Why do people always say "you can't prove evolution, it's only a theory" or "prove God doesn't exist"?

Question

I mean, isn't there a point where you have to say, "It just makes logical sense, and there is sufficient evidence?"

I mean you can't prove that the next time you drop a rock that it is going to fall down. It could fall straight up. But although gravity is just a "theory" shouldn't we be able to look at it as a fact, seeing as all evidence suggests that it will fall down?

And anyway... God is a giant Mr. Potato Head that lives in an onion outside the universe. He has a room full of eggs and we are all inside of one of them. Can you prove me wrong?

I mean... at what point can we allow ourselves to accept things that make sense, and that seem to properly fit the puzzle?

Sweet Suzy 777: that is a straight up lie.

Yeow Teng K: Part law, part theory. If I am wrong... well, PROVE IT! hahaha

Yeow Teng K: You are a good man for admitting that last part.

The_Cricket: I hear where you are coming from. I can respect that. My personal view is that when we can't prove anything really... that we should follow what makes the most sense. I can understand being religious and following that mindset. I used to be a Christian and I actually used to argue against atheists for creation... and I was pretty good. Now I am an atheist, and I look back at those days wondering how any of it made sense to me at all... I feel like I am so much more clear headed now, and really it just feels good to know that what you believe is logical, and that it is backed up by science in every possible way.

raindreamer: Nice answer. And, believe me I don't have a problem with evolution being called a theory... just so long as people know what they are talking about before they start making naive comments like "well why are there still monkeys," etcetera. As long as people recognize that it does make sense.

Answer 1

But you haven't given us any points to show us that it makes sense.

Mainly, for me, there are no transitional fossils to show the minor changes that would have occurred over time.

Also, I can show you facts that scientist have discovered such as measureing the decay of the magnetic field of the earth and them moving backward to dtermine the strength of the field. They fouind that a mere 1 million years ago the field was so strong that earth could not have supported life.

Answer 2

Well, there is a difference between fact and theory. Some theories may be very logical, but they remain theories because we cannot obtain a complete, unquestionable understanding of the theory. Why do we not just claim that a theory is a fact? Sometimes we have done so. And sometimes we have done so only to find out that the theory was wrong.

In cases of religion and the beginnings of existence, there will alway be debate, and we will never have answers - mainly because we're getting into topics where it's not even possible that evidence could exist to prove or disprove them. It's not unreasonable for people to argue these sorts of things.

Gravity can be proven. It can be proven now, a this moment. There is irrefutable evidence that it exists. We understand how it works, where it comes from, how it behaves, where it is not found, how to manipulate it, etc. There are not exceptions to the rule of gravity.

God cannot be proven, or disproved. There is no real definition of what God is, and no way to point it out and show that it does or does not exist. It is an intangible idea that has varied throughout history. It is not a specific thing, even as an idea, let alone as something that is real. What is God? Ask a million people and get a million answers.

As to evolution, that is something that falls into both categories. We can give it a definition, we can research tangible evidence of evolution through certain periods of time. To an extent, it can be proven. We do know that life changes to adapt to new situations. Life does progress. In that aspect, evolution exists.

However we cannot completely grasp all of the facts of evolution. We'll never really know at what point evolution began, and how it has continued. Because it is a concept that spans a great deal of time and fades into the beginnings of history, we can't view it all. We may or may not have developed from less complex organisms. We may or may not have developed from aquatic life, or other primates. Right now we really don't have the information to know these things, and quite likely we never will have that information, because it all occurred so long ago that it is lost to us.

History is something we can only guess at, given what information we can find. Sometimes our guesses may be more reasonable than at other times, particularly when they involve recent history. It would be a disservice to mankind if we were to just label things as fact without the evidence to really prove something completely. There's nothing wrong with something being considered a theory, when it is only a theory, even if it's a good one.

edited to add:

I went off a bit from your original question there, sorry. Quick answer regarding people who say evolution can't be proven / you can't disprove God: We come to a divide between people who live life based on sense and reason versus people who live life based on emotion and hope. Religious people do not care about reason, especially when it opposes their emotions and hopes. The groups live two very different lifestyles and have two very different perspectives. When a religion itself actually says to live life by blind faith and not reason.... there is no way for the two perspectives to ever come to any agreement. The groups aren't even playing on the same field, there's no commonality. And people will argue because they don't want to be wrong.

Answer 3

Well...I really, really want to believe evolution....just need someone to help wrap up a few loose ends...

1) why was there a cambriac explosion of life and no simple life forms found prior to this?

2) where are the transistional fossils?

3) how can "punctuated equilibrium" be any more scientific than talking snakes? (sorry if you haven't heard this one...but this was Gould's response to #2 - that one life form emerged from the other)

4) why does carbon dating show barnacles on the sides of ships to be tens of thousands of years old, when the ship is only 20 years old?

5) evolution for complex life forms might look like it makes sense (dogs, cats, man, etc), but if we keep moving back the evolutionary ladder, we have to go back to single cell organisms, and then I run into a wall called "irreducible complexity", and can't move any farhter back. Which pretty much shuts everything down.

so...like you say...at what point do we allow ourselves to accept things make sense? When these five questions can be resolved. As it is right now, evolution as a model is like a half assembled lawnmower, and I'm asking for the missing parts, and someone hands me two paperclips and says that should do it.

Got a long way to go to knock down those 5 objections.

