Evolution is only a fact, not theory!

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs



Again, like I've said before, science is NOT gueswork. There is no agenda, other than looking for a framework to explain species change over time.

Its not science that has an agenda but some scientists do. Everyone has biases that inform their theories and/or world-views, myself included.

You are a perfect example of how terms get misrepresented by the general public unless your are a scientist, in which case you'd be a very incompetent one.

You've done the same, conflating the Theory of common ancestry with scientific facts (eg, fossils.) You've now chastized several people, myself included, for misrepresenting a science that they, and I, do not understand. I must ask: What are your credentials?

You are right about evolution always remaining a theory. It will never change from that unless it is disproven, which it so far hasn't. A theory never becomes fact!

Doesn't that run counter to your OP premise and title ie, "Evolution is only a fact, not theory!"? Are you conceding? The mechanism is, of course, theory however so is the 'tree' do you still disagree?

I really have no answer to this question, but I know evolution isn't adequate to explain it, which is what this thread is about. Please stay on topic as there are plenty of other threads which delve into that matter.

Agreed. However I believe (s)he was using "evolution" in the generic sense ie, change over time. Not biological/change in species over time or the modern synthesis.

Have a good one,
~Rob

Originally posted by Rren
Its not science that has an agenda but some scientists do. Everyone has biases that inform their theories and/or world-views, myself included.

Here is where the scientific community as a whole plays a huge part. Some scientists may have an agenda, but most are working to enhance scientific knowledge and therefore will recognize such bias and weed it out. Thats why peer reviewed published work is so important to a scientists credentials. There is overwhelming support in the scientific community that evolution is a sound theory, based on scientific fact. Like I said earlier, the scientific body as a whole is highly credible and deserves respect.

You've done the same, conflating the Theory of common ancestry with scientific facts (eg, fossils.) You've now chastized several people, myself included, for misrepresenting a science that they, and I, do not understand. I must ask: What are your credentials?

First off, can you please show me where the fault is with the fact that species seem to change over time in the fossil record? Do you not beleive the fossil record is reliable? Is the horse example I provided not good enough for you?
Second, the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis sets out to explain the process of change, not whether its happening or not. The theory only provides a framework as to how, not if its happening. Who knows, this theory could be replaced by some other one in 10 years, much like the Newton theory of gravity took a back seat to Einsteins. I am not argueing whether or not modern evolutionary synthesis is absolutely true, but that the scientific defintions of theory and fact are being constantly confused with the common defintion. As far as I am concerned the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis is true as of right now because no evidence has been brought forward to contradict it.
Third, I'd like to make it clear that I am not trying to "chastize" anyone, but I do have problem with people confusing terms and then using them in arguements as if they mean something else. I am sure you feel the same way.
As far as my credentials go, I am not a scientists, but that doesn't mean I can't comment on the definitions of scientific theory and fact. I didn't make those definitions up. I merely presented them to the forum. Look them up yourself and you will see I have not misinformed anyone on the definitions themselves.

Doesn't that run counter to your OP premise and title ie, "Evolution is only a fact, not theory!"? Are you conceding? The mechanism is, of course, theory however so is the 'tree' do you still disagree?

The title of the thread was meant to be a humorous variation of the common, but errornous, phrase: "Evolution is only theory, not fact". Like I mentioned in my original post, the fact of species changing over time is fact. There is no arguing this. The only thing you can argue is the process or mechanism of this change; that being modern evolutionary synthesis. If you really want me to spell it out for you, this is what I meant in the title: Change in species is a fact and the theory behind it is modern evolutionary synthesis.

Agreed. However I believe (s)he was using "evolution" in the generic sense ie, change over time. Not biological/change in species over time or the modern synthesis.

I will give the author the benefit of the doubt here and accept the notion that they meant it in the generic sense. This actually strengthens my arguement that common folk use the term improperly. When scientists refer to evolution they are specifically talking about the change in genetic makeup of a population over time.


[edit on 23-2-2007 by LuDaCrIs]

Luda,

There is overwhelming support in the scientific community that evolution is a sound theory, based on scientific fact. Like I said earlier, the scientific body as a whole is highly credible and deserves respect.

