It makes me sad every time...

JStrike said:
I never said that creationism is on equal footing with evolution. I said it is actually just a theory.
Click to expand...

Sure, but you don't seem to be aware of the implication of saying it's "just a theory". Theories are backed up by evidence and testing, and is therefore the explanation of the mechanisms involved in facts.
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
Sure, but you don't seem to be aware of the implication of saying it's "just a theory". Theories are backed up by evidence and testing, and is therefore the explanation of the mechanisms involved in facts.
Click to expand...

Of course. But it can still be wrong, hence theory
 
hey OP, your teach is correct. it's still a theory as it hasn't been proven 100%. just a lot of guesses that all point to that it does exist. personally i believe in evolution.
 
JStrike said:
Of course. But it can still be wrong, hence theory
Click to expand...

There might occasionally be changes to the theory, but it doesn't change the fact. Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

Gravity is fact. The theory of gravity attempts to explain the mechanisms involved.

Evolution is fact. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms involved.

See where I'm going with this?
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
There might occasionally be changes to the theory, but it doesn't change the fact. Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

Gravity is fact. The theory of gravity attempts to explain the mechanisms involved.

Evolution is fact. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms involved.

See where I'm going with this?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. I understand what the word theory means in this context but evolution is not categorically proven as yet.
 
be.plato said:
Yes, I do. I understand what the word theory means in this context but evolution is not categorically proven as yet.
Click to expand...

No, it is. It will never be an axiom if thats what you mean.

However the understanding of what evolution is, is always growing and changing.
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Think you need to become more acquainted with the scientific method. While evolution "is just a theory", creation is just a hypothesis with nothing to back it up.
Click to expand...
Empirical science is not concerned with creation, it can neither establish nor refute creationism. Any person that claims one can defend or refute creationism with empirical science is either ignorant or dishonest. Empirical science deals with the observations of contingent things interacting with each other. Empirical science cannot observe “nothingess” (when something begins to exist from nothingness then it is an example of creation), in fact “nothingness” cannot be observed, hence, creation (if there is such a thing) cannot be directly observed. In a nutshell, creation is a logical and philosophical issue and not an empirical issue.
And there are good logical and rational arguments for creation, it just is not an empirical issue.
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
There might occasionally be changes to the theory, but it doesn't change the fact. Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

Gravity is fact. The theory of gravity attempts to explain the mechanisms involved.

Evolution is fact. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms involved.

See where I'm going with this?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am not disputing this. It is a theory to explain an observable fact. But it is just a theory. And it has changed over the years
 
be.plato said:
Yes, I do. I understand what the word theory means in this context but evolution is not categorically proven as yet.
Click to expand...
If you think the theory ever needs to be categorically proven then I contest that you actually don't know what the word theory means in this context.
 
AntiThesis said:
A teacher here just asked me to print out a poster on Evolution for her and then proceeded to tell me that "It's OK if it's got something funny in it, it's junk anyway. It's just a theory."

I don't know if I have the strength to explain the difference between "theory" in English and "Theory" in Science again. :erm:
Click to expand...
A bad theory at that, in fact Darwinism is the quintessential enemy of science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the way things really are, and when logic, evidence, and mathematical scrutiny cast grave doubt concerning the creative powers of the proposed Darwinian mechanism, those who offer such challenges are told to shut up and not ask stupid questions.

The core of Darwinism (random errors filtered by natural selection as a universal explanation for everything in life) should take its appropriate place at the summit of the ash heap of pseudo-scientific nonsense.
 
porchrat said:
If you think the theory ever needs to be categorically proven then I contest that you actually don't know what the word theory means in this context.
Click to expand...

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
Click to expand...
Link

But sometimes your understanding of the theory of evolution might change over time as further facts and / or discoveries come to light.
 
abandonallhope said:
A bad theory at that, in fact Darwinism is the quintessential enemy of science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the way things really are, and when logic, evidence, and mathematical scrutiny cast grave doubt concerning the creative powers of the proposed Darwinian mechanism, those who offer such challenges are told to shut up and not ask stupid questions.

