RE: Creation/evolution3
February 2, 2015 at 3:43 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 3:50 pm by watchamadoodle.)
(February 2, 2015 at 11:21 am)Drich Wrote: We have theoritical hypostsis based on what has been found. For Macroevolution another more plausible explaination is the fossils attributed to evolution are just an extinct sub-species of a given phila, and for the big bang we have nothing more than observation and theory which again does not fit the defination of empirical evidence. Neither do. And, if you take a step back because neither of these theories can be tested or repeated therefore they do not fit the 'scientific method' (as testing and repeating a process are crutial/what is used to disqualify God.) qualifier you all have been going on about (what seperates Faith from science.) Because the big bang and the theory of marcroevolution do not fit the Scientific method, and because neither can be supported with empirical evidence, both are indeed On the fringes of science and not apart of legitmate science/applied science. Meaning it takes a rather large measure of faith to accept them.
Others can correct, me but I think we could think of the evolution and the Big Bang as applications of theories instead of theories.
In the case of evolution, we know that natural selection causes changes to a genome. We can observe this and reproduce it on a small scale in the laboratory. Evolution is simply applying this theory to explain how humans evolved from earlier forms of life.
In the case of the Big Bang, we can see the forces of the universe every day through telescopes, etc. We simply apply our theories about these forces to go back in time to the Big Bang.
EDIT: Also in both cases, we can observe the past. For evolution we can observe fossils. For the Big Bang we observe light from the past.