Missing link revealed.

[SephirothVVC]

Originally Posted by iPhantom

Science says universe always existed. Big Bang just made it what it is today.

People often say there was nothingness before. That is downright wrong, something cannot magically form from nothingness. That would mean 'to create from nothing'... which has never happened in human history.

we havent been here that long. we have barely seen anything in comparison of how long we have been here and how long everything else has been. i just dont think we can rule anything out on the basis that we have never witnessed it

[MMM]

Originally Posted by SephirothVVC

we havent been here that long. we have barely seen anything in comparison of how long we have been here and how long everything else has been. i just dont think we can rule anything out on the basis that we have never witnessed it

That is scientific thinking, and is why there is little we say we know for sure in science. In general things are proven false, not true, and until something is proven false it is basically considered to be true.

[SephirothVVC]

Originally Posted by MMM

and until something is proven false it is basically considered to be true.

i wouldnt say considered, more like a possibility. it just doesnt seem right that way

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Jaydelart

If theories were not refutable, would they still only be theories?

So far the theory of evolution has not been proven false. See above where I explain the difference in the layperson's definition of "theory" and the scientific definition.

There is still a lot about the theory of gravity that hasn't been proven true (and probably never will be) but few would say they don't believe the theory of gravity not just because we can see it first-hand every day, but because it doesn't contradict certain religious creation myths.

[KikiBunny23]

Originally Posted by MMM

So far the theory of evolution has not been proven false. See above where I explain the difference in the layperson's definition of "theory" and the scientific definition.

There is still a lot about the theory of gravity that hasn't been proven true (and probably never will be) but few would say they don't believe the theory of gravity not just because we can see it first-hand every day, but because it doesn't contradict certain religious creation myths.

i didn't know there was a theory of gravity...i thought it was just 'there' XD but then again...im not really into theories

[MMM]

Originally Posted by SephirothVVC

i wouldnt say considered, more like a possibility. it just doesnt seem right that way

Again, see the definition of theory. As non-scientists how we use it and how scientists use it is different.

Scientists don't consider gravity as "a possibility" but consider it as a truth that hasn't been proven false. This also is true of evolution.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by KikiBunny23

i didn't know there was a theory of gravity...i thought it was just 'there' XD but then again...im not really into theories

Yes, it is a theory. Then there are some that take advantage of the fact to say gravity is a divine gift, not a scientific fact.

[KikiBunny23]

Originally Posted by MMM

Yes, it is a theory. Then there are some that take advantage of the fact to say gravity is a divine gift, not a scientific fact.

weird...lol. goes to show how much i pay attention. ill jsut stick with saying "gravity is gravity, it hurts" XD

[Jaydelart]

Originally Posted by RegPaq

I remember learning that charles darwin himself converted to religious beliefs before he died. Also that there are scientists who have studied evolution but ended up converting to a religion after they studied the subject. Is this true?... just asking.

I'm not sure about Charles Darwin, but the conversion from evolutionist-to-creationist does happen. Similarly, some people develope issues with religion and convert to atheism -- and vice versa. Both sides usually claim enlightenment is the cause for the change.

I personally used to be more inclined to evolutionism.
However, these days, I sway more to the argument of creationism than evolutionism.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Jaydelart

I'm not sure about Charles Darwin, but the conversion from evolutionist-to-creationist does happen. Similarly, some people develope issues with religion and convert to atheism -- and vice versa. Both sides usually claim enlightenment is the cause for the change.

I personally used to be more inclined to evolutionism.
However, these days, I sway more to the argument of creationism than evolutionism.

Many scientists who consider evolution as real as the day is long are Christian. They do not have to be mutually exclusive. Being a Christian does not mean you can't be a scientist, and vice-versa.

This idea that you must be one or the other is a fairly new thing.

In school I studied both and it never occurred to me (or whoever made the curriculum) that they contradicted each other. One was a creation myth...a myth all cultures have, creation by a divine power, and the other was a scientific theory that was yet to be disproven.

I have always been a big fan of the Japanese creation myth that involves the creation of the sun, the moon, the weather and the emperor. Due to this myth many in Japan thought the emperor was born from the god Amatarasu. It wasn't until the end of WWII that the emperor was forced to tell his people that he wasn't a divine being.