Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
But again you miss my point and since the OP boasts to know my opinion, I would think that the discussion should be about my opinion. My opinion is that evocution, creationism, and intelligent design are all theories, not fact. I will add to my opinion here that it seems to follow that anyone who claims otherwise has crossed the line between theory and belief system and thier belief system is open to philosophical questions based thereon.
And it's fine to have such an opinion. However, you should be aware that it's false.
Evolution, creationism and intelligent design are not all theories in the same sense. Evolution is the only one which is a theory in the scientific sense. The others are not, as they have absolutely no supporting scientific evidence.
In addition, evolution is a fact. It is as proven as anything gets in science. It is as open to doubt as is gravity. To believe otherwise is to be either ignorant or wilfully in denial of the truth because it conflicts with your own beliefs.
__________________ The Bellman himself they all praised to the skies--
Such a carriage, such ease and such grace!
Such solemnity, too! One could see he was wise,
The moment one looked in his face!
Please read the articles you suggest before posting your opinion, for the article futher supports my position.
Well, maybe you should continue with this discussion, my opinion is looking stronger all the time.
I quote from the article your posted
"These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fairs in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, without assuming the truth of universal common descent, it is highly probable that the hypothesis will indeed fail for most of these predictions. These predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover. "
Notice that the it says that in every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contridicted by the empirical evidence. Hummmmmm! Not overwhelming proof! Who could have quessed?!
I can't believe you would accuse me of not reading an article that I linked to!
You only read the introduction. If you had read further, you would know that your quote is lifted out of context. A scientific theory, by definition, can be falsified. That includes gravity, electro-magnetism, relativity, and so on. If it can't be falsified, then it isn't a theory.
Here is another quote from the article in question:
Prediction 1.3: Convergence of independent phylogenies
If there is one historical phylogenetic tree which unites all species in an objective genealogy, all separate lines of evidence should converge on the same tree (Penny et al. 1982; Penny et al. 1991). Independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms should match each other with a high degree of statistical significance.
Confirmation:
<snip>
I snipped the confirmation, it is long and you can read it at your leisure.
Here is the potential falsification:
Potential Falsification:
When it became possible to sequence biological molecules, the realization of a markedly different tree based on the independent molecular evidence would have been a fatal blow to the theory of evolution, even though that is by far the most likely result. More precisely, the common descent hypothesis would have been falsified if the universal phylogenetic trees determined from the independent molecular and morphological evidence did not match with statistical significance. Furthermore, we are now in a position to begin construction of phylogenetic trees based on other independent lines of data, such as chromosomal organization. In a very general sense, chromosome number and length and the chromosomal position of genes are all causally independent of both morphology and of sequence identity. Phylogenies constructed from these data should recapitulate the standard phylogenetic tree as well (Hillis et al. 1996; Li 1997).
What this is saying, is that a tree of life has been constructed using shared characteristics and differences between creatures to determine which are related to each other. another tree has been contructed using DNA sequencing. The two trees agree. If they did not agree, that would disprove common descent. But they did not disagree, they agreed.
This is just one of the 29 examples in the article. He repeats this format for every one of them. A short statement of a piece of evidence, then detailed reasons proving that piece, and then what it would take to falsify the original assumption.
Wrong, the article states 29+ different ways of proving/disproving macro evolution and gives an overview of the facts backing up each of these different, independent lines of evidence.
The problem is that the article main argument is that there is indeed an overwhelming amount of evidence, which makes evolution theory as good as it gets. No, it will never be fact, but it is as close to fact as you can get with scientific theories. That is the thrust of the article. It does not support your first premise, neither your second.
And yet the article clearly says that this evidence has not yet been found but when it is found it will be overwhelming proof. Now when I was in school, I was taught that if you can't find something, you have no proof that it is there. Unless that is that you know you lost it. So are you then proposing that the evidence of evolution has been found then lost again? Who lost it? When was it lost? Who found it the first time?
The article does support my opinion, that there is no overwhelming evidence. and that evolution is a theory. In addition, the article further claims that science does go on the assumption that evolution is fact, and as such, uses science to support the theory rather than as you prepose, that it is through observation that we come to a theory of evolution. This article rather assumes evolution to be fact and looks for "EVIDENCE" to prove that it is. Not good scientific method anyway you look at it.
Maybe we should just link him to a few thousand articles which provide evidence supporting evolution?
And, maybe we should show him how evolution is both a theory and a fact?
Riboflavin, please don't assume you know everything just because you read one little article.
True knowledge is acquired through SUSTAINED contact with the subject matter.