I'm not disagreeing. I've asked for clarification wrt "[evolution is] based on scientific fact". Not that the statement is not true [ALL science is based on emperical observations aka facts] but your example (the horse lineage) is not a fact. It's you whom is mis-using the terms. The bones (fossils) and where they were found are the only [hard] facts. The age is determined by theory as is the lineage, or evolution, of said species. Hell scientists cannot even agree on a definition for species. You cannot further say the relationships [or one evolved from the other] are scientific facts. It's absurd. These fossils are millions of years old ie, no DNA and never observed. The relationship[s]/lineage[s] are inferred from the facts. I'm not saying it's wrong just that it's not a fact. You're doing exactly what you accuse others of imho.

First off, can you please show me where the fault is with the fact that species seem to change over time in the fossil record?

The "fact" that they "seem to.." ... you still aren't seeing it, seriously?

Do you not beleive the fossil record is reliable? Is the horse example I provided not good enough for you?

The fossil exists... fact. Everything else is theory, that's all I've said. Creationists also agree that all horses are related so it's ultimately moot... I explained my position on that already as well. You think you're arguing the scientific majority concensus re: fact/hypothesis/theory, you're not imo. Whether they agree (and everyone does) that these fossils represent the 'horse branch' is besides the point, it's not a fact. You use 'fact' the same way a creationist might argue 'it's just a theory' (s)he would be just as wrong as you are here.


I'll withhold arguing against MET or your comment that "As far as I am concerned the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis is true as of right now because no evidence has been brought forward to contradict it." as you could find many evolutionists [not creationists even] who follow different schools of evolutionary thought as it would be off topic but your statement is false. MET is the most well received (accepted) theory out there, no doubt. But counter-evidence and argumentation exists, and has for quite a long time.

I will give the author the benefit of the doubt here and accept the notion that they meant it in the generic sense. This actually strengthens my arguement that common folk use the term improperly. When scientists refer to evolution they are specifically talking about the change in genetic makeup of a population over time.

The defintion is applicable and was not mis-used (check a dictionary for yourself). I'm sure you knew what they meant as well so your objections here, and throughout this thread imho, are disingenuous or ill-informed. The BBT model for the universe could be described as a model for the evolution of the universe without being 'common folk using the term improperly'. Heck Stellar Evolution is a part of that model as the term is not exclusive to Biology. In the context used, which was easily discernable imho, it was kosher... you anti-semantic bastard! Just kiddin' bud.

Ok I've made my case the best way I know how, which aint saying much I know, so I'll leave you be and wish you the best of luck... unless you need further claification on my part, which I don't think I'm capable of...

I'll be seeing ya 'round the sandbox.

Regards

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Rren]

Someone has already said it here. Evolution is the theory, natural selection and mutations in the genes are the evidence (facts) that support the theory. For the most part, the theory stands up to the testing of it. We see it fossil and gentic records and we even have modern day examples of it taking place. Other theories do not have nearly the same amount of evidence (facts) to support them as does the theory of evolution. It has yet to be disproved beyond all reasonable doubt.

One could argue and they do, about the validity of the various global warming theories around the same way. They are theories in the process of accumulating enough evidence (facts) to support their chosen theory beyond a shadow of a doubt, above all the other theories about global warming.

Much of the creationism theory is mainly trying to disprove the evolution theory, not evidence (facts) in support of it's own theory. A theory demands proof of it's assumptions, not the denial of other theories facts to be considered more than a theory.

Here is a good article on Natural selection and Evolution.www.actionbioscience.org...

Originally posted by Rren
Heck Stellar Evolution is a part of that model as the term is not exclusive to Biology. In the context used, which was easily discernable imho, it was kosher... you anti-semantic bastard! Just kiddin' bud.

Hahahahhahahahaha....oh man. I am glad we can joke and not take stuff personally. That makes for a good debate.

You are right about the context there, maybe I was a little too picky. But that said, evolution without a pre fix, such as Stellar, is ambigous.

First thing I want you to do, along with others who are reading this thread, is read this article. It sums up everything I am trying to say quite elegantly. Please post your comments on what you find puzzling and unclear about it and what you think about it in general. This article is about as clear as I can get with my point. Keep in mind that 0.99999999999999999 EQUALS 1.

