To those of you who don't know the definition of the word "theory" can I offer the following?

Thumbs to you!!!

Germ theory is "only a theory" too, folks, so next time the doctor says you need an antibiotic, you should probably go get an exorcism instead. Same sorta logic innit?

The dislike many theists have for science seems to stem from a mistaken belief that the fundamental purpose of science is to disprove the existence of God. This is false. Science is concerned only with what can be demonstrated, what can be predicted and what can be explained. Since God doesn't fall into these categories, the position of science on God is basically, "As the existence of this being can be neither proved nor disproved, we choose not to comment on this matter further." That's it.

The Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory in no part say that there is no God. They don't even suggest it. All they say is, "So far as can be observed, this is the most likely way the current situation came about." It implied assumption is that these things happened without intelligent direction, although neither theory demands it.

So, instead of developing a far-fetched guess (that isn't a real theory, because it makes no predictions) that conforms with Genesis and casual observations of our world, why can't you just accept the Big Bang as the method God chose to create the universe, and Evolution as the method God chose to create man? Of course these things aren't mentioned in the Bible. The Bible was written by men, and these men couldn't have known about these things. Even if you subscribe to the belief that the Bible is divinely inspired, what purpose would God have for explaining to these men the mechanics of His design, when they had absolutely no ability to understand the explanation? And even if, in His infinite power he MADE them understand, why do that unless they were to convey that knowledge to everyone else?

My point is, there is NO REASON for God to explain to these men exactly how He created the universe. Therefore, whoever wrote Genesis poetisized the idea. Genesis DOES NOT represent how God made everything. To believe otherwise is to deny reason. Not believing in Genesis as literal fact does not mean the same thing as not believing in God.

I have been reading up on this sight already to help me to understand evolution. It's a great deal to take in at once though (ADHD------just kidding, but I do have issues with reading a lot at once.) I have always understood that a theory is not a guess.

A theory is an idea. It is the responsibility of the theorist to prove the idea using experiments. Not all experiments turn out as fact--some are disproved. There is no FACT that evolution happened, just like there is no FACT to prove that there is a God. They're both beliefs--philosophies. You cannot control what others believe. You believe that we have been brainwashed--indicating a form of mind control--but Christians haven't been brainwashed. We make a choice, you can't control that choice--and that bothers you for some reason. Is it so wrong to think outside of the box? Rant on, Mr. Atheist, rant on.

I agree. When people use the word "theory" as simple hypothesis, they just show their ignorance.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fuVDB1Zxuc8

This is a great video (and the producer, ExtantDodo, makes many other great ones). If you want, you can fast forward to 7minutes to see the long list of transitional fossils creationists deny exist.

And ExtantDodo is there to point out every single lie (just like Theory is a guess).

Enjoy! :D

**Edit**

Crazy, I'm sorry. Evolution is a fact and a theory. Gravity is also a fact and a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_a...

Theory is the _sine qua non_ of all knowledge, all discovery, and all created acts. Once we start to idolize "facts", we become robotic memorizers and die as thinking beings. The history of science is choc-o-bloc full of unarguable facts that have unarguably been proven _wrong_ by the great theorists. Plato, Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein were all theorists whose contributions to the betterment of mankind were made solely because of breaking the yokes of convention (aka "laws"). There is no way they would have been able to do this either out of blind acceptance of the fact du jour (or fact du siecle) as catechised by "established authority" or by taking the much easier and infinitely more cowardly road of indolently ignoring their theoretical gifts.

I'm only posting because I too feel your annoyance at people not understanding the concept of scientific theory.

Proofs only exist in mathematics, if one uses the most extreme defintion of proof, meaning 'cannot possibly be wrong'.

I also get annoyed when some people think our mathematics is flawed. You clearly have no idea how mathematics works, as pretty much by definition it cannot be flawed. You set out the immutable laws to begin with:

Presume A true, Presume B true, etc.

Then work out all the interesting things you can do if you assume those things.

Mathematicians work very hard so that the things they have to assume [there is no way round it] are self evident and as few in number as possible. And I really mean self evident. For instance one axiom when dealing with Real number is that

Given two numbers a and b, either a<b or a>b or a=b

How obvious is that? Extremely so, but since it cannot be 'proven' per se, we have to assume it.

As a side note, you mentioned peer reviewing in your comments. Apparently someone has actually developed a proof of the Reimann hypothesis, but because he's not a very well respected mathematician, no one can be bothered to check his work!

Why is creationism any less a "theory" than evolution "theory".

So far the facts than can be proven without a doubt point to evolution being closer to the truth than creationism.

Scientific evaluation accepts nothing based on blind faith .

If you have half a brain the acceptance of ADAM and EVE "theory " only proves we descended from a bunch of incestuous idiots.

Where did the mates of the descendants of ADAM and EVE come from if they were the 1st humans created by god .Has to be the sons and daughters of adam and eve .

The bible scoots around this by giving them mates from other tribes .Hold on a moment where did they come from if ADAM and EVE are the ancestors of everyone.?

The real point is that macro-evolution is unproven. There is evidence to support it. It is the predominant theory as to the origins of man. It has never been observed. It has never been reproduced in a lab. It has never been proven. You may continue with your word game now.

By the way, when the changing of one species into another is observed, please give me a call. I laugh at fools who are either ignorant or dishonest enough to call the adaptation of a species to its' environment evolution. Let's define terms. When we speak evolution, we mean macroevolution, not adaptation. Nice try at confusing terms....or perhaps you are confused.

Mathematics is the most underestimated theory we have. People take that as truth as well, have even build society based on that theory. The best example would be the computer you are sitting in front of.

*Applauds* This is the best laugh I've had all day! Man, some of your answers... we must have lowered the standards in high school again, huh?

A good many of your posters have pointed out--yet again--why I find the term "Christian Scientist" to be absolutely appalling.