HOME | DD
Kotego β Stamp - Not Just a Theory
Published: 2011-03-07 00:31:37 +0000 UTC; Views: 1783; Favourites: 83; Downloads: 4
Redirect to original
Description
EDIT: Eh, what the hell, comments enabled. xD"If Evolution is 'just a theory', then Creationism is just a hypothesis"
Theory: an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Hypothesis: 1. a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further verification
2. an assumption used in an argument without its being endorsed; a supposition
3. an unproved theory; a conjecture
Fact is Evolution has far more facts than Creationism ever will.
Stamp base by --> [link]
Related content
Comments: 99
I know it doesn't have anything to do with evolution, and I apologize for going off topic.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, you have manners, at least.
π: 0 β©: 0
We'll, birds need rocks to digest, which tells you they have either a very weak digestive system, or none at all.
π: 0 β©: 1
Every living creature on earth has some form of digestive system, otherwise birds wouldn't eat nor would they be able to deposit their waste. And I'm pretty sure birds take dumps.
π: 0 β©: 1
Alright, do you think bacteria is a living thing?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, friend, bacteria is the basic of basic life forms. Meaning they consume matter for energy, they reproduce, they create waste (like birds and everything else) and they have DNA.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry, I meant viruses.
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't know anyone who called Creationsim a hypothesis, they like to call is a "myth". But Evolution is a theory that cannot be falsified, it cannot be tested or confirmed. Unlike the misleading definition you've given.
π: 0 β©: 1
Evolution has been observed in nature and is supported by mountains of evidence. And the definition I gave is the scientific definition of theory. There's nothing misleading about it.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
That is the correct scientific definition, but to say that Evolution Theory fits it is quite a stretch, considering it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory, much less to called an established scientific fact.
π: 0 β©: 0
Evolution nor Creationism is proven.
π: 0 β©: 1
Evolution is supported by plenty of evidence.
π: 0 β©: 2
Where's the missing link, then? Pretty much in every area of science doesn't support Evolution.
π: 0 β©: 1
there are TONS of transitional fossils (if that's what you mean)
like honestly, archeopteryx isn't the ONLY one out there.
HERS'S A "BIRD" THAT HAS THREE FINGERS AS WELL AS CLAWSΒ
the first one is avisaurus fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/i/201β¦ second sapeornis 3.bp.blogspot.com/--cbl83rCYmIβ¦
there are tone more i could show you
also i just realized how old this comment is, so sorry if you do not want to waste your time on this
π: 0 β©: 0
Maybe. But it still doesn't prove it.
π: 0 β©: 0
A hypothesis needs a scientific or logical basis, creationism has neither.
Creationism is little more than an uneducated guess.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know, but I see this as a good comeback for anyone who claims evolution is "just a theory".
π: 0 β©: 0
it's true, neither can ever be proven. [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
Evolution has far more evidence to be proven than creationism ever will.
π: 0 β©: 2
Creationism has this.Β Β "A MAGIC BOOK TOLD ME"Β Β Thanks for the stamp!
π: 0 β©: 0
but it cant be proven, none of it can, even if it turned out true, scientist wouldn't be able to explain how matter was created, even if the big bang happened, there had to be something to blow up. this video explains that very well [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of matter.
π: 0 β©: 1
Evolution teaches that life came from non life and slowly evolved.
π: 0 β©: 1
Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life, but simply the progression.
π: 0 β©: 1
I do believe in progression within a species, Dogs went from wild wolves to poodles quite quickly, wildcats split off to become house-cats and horses have variations like donkeys, zebras and ponies. But as long as humans have been around, dogs have stayed dogs and cats are cats.
π: 0 β©: 1
That made no sense at all.
π: 0 β©: 1
i belive in natural selection and adaptation. But I do not believe we came from bacteria. I believe God created specific species and they changed slightly over time
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay, good for you, I'll stick with facts.
π: 0 β©: 0
Thanks for including the definitions; without them the "Evolution is just a theory" people wouldn't get the joke.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's why I included them
π: 0 β©: 0
I have no words to describe how freaking true this is.
π: 0 β©: 1
True dat.
I don't think God is that lame anyway. Besides, it's physically impossible, to a certain degree. If God had to take a break, then obviously he was pooped for some reason. Making the universe appear out of thin air would have probably killed him, due to metabolic overload. Yes, it happens to energy beings too. Of course, I don't think God is who what most people believe him to be.
Even a god would have to work inside of the natural laws.
π: 0 β©: 0
I say creationism doesn't deserve the title of hypothesis, especially since most scientific theories started out as hypothesis.
π: 0 β©: 1
A hypothesis can be based on anything, it just doesn't have any supporting evidence. Any thought ever conceived is a hypothesis. It is the root form of any sort of investigation. Science is literally "the study of *insert subject here*."
It is also wise to remember that just because there is a lack of supporting evidence does not mean that lack of evidence can be used against said hypothesis. You have to actually have evidence to disprove something; if you have no solid evidence to disprove something, then you have no argument against.
Therefore, creationism can neither be proved or disproved; it is in flux, as are most hypotheses.
In saying what you have, you are trying to standardize science. This is very dangerous thinking, as standardizing science means the limitation as to what can be studied. Anything and everything should be studied and explained; proved or disproved. If something cannot be studied, then there is only a lack of means. This infers that it should be set aside until later.
Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it is automaticly disproven. That's like saying just because you can't do something now, you can't do it later.
P.S. I'm not a creationist, and I don't think that's how the universe, or anything for that matter, began. All hypotheses deserve equal respect, but not necessarily equal attention.
π: 0 β©: 0
Creationism doesn't even deserve to be called an hypothesis.
π: 0 β©: 1
Creationism isn't a hypothesis, it barely qualifies as a guess.
π: 0 β©: 1
While we're on the subject, did they ever find that missing link?
π: 0 β©: 2
The missing link in the chain of ape-to-human evolution. I heard that "Lucy" ended up being from an extinct species that didn't really fit into the chain the way her discoverers first thought she did. I'm just asking if you've heard anything new on "the missing link."
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh that's right, the link was broken, so the file was never downloadable in the first place. Interwebs joke FTW!
π: 0 β©: 0
<= Prev |