Creationists do you know...?

Question

Do you know the difference between a scientific theory and a law?

To a layperson a "theory" means a "guess". It means something totally different to a scientist...just ask one.

Theory: A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon PROVEN hypotheses and VERIFIED multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

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 univseral, and 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.

Your thoughts on the evolution theory?

j s: I don't know how much more simple I can make this for you. The definition I gave (above) is THE ONLY definition that scientists use. You gave me a websters definition....thats for the layperson (YOU). There are many other definitions for the word but only ONE THAT APPLIES to scientific THEORY!!!

David G: I'm glad you feel that way....now who created god?

Answer 1

Don't bother. I, as an evolutionist, have explained this difference at least half a dozen times. But they'll still keep on insisting.

Answer 2

Please, don't demonstrate the type of ignorance common to many atheists on this site.

First, one person can propose a scientific theory, such as Newton and Gravity and Einstein and General Relativity.

Second, the difference between a Law of Science and a Theory of Science is testability and repeatability. Newton's theory of gravitation is accepted as law because it is testable and repeatable. Einsteins Relativity remains as theory because we lack the ability to test it.

Third and finally, evolution of species is not only a theory, it is a bad theory. It cannot be tested or repeated because the proposed conditions can never be duplicated. Additionally, genetics has proven that unlike DNA strands cannot combine. For example, in order for a chimpanzee gene to become a human gene, two chimpanzees must be born (male and female) at the same time in the same place with the exact same genetic mutations. Then they must find each other and successfully mate. The possibility for this one step happening one time is about 1 in 10 to the 126th power chances. Based simply on this one FACT, the time required to 'evolve' from single celled organisms to a simple bisexual invertebrate would require more time than the most liberal age of the universe could provide. From inanimate matter to vertebrates, it is mathematically impossible by any stretch of the imagination.

And by the way, a hypothesis, by definition, is an unproven statement, usually presented with an intent to prove. Mathematical conjectures which have not been disproven are called Theorums, and are also not equivelant to postulates or laws.

Answer 3

"The difference between a scientific theory and a law?"

I think so. A law is like Newton's Law of Gravity correct? While a theory is akin to the "Big Bang Theory."

"Your thoughts on the evolution theory?"

In the interest of fair disclosure, I confess that I'm more intelligent-design-girl than creationist babe. But I try to be logical in my musings, it's so difficult to keep up.

In 1925, we knew creationists were right as a matter of law ("Scopes Monkey Trial"). So we could all turn off our thinking caps. But in 1950, Professor Goldschmidt told us that "[e]volution of the animal and plant world is ... a fact for which no further proof is needed." So we all had to briefly turn back on our thinking caps, flip a switch, and turn them off again.

But is it all right to still think about this issue?

If so, I might ask how did "life" get into that first cell? And once we have "life" in that first cell, some sort of bacterium or blue-algae cell I imagine, how do we go from finary fission to meiosis? Just looking at the mathematics of the evolutionary theory, don't you have to ask if there was enough time to go from single celled organisms into the wide variety of highly complex species we see today. And how do we go from microevolution to macroevolution. That just doesn't seem intuitive. I mean we can observe evolution in action with species like moths where they change over time from primarily white to primarily black. But that is all evolution within a species. Natural selection does seem obvious, but it also seems to work within a selected genotype.

Also, what about the problem of chirality. Even noted evolutionists Christian de Duve and Alan Schwartz recognize the need to address this issue.

And isn't it a law of science that the entropy or disorder of an isolated system can never decrease. Thus, when an isolated system achieves a configuration of maximum entropy, it can no longer undergo change. In short, it has reached equilibrium. This means that things go from a state of order to chaos, not the other way around, unless there is a purposeful input of energy. So things run down, the clock unwinds, things don't gear up, the clock doesn't wind itself. So doesn't it at least raise the question in your mind as to how a bacterium added order and evolved into a complex human? I guess we can argue that the earth isn't a closed system. But then the first law of thermodynamics pokes its head into the entire debate. Doesn't it state that the total energy in a system plus its surrounding remains constant? As you pointed out, it's a law so we know its always true under all circumstances (just like Newton's law?). So where did the energy and matter come from in the universe if it can never be created or destroyed?

