[ARCHIVED] - Creation vs. Evolution

[Tiberius]

Next, I agree. Fact and theory are totally different. However, there have been many theories which have been published as fact. True, textbooks may not be the best place to go. But it still is published by companies that SHOULD be reliable. (Ashlyn brings religion into stuff a lot. We'll try to balance her.)

Can you name any theories that have been published in scientific literature as fact. By scientific literature I of course mean peer-reviewed journals. As I have previously stated, Evolution has place holders in both scientific fact and scientific theory. The facts of Evolution are the observations that genes mutate and are passed on, and that beneficial mutations often spread through the species faster. The theories of Evolution are the explanations scientists have come up with to explain the facts. The facts are not wrong, they have been observed. The theories might well be wrong, but so far there is no evidence that has contradicted what the theories state.

Adrian, to your comment about keeping the debate on science, we agree. That's why we found it odd when your debate partner got off track, bringing up the topic. Ashlyn was just answering him. (darwinian's post.) Maybe, if you don't like this, as neither do we, you could talk to him about it and have him keep to the facts as we were trying to.

My debate partner said 4 points on Evolution, and then one point saying:

On a more philosophical point, surely if you believe there is a God and that he did indeed create all life on Earth then the best way to go about things is to investigate the natural world to see how he did it rather than to simply believe what was written down thousands of years ago by people who had no knowledge of biology, geology etc.

He didn't attempt to "use [the bible] against [you]". He said that surely the best way to find out about the Earth is by looking at it, since even if you believe the Bible to be the truth, it cannot possibly contain all knowledge (it's far too small for that). I guess he was trying to appeal to your sense of reason, that if some parts of the Bible can be more metaphorical you must look at nature to find out what is real. I'm not saying that the Bible being a metaphorical book is even a bad thing. Before I lost my faith in Christianity I simply assumed that Genesis was a more metaphorical account, told by God in that way to not confuse early humans. Certainly if God had listed how everything was really formed (planetary motions, gravity, evolution, etc) then I doubt people would have found it as poetic and it wouldn't have been passed on very well.