If evolution is teh realz then why is not it happeningg nows?

bravo said:
Yeah...thats the theory.....

Natural selection; somehow, made some monkeys into humans..(among other things).....quite a leap of faith...
Might even be considered a bigger leap than a Godly creation of man to some....

But your allowed your fantasy as Jimmy Falwell was his....
Click to expand...

You really don't know much about evolution or science, do you?
 
bravo said:
I wouldn't waste my time.....ID makes little sense as its presented using the Bible as a timeline.....so what ?
I 'propagate' no myths about the theory of evolution....in reality its just an educated guess, without proof positive about its conclusions.....
Many prominent scientists are religious and believe in their own versions of "god"...
No one has a lock on knowledge or the truth of the origin of life....not yet...

Believe what you will...its your right.....it reminds me of the arguments about when life begins in the womb....and the extreme hypocrisy some will go to deny conception as the beginning....as if this scientific conclusion has a bearing on the abortion issue....
Two entirely different issues.....
Click to expand...

You're ignorance on the subject of eveolution is staggering though you're not quite in Dixie's league of will full ignorance (God I hope he doesn't read this thread or will have to listen to his nonsense.).

Biological evolution is not an educated guess. It's a proven scientific theory (if you understand what that means) with an indispustable and irrefutable factual basis. It is, at present, the only valid scientific model of speciation that biologist know of and it is an extremely robust tool for modeling speciation. Biological evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life and even making such a comment shows that you're not informed on this topic.
 
bravo said:
You have difficulty using your own brain and rely on TV..?

from your site....

WHAT IS EVOLUTION?
More than 150 years ago Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution to explain how the diversity of life arose, laying the foundation for modern biological science.

------
I can buy that 100%....natural selection....mutation...etc....

It hardly proves the origin of life....thats why I say evolution and religion can live in the same house, without conflict...
Click to expand...

You need to explain this comment a little more. First, biological evolution has nothing to say on the origins of life. This is a major misconception on your part.

If you're trying to say that there is room in this great big world for differing philosophies such as science and religion I whole heartedly agree with you.

If you're saying that creationism or ID are compatable with science, then you're quite wrong.
 
bravo said:
I remember Carl Sagan as a young man...hows that ?

You have a problem with ID defenders then Sport....I wouldn't waste one puff of breathe on them...they are irrelevant....most fundamentalists are...

But "God types" do have a problem with those evolutionists that deny the existence of that supreme being they believe in.....

And in the end...neither group can claim the truth, because neither group can prove their beliefs.....
As I said before, many scientists cling to a belief in God or religion in general.....they can co-exist with no problem in an open mind....I was taught that simple fact 45+ years ago in a Theology class, it was right then and its right now...
Click to expand...

Evolution and for that matter scientist have nothing to say about the issue of God, either for or against. It is a topic outside the scope of science.
 
Mottleydude said:
I agree. They are not contradictory. It's entirely possible that the Creator (God) created the world and created evolution as its force guiding speciation.

This is a perfectly acceptable and plausible explanation. The only problem is that it is not a scientific one.
Click to expand...
Of course it isn't. Science tests to find out what tools were used, not who wields the tools.

Too often people insist that one "disproves" the other, of course it doesn't.
 
Bottom line for many of us Bible-thumpers is that if you can silence the story of creation then you can silence the rest of the Bible as well. Many people (not all) want to use the Theory of Evolution to debunk the Biblical story of creation. If they can get away with that then they can debunk the rest of the Bible, including the basic morality that is inherit in It's teachings. Think about it.......Homosexuality wouldn't ever be condemned, Murder of the innocent (Abortion) would be OK in almost everyone's eyes, excessive drinking wouldn't be a bad thing to most people, adultery and fornication (this is where many "religious" people fall short IMO) wouldn't be considered sinful, etc. And this seems to be the kind of world a lot of folks want. But then there are us Bible-thumpers who are still outspoken. Outnumbered now, but still outspoken. The more of the succeeding generations folks can get away from the Bible, the better they like it.....and they're winning.
 
Solitary said:
If I could make one request, it is that people who oppose the Theory of Evolution actually read some about it.

Evolution is not "survival of the fittest".

Also, please take the time to look up the scientific useage of the word "theory". It is far from a guess.
Click to expand...

Quite right and, on top of that, Darwin's "On the Origins of Species" is one of the best written scientific treatise ever writting and makes for very enjoyable reading whether you agree with it or not. Darwin's literary skills are as impressive as his scientific skills.
 
Jarod said:
Who has ever said it was a "proven fact"?
Click to expand...

It is a proven fact. The modern definition of evolutionary theory is "A change in allele frequency in a population over time." That is demontrable and proven fact. The process that causes evolution, natural selection, is also based on fact via three biological laws of nature. The law on inhertiances, i.e. all proginy resembles its parents. #2. The law of variation, all proginey vary from their parents and #3. The Law of superfecundency, all species bear more proginey then will survive to reproductive maturity. All observable facts.
 