Answer 4

Get this, it wasn't originally Darwin's theory, so much for the science only guy's. Gravity is known as a law But both evolution and gravity are tools, among many, for the reality which we except as "life", which in a greater sense is not reality at all. Just the thought of God existed

Answer 5

For me, even before I became a true believer, evolution couldn't have enough evidence to back itself up. For example, the initial matter/energy/whatever blob mass thing would HAVE to take the place of God. If it did everything on its own, God isn't necessary.

My second clue is the improbability of the events that had to take place. The closest thing scientists have come up with to being able to connect every single event of evolution is saying that there MUST have been countless generations of people made entirely of RNA before people were made of DNA. The actual probability of life forming on its own is so low, any /truthful/ scientist would tell you it's a statistical impossibility.

After thoroughly researching the facts, I've fouth a LOT of falsified information. The chart with the similarities of animals in their development process is extremely misleading in telling you that this is how they start out. Species actually start out MUCH more different, and it's only after a certain amount of time (I can't remember exactly, but it's a month or more) that they look like that. And quite soon after they look the same, they all suddenly start forming into what they will become, and their shapes no longer resemble each other. What I mean to say is that there's only a short window of time that they look similar, and it's not even actually in the beginning of development. They will also falsify the atmosphere that supposedly existed in order for the initial amino acids to form from lightning. And the Cambrian Explosion is still unconvincingly explained.

Yes, I've done all my homework on evolution, and God still seems like a more logical conclusion to me.

Answer 6

A. Gravity is a Law.
B. People always rephrase the words so it looks more advantageous to them.

--------
Sweet Suzy 777! .... Darwin said those were wrong and took it all back? Where did you hear it from? Some Christians fundies who claims Darwin converted by his deathbed in front of a lady hope? Get real, these are just propaganda which had been dismissed by the REAL people who were beside Darwin, ie his children. The christians fundies still propagate the lies by saying Darwin children lied but cannot provide information of this Lady Hope, neat huh?

---------
Actually, you can be right. In Issac Newton's view (based on earth), gravity is already a law, therefore if you calculate gravity on earth it should be relatively correct. However, if we view gravity outside earth, it is actually just a theory :D ....

My bad :).

---------
Based on Christian's view ..... I am evil ... I cannot prove god does not exist and I did not convert because I cannot prove god does not exist ....... therefore I am satan's pawn ..... LOL.

-------
Ah Hypnopope Rides Again .... I am not telling off Sweet Suzy 777 part on Gravity, but rather the part where she said Darwin admitted his theory was wrong, which there is not a piece of evidence to show that.

Thanks for calling me an Idiot :D .... it has been quite a long time since someone called me that :D .... The last person was my professor ;). (I always thought I have some masochistic tendency ;) )

Answer 7

in case you have self assurance in "smart layout" and that i've got self assurance in "Evolution" How are they incompatible? in accordance to the bible God created be counted from the face of the deep by asserting "enable there be gentle" could no longer that be seen the enormous Bang Then she created the heavens and the Earth yet did no longer create the solar till the third day so the 1st and 2nd days weren't any way of telling time that all of us understand in the present day they might and that i say might have been trillions of years. So my specif concept is properly suited at the same time with your smart layout concept. while God created all of the animals the bible would not let us know what god used yet to creat guy in accordance to the Bible God used the dirt of the earth and spit or sand,silica, and water. Silica is the effortless construction block of the universe and water is made up of those effortless construction blocks and needed to take care of existence as all of us comprehend it. additionally it would not let us know how long it took God to create each animal species it does say an afternoon yet if you consider that we've generic that the 1st 2 days have been on indeterminate length in the present day could be additionally concept to be of indeterminate length. Now guy substitute into made lord over all being on the earth yet he's likewise created from all of the failings on the earth could no longer guy be decended from all of the creaters of the Earth in different words mankind developed into what he substitute into. so as you will discover that's not impossible to have the two evolution and smart layout coexist yet you in addition to mght could be a scientist and nevertheless have self assurance in God. right here endeth the lesson.

Answer 8

For the same reason that other people say "prove there IS a God, using science." As if something supernatural is going to be proved by science!

I know that God is something that will not be proven or disproven, at least, not until we die. We won't know for sure until then. All we can do is believe what we believe, and hope for the best.

Answer 9

People are idiots. Don't worry my friend, athiests will have the last laugh when we die. Religion is nothing but a money making hoax. All of those religious fools can go through their lives believing what they want, but in the end, they will be extremely wrong. Only we will prosper in the land of booze, drugs and prostitution and we will be able to do whatever we want. See you when we die pal.

Oh and I think God is Mr. Potato head who lives really far away. I'm serious! Oh nevermind, that's just what a xtian told me. Sorry, it was just a lie.

Answer 10

believing in god is based on "faith"

faith:
Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth]
–noun
"belief that is not based on proof"

i just cant seem to get over the "NOT based on proof" part of it...... that in itself is enough for me
and since you mention the accepting things that make sense part...
to me it doesnt make sense to have "faith".. it doesnt make sense to me...
kinda like when youre a lil kid and your parent tells you you cant do something or have something and they say "just becuase" or"im the parent and i said so".... that never made sense either.... usually it was a cop out and they jsut said that becuase they dont want to think of a reason or they dont feel they should tell you a reason.. but either way "just becuase" doesnt hold up to anything

Answer 11

Sure, the common sense says I believe in God who sacrificed himself for me so that I might live with him in eternity. After a careful weighing of the evidence that is the result I came to. If you come to something different then you can go ahead and have fun with that, I won't stop you.