Its really incredible and interesting to see such a diversity of opnions on this matter. When we just look at 'is evolution true, yes or no", then we tend to get most peopel falling into one camp or the other. But here, we see lots of people who 'beleive' in evolution, but at the same time, are making some very unsual statements about what science is and how it operates, and then other people who aren't so sure about evolutionary theory, but seem to have more precise understanding of what science is.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Is it not true that a successive line of species have come and gone to produce the modern horse? If it is, then it is a fact, scientifically, regardless of the theory behind it. If its observed to have happened, it is considered a fact in science.

From what I've been able to see, this is the crux of the 'evolution isn't a fact' arguement.

Fossils are not living populations, they are the remains of a living population. We can look at a succession of 'horse-like' populations, note their physical characteristics, and try to interpret those physical characteristics in a logical fashion.

Thats not quite a 'fact'. What it gives us is a theory of horse evolution. If there is any doubt about whether thats a fact or a theory, just ask yourself, would new discoveries overturn our understanding of horse evolution? If so, then yes, its a theory. Facts arent' potentially refutable', but theories are.

On the other hand you have the late greate Stephen J Gould, who famously remarked :

www.stephenjaygould.org...
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

Gould also notes:

www.stephenjaygould.org...
[Darwin] wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution

And while all of this muddles, at least for me, exactly where we draw the line between fact and theory in paleontology, in neontology (that is, any biology outside of paleontology), we have:
Observed Instances of Speciation
More Observed Instances of Speciation

Which range from researchers in a lab observing it and researchers in the wild observing it.

So is evolution a fact? Yes, species change over time.

How? In theory, by a mechanism of natural selection.

steve22
evolution is fact because it can be proven by science

Darwin's theory of evolution has not be proven by science. No theory is ever proven by science.

YIAWETA
How is it that primates have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46

What does this have to do with either the fact or theory of evolution?
Neither states that an organism must have the same number of chromosomes as its ancestor. If that were the case, everything would have one chrosome. Its clearly an invalid arguement.

11bravo (responding to ludacris)
There is so much wrong with your logic that I dont know where to start, but I do know that the first thing I want to do is ask you what good would falsifiable tests to for anything?

What Ludacris said was accurate, even though he is actually not applying it to his own examples (ie the theories of horse evolution being a 'fact').

If a statement is no falsifiable, then it can't be considered scientific. "God is great' is a non-falsifiable statement, as such, it has nothing to do with science. "Objects fall on earth at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s" can be experimentally tested, they are open to being falsified. "These traits are most parsimoniously explained through this sequence of descent" is also a falsifiable statement, even though we don't need to use phsyical/chemical experiements to do so. "Evolution occurs through a mechanism of natural selection" is a falsifiable statement, we can perform tests that could, potentially, show that natural selection can't explain evolution. When a hypothesis has been thoroughly tested and hasn't been refuted, its considered a 'theory'. It can still, potentially, be refuted.

My understanding of science is that you want verifiable tests.
He is saying you want falsifiable tests. Is my understanding of wrong?

It actually is wrong. In science, it doesn't do much to go out and show in a particular instance that your, say, theoretical mechanism, worked. All that does is show that in that instance, it occured. Whats really important is showing that something can't or doesn't work, thats why science, in the modern era, is more concerned with attempts to falsify a theory, rather than ones that merely confirm it, or that is, don't falsify it.

A more rounded beak or bigger toes does not a new species make.
This is the classic evolutionists mistake.
Never has one species 'evolved' into another species.

Actually, the classic mistake is people thinking that because these finch haven't evolved into new species that therefore evolution doesn't exist.
What you are seeing with the finches IS evolution, plain and simple. It is why we say that evolution is a Fact, its an observable fact that these species have changed over time, we can watch it, they've changed over observable human time scales.

Yes, they haven't evolved into new species. But look at how we seperate finches into different species. By things like beak size and shape.

If you can agree that a population of finches can have its characteristics change over time, why don't you beleive that this change can end up being enough to warrant calling it a new species?

Never has one species 'evolved' into another species.
Its doesnt happen, never.

That is actually wrong. There have been many observed instances of speciation, one species becoming another species. Please find the link to the two lists in this thread.