Solitary said:
It is far closer to a "proven fact" than it is to a "guess". You are confusing the words "theory" and "hypothesis".

Here is a good explanation of the differences.
(from http://wilstar.com/theories.htm)

"Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
Theory: All swans are white.
Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. (And yes, there are really black swans. This example was just to illustrate the point.)

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method."
Click to expand...

Bravo! An outstanding explanation. You hit the nail right on the head. You certainly know your science!
 
leaningright said:
Bottom line for many of us Bible-thumpers is that if you can silence the story of creation then you can silence the rest of the Bible as well. Many people (not all) want to use the Theory of Evolution to debunk the Biblical story of creation. If they can get away with that then they can debunk the rest of the Bible, including the basic morality that is inherit in It's teachings. Think about it.......Homosexuality wouldn't ever be condemned, Murder of the innocent (Abortion) would be OK in almost everyone's eyes, excessive drinking wouldn't be a bad thing to most people, adultery and fornication (this is where many "religious" people fall short IMO) wouldn't be considered sinful, etc. And this seems to be the kind of world a lot of folks want. But then there are us Bible-thumpers who are still outspoken. Outnumbered now, but still outspoken. The more of the succeeding generations folks can get away from the Bible, the better they like it.....and they're winning.
Click to expand...

That's paranoid non-sense. No one is silencing creationist. They are simply saying that since creationism is not science it has not place in the science class room, which is true. That is hardly silencing creationism. You're whole argument is based upon a false premis.
 
ib1yysguy said:
It's as close to a proven fact as science gets.
Click to expand...

Well there is no such thing a proven fact as the term is redundant. One must be careful to and recognize that in science, all facts are tentative as is all of science. That is what makes science self correcting and what seperates it from all other major philosophies.
 
Mottleydude said:
That's paranoid nonsense. No one is silencing creationist. They are simply saying that since creationism is not science it has no place in the science classroom, which is true. That is hardly silencing creationism. Your whole argument is based upon a false premise.
Click to expand...

Mottley, I think you're beating your head against a brick wall here.

How many times do we have to repeat that even the Pope has come out to say publicly that in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church there is no conflict between the biblical story of creation and evolution? As many of us have said several times, evolution does not address the origin of life.

As we have also said, creationism satisfies none of the criteria to classify it as a science.
 
Thorn said:
Mottley, I think you're beating your head against a brick wall here.

How many times do we have to repeat that even the Pope has come out to say publicly that in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church there is no conflict between the biblical story of creation and evolution? As many of us have said several times, evolution does not address the origin of life.

As we have also said, creationism satisfies none of the criteria to classify it as a science.
Click to expand...

Well, the Catholic church also views the Bible as allegorical unlike, say, Southern Baptists who are threatened by the idea that the world has been around longer than people have.
 
Mottleydude said:
It is a proven fact. The modern definition of evolutionary theory is "A change in allele frequency in a population over time." That is demontrable and proven fact. The process that causes evolution, natural selection, is also based on fact via three biological laws of nature. The law on inhertiances, i.e. all proginy resembles its parents. #2. The law of variation, all proginey vary from their parents and #3. The Law of superfecundency, all species bear more proginey then will survive to reproductive maturity. All observable facts.
Click to expand...


Read slowly Mottley...and get the fuck off my case....

FACT: Theory is not fact....

The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

Definitively speaking, a theory is a unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws based on them. In other words, it is an explanation to a set of observations.

Additionally, in contrast with a theorem the statement of the theory is generally accepted only in some tentative fashion as opposed to regarding it as having been conclusively established.

This may merely indicate, as it does in the sciences, that the theory was arrived at using potentially faulty inferences (scientific induction) as opposed to the necessary inferences used in mathematical proofs. In these cases the term theory does not suggest a low confidence in the claim and many uses of the term in the sciences require just the opposite.

In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[3]. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet but we invoke theories of gravity to explain this occurrence.

However, even inside the sciences the word theory picks out several different concepts dependent on the context. In casual speech scientists don't use the term theory in a particularly precise fashion, allowing historical accidents to determine whether a given body of scientific work is called a theory, law, principle or something else.

For instance Einstein's relativity is usually called "the theory of relativity" while Newton's theory of gravity often is called "the law of gravity." In this kind of casual use by scientists the word theory can be used flexibly to refer to whatever kind of explanation or prediction is being examined. It is for this instance that a scientific theory is a claim based on a body of evidence.

philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

And don't credit me with what is solely YOUR post, as you did in # 92
 
the·o·ry Listen to the pronunciation of theory
Pronunciation:
\ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural the·o·ries
Etymology:
Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date:
1592

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
 
Christ. You really are a retard if you think evolution is merely "speculation." That only works with other morons. Disregarding evolution by calling it "a theory" is stupid beyond words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top