical support, unlike that of evolution. The behavior of gravitation is a law. Now the substance and underlying physics are still shrouded. If I remember correctly, from a relativistic perspective it is matter taking the shortest path in curved space-time. No, gravitational forces are a matter of law. And if the mechanisms behind gravity are ever discovered, observed, and/or repeated experimentally, that will be a law also.

You mean this one:
I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis . . ." " . . . it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained

This quote proves the point I made in the previous paragraph.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Orbits/newtongrav.html
http://plabpc.csustan.edu/astro/newton/gravity.htm

Just a few of the hundreds on the web about the law of gravity.

Now look at some sites on the theory of gravity:

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/General_relativity.html
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_home.html
http://plato.phy.ohiou.edu/~dutta/notes/node17.html

Two deal with general relativity, the other two quantum physics.

If you really believe your right, what’s the problem? Are you unsure of yourself?

Don’t cry Meatros, those scientists nor I will lose any sleep over it. Will you?

Didn’t forget. I disagree with them here and in other places, if that’s ok with you of course.

 

My feelings are in check. Your ego on the other hand clearly isn't. I'm not going to answer you question about evolution until I'm sure you are clear with basic scientific principles. What would the point be?

And you have been shown to be wrong.

You can use whatever rhetoric makes you sleep easier at night, but you are still wrong in your assertion about theories becoming laws. Right now you are being stubborn. I believe that once you pray about it that the good lord Jesus will remove your stubbornness and pride and you will understand the difference between the two concepts of theory and law.

True, and why it behaves this way is THEORY.

Read it again. You either have a mental block against accepting that theories and laws are two different things or you are stubborn.

Proving my point even more.

Nice try, as you can see I am just as sure of myself as I've ever been. You on the other hand are waffling. You have posted websites that contradict your position. So keep your rhetoric to yourself.

Nice rhetoric, trying to make this an emotional issue isn't going to make you right.

Let me ask you a question: If everyone disagrees with your opinion about Laws and Theories, does that mean all of them are wrong in how they define the words or does it mean that you are wrong?

Get over yourself.

 

My ego isn’t in check? Well, I guess that is just the difference between you and I, my ego is not in check and I know it.

Nice try, remember what your beloved scientists say, nothing is ever quite proven. What you mean to say is that you have a theory that I’m wrong.

Meatros, at your very best state you are altogether vanity.

Stubborn.

Proving what, that your mixing the theory of gravity with the law of gravity?

No contradictions on my side, I have stated what I disagree with. You, on the other hand, have failed to answer my question. What would happen if evolution was demonstrated empirically? What would it be then?

I already did years ago. Now, you get over your love for scientific opinion. All change is attributable to the unreasonable man Meatros. Only those that are man enough to stand up against obviously stupid statements like “proven theories do not become laws”, are able to move thought in the right direction. What do you call a proven theory Meatros?

 

And your unapologetic about it. How rich.

I see the game you are playing. You are trying to get me frustrated enough that I ignore you, thus absolving you of having to admit you are wrong. I hate to admit it, but it's working. Look currently I'm not trying to convince you of evolutions validity. I'm trying to explain the vernacular of science.

Again you would be wrong. I admit when I am wrong, I have done so on this board and several others. You on the other hand are stubborn. Instead of owning up to it, you are using inflammatory rhetoric to handwave the issue away.

I'm not mixing the two. You are being a juvenile now. You clearly know that there is a difference between the two and that a theory *doesn't* become a law. How old are you?

I have already told you: It would still be a theory! Theories explain facts and laws they are *not* a step in some ladder of correctness.

You already did years ago, yet you admit that your ego is not in check? How does that make sense??

I will state it again a scientific theory always remains a theory. No amount of validation switches it to a law. A law pertains to a generalization, a principle, or a pattern. A theory explains the law.

For example: What goes up must come down-this would be a law.
A theory would explain why what goes up must come down.

A scientific theory does not become a law.

I can make it no clearer then that. If you need help understanding the difference I suggest you go back to school, because if you don't understand the difference by now then you need some basic education.

 

Meatros,

Well, if I'm going to brag about myself, it should be about my humility. I went back and reread the entirety of our exchange. I even did a considerable search on the web. Interestingly enough I found a few instances of scientists discussing theory and fact in the same manner I did. But, after careful consideration it is clear that the definitions you posted are the ones used in the scientific community. At least I found some real scientists making the same mistake (made me feel a little better). I guess if you can admit being wrong about something (as you have stated), a vain, prideful, egotist like myself can’t let you out do me now can I? My apologies and God bless.