Dont give me the crap about drug resistant bacteria.
Have you ever heard 'What doesnt kill you only makes you stronger'.
That doesnt mean you change into a different species.

So what do you consider to be the criteria to distinguish bacterial species? If I have two natural bacteria that look pretty similar, but one is poisoned by one chemical, and another is not, are they different species? And if such a big phsyical difference such as 'able to be poisoned", then for what reason should we say that there can't be enough difference to warrant calling it a different species is there?

blueraja
Evolution and Creationism are both theories. Neither were observed, neither can be recreated in experiments, both require faith.

Please explain how the idea that god made the animals in the garden of eden can be falsified? Please explain how any idea that invovles supernatural miracles can be falsified?
If it can't be potentially falsified, if you can allways say 'well, this experiment didn't work because god used a miracle, and the miracle simply didn't occur here", then you don't have a scientific theory.

Rock Puck
there are no facts in Science. Even Gravity is a theory that cannot be proven without a doubt.

As nicely explained in the Gould essay, Einstein's theory replaced Newton's theory of Gravity, but all along apples still fell from trees. The falling apples are the 'fact', the explanations are the theory. Facts exist in science (especially if we agree with gould regarding things that it would be 'perverse' to not beleive with the evidence supporting them). If science is essentially observing the world, coming up with hypotheses to explain the world, testing those hypotheses, and then going back to observing the world, then its the 'observing the world' stage that invovles 'the facts'.

Creationism is a HYPOTHESIS and is NOT a theory due to lack of scientific backing, lack of evidence

Creationism is not a scientific hypothesis because it is irrefutable. A theory can be scientific, and utterly lacking the backing of evidence. A theory remains a scientific theory, even after being refuted. Its merely a refuted scientific theory.

cybertroy
Sure, evolution could occur, but how can we look at similar animals and assume that they have evolved from one another?

Its not merely an assumption though. When you take the evidence, you examine it all and try to explain it. Given that we know animals live in populations that change, its unreasonable to say that the various horse fossil species were all independently created, or even that they evolved entirely seperately.

There are fruit plants that are even mixed, so you might have an apple mixed with a pair. Years from now we could be looking at the fossil record and see this "in-between" (pear/apple) plant and make the assumption that pears evolved from apples, but it would be an untrue assumption.

ANd that is why with plant evolution, you have to keep in mind the widespread effect of hybridization. But in animals, hybridization isn't nearly as much of a problem.
And, also, notice, in your example, you'd have say, peaches and apples in the fossil record, and then some apple-peaches. Whereas with the horse record, you have a succession of species, with many traits appearing in chronological time in a coordinated way that is best explained by descent with modification, rather than many many coincidentally corrdinated instances of hybridization.

And of course, you are correct, there is no reason to think that just because a particular theory, such as the theory of horse evolution, is 'the truth' and can't be overturned tommorrow. Maybe we will find out something that shows that these organisms are very bizzare and were hybridizing in unusal ways.

We have such a tough time with this topic because we are dealing with what people see as "truth." The truth can be unique to different individuals. What me and the person next to me see as truth can be different.

But, the truth is still the truth. We must strive to find that.

The thing is, science can't recognize 'The Truth". A theory can be extremely well supported, and have withstood the best attempts at refutation for generations, heck, for millenia, but we still never actually know, through science, if it is, "The Truth". We will never know if populations change through a mechanism of natural selection, we can't say that it is "The Objective Ground Universal Truth", even if its never refuted throughout the entire history of the universe.

cognoscente
We have seen Galapagos Finch populations evolve into incredibly different species for over a period of twenty years now

The finches aren't observed to evolve into new species (and of course the concept of 'species' is based on theory too!), rather what is observed in changes in the population in response to environmental changes. If there is a drought and the seeds they eat have thick shells, the finch population develops thicker, stronger, beaks to crack the shells. Thats evolution. Over a long time, this could lead to speciation.

flyersfan
Evolved into a different species would mean .. a finch line eventually turning into goldfish. That would be different species.