Ah yes, but I remember now. We all turned off our thinking caps in 1950. Because we have laws and theories.

Answer 4

A hypotheses is the idea something is possible.

A theory is prove on paper in the form of a mathematical equation, which is then scrutinized by all other mathematicians which helps prove the possibility of the theory.

Law is observing a theory in true time not once but twice, that shows the stability of it.

The closest thing to evolution being a fact is mutations, they are a proving fact. It's the ability of living things to adapt to it's surroundings.

Lactose tolerance, Sickle cell resistance to malaria,Resistance to atherosclerosis,Immunity to HIV ....

The science community needs to work more on facts and go from there, you never know they might figure out more about other changes humans have went through.

The theory of evolution should be a hypotheses instead of a theory because there is no scientific way to truly tie us with apes. We'll never see evolution in true time so it's a waste of time, it's impossible to prove based on the laws of science.

I'd bet if aliens came here and were able to breathe and have a heart pumping blood through it's body it would be 99.99% like us based on DNA, yet they have never been here so we couldn't have evolved from them.

The .01% difference would be more like a mutation between us based on our different environments. But if they stayed here or if we went there that would go away and we'd be 100% the same in time.

Answer 5

since to the lay person a theory is a guess then when you talk to the latity you should use the definition that your readers know. By any definition verticle evolution is a guess, is that simple enough. Until you can do a controled experament that can be repeated by anyone and they will get the same results then it is a guess. In the case of evolution if you can prove that you guessed right in the specified manner then what you have proved is that there may well have ben intelligent design.

If those facts are to hard for you to understand then I suggest you go back to school so they can teach you again. All this using buzz words from your own community is meant to confuse, and while you can confuse our children it will take about five minutes for anyone with a head on their shoulders to poke holes in your guess. I will try to use the word guess from now on so you can understand me. Apparently since English is a foriegn language to you we will have to simplfy things for the evolution crowd.

Answer 6

Theories have not been verified to satisfaction of all parties, I don't mean the whole world. Proven theories become fact.
In order to prove existence, a live specimen must first be obtained and then disected by scientists, before it can be said to exist. Scientific lows are postulates like partly proven fundamentals.

From another similar post, because you have written this, are you able to prove to us that you have a brain and prove that your brain is from the well which ideas spring forth. There can be a host of evolution theory based on existential pretexts.

Answer 7

I applaud your efforts. I myself have explained this very thing more than once and found I might as well be talking to a brick wall. It will no doubt be interpreted as an effort to degrade or destroy someone's faith, rather than the intended result of giving a sound definition to those who have no idea what the difference is But then, consider the source as always. I've come to the conclusion that my favorite saying applies here admirably:
Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Answer 8

why must it be either/or?
why not acknowledge that while we can experiment to our hearts content we can not at this time duplicate the events that began and populated our planet?
We can watch living things change and evolve over generations, we can watch the "natural selection" of the species and how it impacts the rest of the planet but we can not recreate the spark that started it all. we can not create life from lifelessness.
So in the end NO ONE REALLY KNOWS how we got here and why.
We can understand how a heart works and create an artificial heart to mimic the real thing but we cannot create a heart out of thin air.
Religion is a BELIEF structure not a FACT structure. throwing facts at the creationists won't convince them and throwing logic at scientists will not open their minds to the possibility of the unknown.
we once thought we knew the earth was flat imagine what we will know in 1000 years.
keep an open mind on both sides
just my opinion.

Answer 9

The evolution theory has so many holes that it cannot stand on its own merit. It is not scientific in its claims. None of the theories claims have been proved without putting forth another theory full of holes. Evolution theory "has not been Proven" or "Verified"

Answer 10

It is funny how creationists where the ones who created science to try to understand god and his works better, but when science proved that bible god inprobable or contradictory to certain sectarian interpretations, they reject it all-together. In their minds, it is more possible ALL scientists in the world are wrong and their one book is right.

Did you creationists also know that evolution has withstood the test of time for over 150 years and only one single piece of evidence (like say you prove god made it all) would debunk it? How come you can't even come up with one?

Answer 11

theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

not just the laypersons who believe theory is different to science lol.
my thoughts on the evolution theory is that in some aspects it is true when it comes to adaption of an environment based on survival . other than that i don't really see any relevance.