The core of Darwinism (random errors filtered by natural selection as a universal explanation for everything in life) should take its appropriate place at the summit of the ash heap of pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Click to expand...

Who are these people you refer to? Because I've never seen you or anyone else offer one ounce of logic, evidence or mathematical scrutiny during any evolutionary discussion.

In fact, logic, evidence and mathematical scrutiny from you or any other denier would be such a breath of fresh air.
 
abandonallhope said:
A bad theory at that, in fact Darwinism is the quintessential enemy of science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the way things really are, and when logic, evidence, and mathematical scrutiny cast grave doubt concerning the creative powers of the proposed Darwinian mechanism, those who offer such challenges are told to shut up and not ask stupid questions.

The core of Darwinism (random errors filtered by natural selection as a universal explanation for everything in life) should take its appropriate place at the summit of the ash heap of pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between metaphysical Darwinism and scientific Darwinism. Metaphysical Darwinism, I would agree, is bunk. Scientific Darwinism is merely fitness differences over generations. I.e., the theory of evolution in a nutshell.
 
be.plato said:
Link

But sometimes your understanding of the theory of evolution might change over time as further facts and / or discoveries come to light.
Click to expand...
Yup as I said, no mention of it needing to be categorically proven anywhere in there. Theories don't somehow graduate to something higher when they are categorically proven, that isn't some sort of goal. Science simply doesn't deal in categorical proof as far as I am aware. My point seems to stand.

Read the entire article from start to finish and perhaps it will help you to understand.

You are of course perfectly right that theories will change, adapt or perhaps even be discarded altogether as knowledge grows. This is a good thing.

So when you say that the theory hasn't been categorically proven yet I say "yea of course it hasn't, it is a theory, theories don't get categorically proven ever, nothing in science does, is that confusing you?".
 
Last edited:
Her monkey brain cannot fathom the complexity of such a thing.. and so she should just accept it and defend it as a truth for no apparent reason like she usually does.
 
porchrat said:
Yup as I said, no mention of it needing to be categorically proven anywhere in there. Theories don't somehow graduate to something higher when they are categorically proven, that isn't some sort of goal. Science simply doesn't deal in categorical proof as far as I am aware. My point seems to stand.

Read the entire article from start to finish and perhaps it will help you to understand.

You are of course perfectly right that theories will change, adapt or perhaps even be discarded altogether as knowledge grows. This is a good thing.

So when you say that the theory hasn't been categorically proven yet I say "yea of course it hasn't, it is a theory, theories don't get categorically proven ever, nothing in science does, is that confusing you?".
Click to expand...

I agree with you that scientific theories cannot be proven "categorically". I also believe that scientific theories can be replaced or even discredited over time. This goes for the theory of evolution too :)

That's why I said evolution cannot be proven categorically. Perhaps I just used the wrong words, semantics....:twisted:
 
be.plato said:
I agree with you that scientific theories cannot be proven "categorically". I also believe that scientific theories can be replaced or even discredited over time. This goes for the theory of evolution too :)

That's why I said evolution cannot be proven categorically. Perhaps I just used the wrong words, semantics....:twisted:
Click to expand...

It's really quite a sad reflection of ones thoughts and views, that the only source of truth for their own belief system is that the opposing view might be proven wrong.

No ounce of credibility, evidence or truth is required to back up their own version of events though. Obviously, there is none. But just a slight twist or a play on words is enough to carry on in their smugness.
 
Denying evolution is like denying grass or dogs. Evolution itself does not really happen as a process or code if you will. It is a term used to describe thousands of year's result of natural selection due to mutation. It was never meant to be rocket science it just is.

The video below is one of my favorite this band ever made cause it is hammering on a valid point of the halt human kind is placing on this process via technology. People will continue to mutate. But we're keeping the weak ones alive via removing natural pressure.

[video=youtube;m8fm3Z7jgWM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8fm3Z7jgWM[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X