That is not true. Are you saying that there is only one species of bird? And one species of fish?

sp00ner
WE classify species based on subjective criteria. It's an artifical system that humans use so we can lump similar things in similar groups

There are some theories about how to define a species, and the biological species concept is one that identifies actual, objective, natural groups. It is not subjective. It is subjective to look at two groups of, say, finches, and say, 'well these ones are blue with big beaks, and these ones are red with small beaks, thus they are different species". It is not subjective to say 'this population of finches can not interbreed with this population of finches and is therefore a species'.

golemina
Look! You just dismissed (read: TOTALLY IGNOREd)... because...

"I just don't see how this is possible."

the entire premise being considered in my posts.

See how that works?

And thanks for providing the very demonstration you requested

Not for nothing, but its you that has undercut your own position here. You said that all the world's scientists are collaborating to selectively ignore the evidence that refutes mainstream science, but then you completely ignored the attempt to get you to actually explain your position. You merely listed it as a vague possibility, and that was that. That accomplishes nothing. And no one if 'forcing' you to 'think', they are merely requesting it. IF you can't actualyl explain your own ideas, then why should anyone else consider them? I mean, sounds more like you are irrationally accepting them yourself, so how could anyone else rationally accept them?

For anyone with an inquiring mind... just check out Forbidden Archaeology... vis-a-vis 'human evolution'.

A perfect example. Cremo selects the data that he is able to misrepresent as being supportive of his ideas, and completely ignores all the data that contradicts him.

Nygdan (Hi. ), in my 'responses', I just considered my then target audience... And there REALLY was no point in responding (and no offense meant) some well intended folks who are essentially bogged down in an exchange of semantics...

Now that you're here... Let's go.

>'Not for nothing, but its you that has undercut your own position here. You said that all the world's scientists are collaborating to selectively ignore the evidence that refutes mainstream science, but then you completely ignored the attempt to get you to actually explain your position. You merely listed it as a vague possibility, and that was that. That accomplishes nothing. And no one if 'forcing' you to 'think', they are merely requesting it. IF you can't actualyl explain your own ideas, then why should anyone else consider them? I mean, sounds more like you are irrationally accepting them yourself, so how could anyone else rationally accept them? '

You missed the point Nydgan... It really doesn't help when you add in descriptors like the word 'all'.

Most science (and most scientists ) is(/are) stuck in a subjective trap, essentially working in a serial maze unable to see outside the maze, unable to the see the 'raw data' in ALMOST EVERY AREA of human research simply doesn't synch up with the mindset (and 'theories') projected.

We are collectively stupid.

Why would 'science' be an accumulation of knowledge that wasn't stupid?

The problem is a cognitive one.

We essentially are unable to understand how our minds/intellects work. Are unable to internally parse how we abstractify the concepts being considered.

We tend to work from a fixed and inflexible ('reality') framework.

And that is where the problem comes in...

We tend to construct inquiries based on that framework... the questions presuppose the (allowable) answers...

And due to the 'serial' nature (read: focus) of the process are unable to see that it doesn't really jive with the totality of the environment in which we exist.

If that wasn't bad enough... This 'reality framework' (we accept as 'real') causes us to both project what we see/contemplate (and filter out basically anything that doesn't agree with that framework) and consider 'information'.

You would think that the totality of the absurdity which is our 'knowledge base' would be INSTANTEOUSLY apparent...

And THEREFORE exposed!

But... it's NOT that simple.

There are individual (and institutional) egos and sense of self-worth, self-knowledge, self-aggrandizations involved!

We THINK we know (and understand everything!).

That winds up equating to a basic inability to correct our errors (of fact, of procedure, of methodology, of etc. etc.)

Naturally Nydgan, I'm more than happy to apply the above (babbling generalties to most folks ) on topic (or off topic/tangents = in other available threads )... to take it off the desk and out into the field and apply it to ANY area of 'science'...

You know... (gulp) into the REAL world.

>>'For anyone with an inquiring mind... just check out Forbidden Archaeology... vis-a-vis 'human evolution'. '

>'A perfect example. Cremo selects the data that he is able to misrepresent as being supportive of his ideas, and completely ignores all the data that contradicts him.'

Are we just a little light on the details here?

What are you saying? That Cremo is 100% wrong... That 'mainstream science' vis-a-vis evolution (and the focal inquiry of this thread) are 100% right?

It's just seems that such a stark condemation would merit at least one SPECIFIC example.

It's supremely unfortunate the style Cremo used for presenting his ideas...