I did not assume to know everything much less by reading one article, what I did assert is that the article presented to defend my point, supported it instead.
YOu last statement is interesting, so the author of the article is not someone who has sustained contact with the subject matter? Who then qualifies for this honor of true knowledge? Certainly not those who know so little about the theory of Creationism or ID as those I have talked to so far on this forum. For to know true knowledge according to this statement, one must first have sustained contact with all three theories which would take many years of study on science, theology, philosophy and throw in some world religion for good measure.
Maybe we should just link him to a few thousand articles which provide evidence supporting evolution?
And, maybe we should show him how evolution is both a theory and a fact?
Riboflavin, please don't assume you know everything just because you read one little article.
True knowledge is acquired through SUSTAINED contact with the subject matter.
I did not assume to know everything much less by reading one article, what I did assert is that the article presented to defeat my point, supported it instead.
YOu last statement is interesting, so the author of the article is not someone who has sustained contact with the subject matter? Who then qualifies for this honor of true knowledge? Certainly not those who know so little about the theory of Creationism or ID as those I have talked to so far on this forum. For to know true knowledge according to this statement, one must first have sustained contact with all three theories which would take many years of study on science, theology, philosophy and throw in some world religion for good measure.
Hmmm, first to clear up one question I still have. Is the difference between creation and creationism now clear to you? Because you did not seem to understand the distinction made between them by Jet Black.
How does my post not show that I understand the difference, because I believe in ID and yet I do not argue strawman arguements like which is truth, evolution or Creationism? Come now, without overwhelming arguement, a debate over evolution and Creationism is strawman, especially when I am a believer of ID. What would you have me debate?
And as your opinion, that's fine. However, you should know that it is a false opinion.
According to your opinion, it is false. As we have seen demonstrated by many here and through articles presented for review, it is not the opinion of every evolutionist, including scientists. So would that then make you opinion false as well? What opinion is true? Who desides which opinion is true and which is false?
The three are not all theories in the same sense. Evolution is the only one that is a theory in the scientific usage of the word; the other two are not, as they have absolutely no scientific evidence supporting them.
I know of scientists that would disagree with you on that. Because science does not set out to prove another theory, does not equal that science cannot or does not prove one of the other theories. Only that science does not attempt to do so.
In addition, while evolution is a theory, it is also fact. It is as proven as anything in science ever gets. It is as proven as gravity. To doubt this is either to be ignorant or simply in denial of the truth because it offends or violates some other belief.
Is this the same arguement you give evolutionist scientists that claim that there is not overwhelming proof, or do you just listen to those that say what you want them to say about science? There are multiple sides to every issue. Unless we have overwhelming evidence that evolution is fact, there are things in science that question the theory and thus, there is no overwhelming evidence. The result is that we must accept evolution as a theory not fact. The same as c and id, theories not fact.
I can't believe you would accuse me of not reading an article that I linked to!
You only read the introduction. If you had read further, you would know that your quote is lifted out of context. A scientific theory, by definition, can be falsified. That includes gravity, electro-magnetism, relativity, and so on. If it can't be falsified, then it isn't a theory.
Here is another quote from the article in question:
I snipped the confirmation, it is long and you can read it at your leisure.
Here is the potential falsification:
What this is saying, is that a tree of life has been constructed using shared characteristics and differences between creatures to determine which are related to each other. another tree has been contructed using DNA sequencing. The two trees agree. If they did not agree, that would disprove common descent. But they did not disagree, they agreed.
This is just one of the 29 examples in the article. He repeats this format for every one of them. A short statement of a piece of evidence, then detailed reasons proving that piece, and then what it would take to falsify the original assumption.
Ron
So what we are saying is that because there are shared genes that make a tree a tree and not a monkey, then we have proof of evolution? Wow is that a streatch!
What is proven is that evolution is possible in a labratory. I have not questioned this nor do I intend to debate whether or not evolution is a possible theory. For it to be a theory, it is possible. What I am saying is that this does not prove fact, or disprove c or Id. Just as old earth, new earth proves possibility, this proves possibility, not probability or truth.
Should be go throgh all 29 since the paper prefaces the article by saying that this is not conclusive evidence? That there is no actual proof?
Should be go throgh all 29 since the paper prefaces the article by saying that this is not conclusive evidence? That there is no actual proof?
Don't waste your time, since you don't appear to understand them. If you want to pick a couple, like the Cytochrome C and Endogenous Retrovirus ones and show how they're not evidence, I would appreciate you attempting to do so.
And to the other posters, her user ID is razzleflabben, not riboflavin.
Linear Mode
