Sentences with phrase «theory than evolution»

We have the same problem with biologists in fact, just try mentioning any theory than evolution and they go nuts with their dogmatism.

Not exact matches

better yet why not hold Medel in highest esteem as his work in genes lays the true foundation for the Modern theory of Evolution, which owes much more to gene theory than Darwin's.

Difference: atheists that accept evolution, or the theory that all life came from a common ancestor, are more often than not willing to discount that acceptance upon evidence to the contrary.

The affront to science is that it claims to be a theory yet it is untestable and much less elegant, less simple than evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is comprised of no less than 5 laws.

You hold to your evolution theory despite the fact that there's more evidence for creation than evolution.

Even if the current theory of evolution turns out to not be 100 % correct, it is a FAR better assumption than that some Beard Man or Zeus or whatever made us out of magic dust or something.

I personally feel that the theory of evolution has just as many questions, if not more, than my faith does.

If you think for even a nano - second that citing an article published by a magazine put out by «lay Catholics» is a valid source of information on the theory of evolution, you friggin» azz, you need more help than anyone here can provide.

If your scientists can't make the simplest form of life, and your neo-Darwinian evolution theory is seriously flawed, it would seem that your faith in blind chance should be much weaker than it is.

There are various theories that have been postulated, such as evolution (whereby there is no unanimity even among evolutionist and is often stated as a fact rather than a speculative theory).

However, as I have tried to show, while in Deleuze's metaphysics we find something like Whiteheadian pure potentiality reappearing in a radically decentered form, the net result is less a neo-Whiteheadian naturalism than a distinctly postmodern avatar of polytheism: a vision of multiple «little divinities» effecting random syntheses of differential elements within an immanent space of possibilities: a theory of evolution metamorphosed into Chaosmological Myth: an unqualified affirmation of the endless, goalless, production of Difference.

Sounds like that might have something more to do with the theory of evolution than business.

But evolution is more than change, and every theory accepts as evidence only what fits the theory.

They knew from the Theory of Evolution where such a creature should be, the rock type, how deep, then they dug for more than 3 years.

That would be much more productive than Bill trying to promote the theory of evolution as an irrefutable law.

The theory of evolution does not explain why there is something rather than nothing.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution, nor in astronomy, or in geology, nor in paleontology, or any other branch of the sciences which contradicts Christianity, or any other type of theism (except Mormonism — we know scientifically that the Indian peoples of the Americas are not descended from the Jews — which is a key point of belief for them, much more central than there having been a literal Garden of Eden is for classical Christianity or Judaism).

If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?

The theory of biological evolution is more than «just a theory.»

I find more logical and accurate the theory of creationism than that of evolution.

Actually, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me for it to be that way than any days = eons theories and other stupid ideas people come up with trying to make the bible fit evolution.

Although we can not be as certain of this idea as we can of a hard - core commonsense notion, we can, I believe, be much more certain of it than, say, of the neo-Darwinian theory of how evolution occurred.

We have more evidence for the theory of evolution than we do for the theory of gravity, but I don't see you guys trying to get gravity out of the class room.

The first of these is made up of the evolutionary biologists themselves; the second consists of those who believe that evolution requires a materialist, and hence atheistic, interpretation (evolutionary materialism); the third group comprises the proponents of Intelligent Design Theory (IDT); and the fourth is the evolutionary theists, those who consider Darwinian evolution not only compatible with biblical faith, but an illuminating framework for arriving at a deeper understanding of God than is implied in the notion of a designer.

But Locke might make more sense than Silver in suggesting that no impersonal theory of evolution can really explain why one species alone turned on nature and has increasingly brought the planet under its conscious and personal control.

I do not see anyone other than you even talk about big bang theory and now you accuse someone else of not knowing it from evolution.

@Hez - according to a recent Gallup poll, 42 % of Americans do indeed believe the young earth theory, and do not accept either evolution or that the earth is older than 10,000 years.

The third section, fifty percent longer than the first two together, considers several theological and philosophical questions raised by the relation between sacred theology and contemporary evolutionary theory, They include the distinction between spirit and matter, the unity of spirit and matter, the concepts of becoming, of cause and of operation, the creation of the spiritual soul, the insights of Aristotelian scholasticism, and the biblical narrative of man's origin as it relates to the theory of evolution.

For by this theory, if a real power of love does not arise at the heart of Evolution, stronger than all individual egotisms and passions, how can the Noosphere ever be stabilized?

The arguments against evolution have been so explicitly and thoroughly expounded in the Catholic theology of the last eighty years, that it is not to be expected that later on they will become even more evident, in relation to the Church's awareness of what she believes, than they are now, and so become capable of providing new and certain grounds for rejecting the theory of evolution of a kind that have been declared to be not yet at present available.

Ignoring the proper definition of (scientific) theory, the existence of any god is a theory, and there is far more evidence for evolution (lots) than there is for any god (none).

Well the earth is more than 6000 years old and evolution fails as a theory, so they are both wrong.

If you think that evolution can only be proved by seeing all the transitional fossils «between monkey and me» than you have a very fvcked up view of what the theory of evolution is.

Though «human evolution» is a theory, considering the fossils and evidence of proto - human beings, it is far more likely that we evolved from a lesser developed ancestor than it is that we were made out of dirt by a supernatural deity.

Chad, do yourself the disfavor of continuing to argue the stupidity that you do that does more harm to your position and the position of creationists than it does to the theory of evolution that you claim to be against.

Far more proof has been presented scientifically about evolution and the big bang theory than by believing in a god.

While I do not believe that Genesis 1 speaks directly against the theory of evolution, I do believe that the theology behind the theory of evolution has been around a lot longer than the theory itself, and Genesis 1:24 - 25 speaks directly against some of these theological ideas.

I think Carl Jung came up with some good ways of thinking about our cultural images and how they come about — that scientists many hundreds or thousands of years later might have the same sorts of cultural images informing their intuitions, and thus using those images as the basis for a theory of evolution is not so much extraordinary than it is to be expected.

Theories change, evolution is old science with less than minimal proof yet we still hold on to it.

Well, given that gravity isn't a law, but a theory, and one that probably has more holes and questions than evolution, I think we probably won't be going to you for any science advice.

The theory of evolution now requires us to suppose a far vaster scale of times, spaces, and numbers than our forefathers ever dreamed the cosmic process to involve.

Quantum Mechanics is WAY weirder and more complex than, say, evolution (though I like how you threw the big bang in there — separate theories, dude), but you won't really hear any religious nuts complaining about the exact same process that gives us QM because it doesn't conflict with their ancient mythology.

But if you were to discover the meaning of theory, as it applies to science, you would discover that all theories are not created equal, and that evolution is much better supported by evidence and applicability than religion.

A second point the theory of subjective aim is making in relation to evolution is that the potentialities of the future are an aspect of existence that should be acknowledged as such, though a potential entity is a different sort of entity than one that is concretely realized.

Pope John Paul II had this to say about it:» New knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.

@Ed What was objectionable in your earlier statement is that you were implying that while gravity is a known fact that is still less than 100 % understood (hence the term «theory of gravity»), evolution is somehow controversial within biology and is called a theory for some very different reason.

All this produces a much more interactive theory of evolution than the conventional «chance and necessity.»

He understood evolution better than Darrow and saw that it was only hypothesis, not proven theory.

Bryan shrewdly described evolution as a hypothesis — «millions of guesses strung together» — rather than proven theory.