And as I've already mentioned, the limited extent of his attack on the accepted timelines (and boundaries of the discussion) of human evolution.

>First thing I want you to do, along with others who are reading this thread, is read this article.'

Good idea Ludacris.

...is the flaws jammed down our throats when the very PRECISE outline about evolution fact/theory advanced in the beginning of this article...

advances to summarys pushed by the 'evolutionists' who start speaking in ridiculous generalizations that is simply NOT supported by the DATA on which it is 'based'.

The problem comes in the huge drift that occurs between some fairly fine work documenting in an intrapolatary set of specific examples of evolution is flipped...

And SUDDENLY switches to an extrapolatary mode.... and EVERYTHING in the field is added to the evolutionary timeline and progressions..

like the hooks for this filling in of the blanks and attachment of data points... AUTOMAGICALLY exists.

The theory suddenly became documented fact...

The progressions SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST...

and the methodology drifts into blantant and rampant conjecture...

ABSOLUTELY NOT REALLY based on fact...

But an insupportable premise rooted in wishful thinking and a very basic instinct/flawed approach to force some sense of KNOWING and COMPREHENSION out of what looks like chaos.

No where is this more true than in the evolutionary branching served up for 'humans'.

It's based on the thinnest of evidence... and the gapping chasms between the 'points' where we have real physical evidence...

We just drifted into Cremoland...

These 'points' set the conjectural context...

Instead of the way IT SHOULD BE...

The context needs to support the evidence... ALL of the evidence needs to be included...

The timelines should be set by the evidence... NOT the evidence set by the timelines.

I think both evolution and creation are both facts. Sure, we have fossils to show the evolution of different animals, but something (someone) created that first stage. What I don't buy personally is that everything evolved from a single cell, but even if I did, who created that cell, the earth it formed on, and the environment that stimulated it?

>' who created that cell, the earth it formed on, and the environment that stimulated it?'

It's totally a chicken and the egg kind of thing...

Though seemingly a somewhat straight-forward concept, something that is totally beyond us to begin to answer.

You can also put the 'creation of the universe' in that category.

The 'Big Bang' theory is a self-caricature to anyone that wants to project any semblence of intelligence.

Evolution is true of every species except homo sapien. Seriously why do we need to build a pc? To defend us from what natural threat? We are not natural. We were made. You can look at nature and see why each creature evolved the way it did but the same cannot be said for us. Seriously apes are doing fine with their current level of intelligence there is no natural need for them to be any smarter so what was the "need" that required us to be so intelligent huh? Remember evolution occurs from need fior example an animal will evolve to have thick fur to cope with a cold climate. So again what was the "need" which reqiured us to be so intelligent. I'm a firm believer in evolution but I just realized it doesn't really make sense when apllied to human evolution. Well at least not yet.

I always find it amusing when religious people bash evolution. Their posts always show a complete ignorance and miss-understanding of evolution.

here is a good example

Evolution suggest that species developed from other spieces, and that is impossible or else we would today have catbirds, rhinomonkeys, even flying gerbelpigs. Science itself proves this. Again, Evolution is not a science, it is only a theory that is taught as science

They also don't know the second meaning of the word Theory

Who, exactly, observed evolution? I don't know of anyone that old, do you?

This is a ridiculous argument. Based on these definitions of facts, the following is true:

The Sun rotates around the Earth, because I've observed it.
The Moon generates light, because I've observed it.
Space is blue, because I've observed it.

These are all assumptions based on my observations, not facts! They are yet to be validated, just like evolution. Therefore it's a theory.

>'I always find it amusing when religious people bash evolution. Their posts always show a complete ignorance and miss-understanding of evolution.'

Seriously, bro, 'Science' is just ANOTHER religion.



It is mostly dogma with very little fact based in REALITY.

If you substitute the typical response for someone advocating a position based in 'Science' along the lines of "That's NOT possible... therefore I quit listening" to something along the lines of "It's NOT what the Bible says...", you pretty much get the ENTIRE picture.

Originally posted by golemina

Seriously, bro, 'Science' is just ANOTHER religion.
It is mostly dogma with very little fact based in REALITY.

so the composition of cellular lifeforms is not fact, it's in fact dogmatic
the study of anatomy is no different from neopagan odinism?
observing doppler shifts in stars is just a religious ritual?

[quite]
If you substitute the typical response for someone advocating a position based in 'Science' along the lines of "That's NOT possible... therefore I quit listening" to something along the lines of "It's NOT what the Bible says...", you pretty much get the ENTIRE picture.


you show a gross misunderstanding of SCIENCE there

you don't even cite a single example of science being dogmatic

'>so the composition of cellular lifeforms is not fact, it's in fact dogmatic
the study of anatomy is no different from neopagan odinism?
observing doppler shifts in stars is just a religious ritual?'

What are YOU talking about Clyde? You supplying BOTH sides of the conversation?



And what exactly is your point?

you don't even cite a single example of science being dogmatic'

Use the search function... I might have a lot of entries on good ole ATS that deal with the exact question you ask.

Or... OR... (gulp) Use the scroll button and look at my post just up this page.

>'you show a gross misunderstanding of SCIENCE there'

Nah... There's nothing wrong with my understanding (and application and use ) of Science... or the scientific method.

I'm just one of a growing number of folks pointing out that mainstream science is not really engaged in Science, but instead 'Science' and 'get your hands off of me you stinking ape' Planet of the Apes 'Science' at that.

Originally posted by golemina
Though seemingly a somewhat straight-forward concept, something that is totally beyond us to begin to answer.

this is why i say you show a gross misunderstanding of science. nothing is beyond us to answer

You can also put the 'creation of the universe' in that category.

The 'Big Bang' theory is a self-caricature to anyone that wants to project any semblence of intelligence.

that's just an outright attack there, you don't show anything to back up your point other than a smiley

TextThe argument between evolutionists and religionists of any sort should be a non-issue. No mere mortal can possibly know what tools or processes were used by the Creator to bring about life on our small planet. Whatever they were, those processes are no longer active here.

This is similarly true of the 6 "days" of Creation. I have read the original Hebrew. The original word used in Genesis is pronounced "yom," meaning the universe was created in six "yoms" or steps. Most often, a yom is translated as a "day." But the same word is used more than 60 times in the Old Testament to mean "a long, indefinite period of time." The translators (into Greek and English) happened to choose the word "day." Had they used the term "time periods" or similar transliteration, we wouldn't be having that argument today either.

(Incidentally, when I write a statement in our own language such as "the dinosaurs of that 'day,'" I'm not talking about some specific Thursday. I'm conveying a period of time over millions of years. So we do the same thing today as perhaps Moses did 3,200 years ago, at the dawn of the Bronze Age.)

The fact is that the biblical version of events is precisely the same as that considered by science. Until the Earth cooled and settled, the sky was invisible. Then came plants. Then marine life. Then animals. Then humankind.

I'm a science writer and study the Bible from the Judaic and Christian points of view, and I have never found anything written therein that conflicts with proven science.

As to evolution, most scientists now conclude that evolution will remain a theory since it is impossible to prove. The reasons are a bit complex, but among those is the fact that the process cannot be duplicated for scientific testing.

This is a "flame" response to create an argument of any sort. But a sufficient number of researchers are in complete agreement on these points to convince me that evolution is a non-issue to knowledgeable academics and theologians.TextText

Originally posted by TMR-1
I'm a science writer

And this is suppose to convince me of what? Who do you write for? Is your work peer reviewed? What specifically do you write on? Evolution? I'd like to read some of your work. Can I get a link?

Also, being a scientific writer, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that you would know what the scientific definition of 'theory' is? I thought so, but after reading "as to evolution, most scientists now conclude that evolution will remain a theory since it is impossible to prove" I find it hard to beleive that you do.

Just exactly what were you implying by saying it will remain a theory? That it would be elevated to the status of "Law" or what? Please enlighten me. Or were you suggesting something else? I am confused as to what you were alluding to.

Things evolve. Not just life.
The planets atmosphere evolves, businesses evolve.
Peoples attitudes, religious beliefs, clothing styles, food tastes.

Successful things change to suit new circumstances, while other things die off if they fail to adapt. It's just such a simple sensible observation of the way things work.

So, by whatever mechanism, it just seems sensible that something as flexible as Life would follow that same path.