Let's review the facts of evolutionary theory.

[CabVet]

So, AV, lets do a little exercise, imagine the following situation:

Mike is an average student (C average). He is taking a physics class, in which he has turned in the homeworks, which are usually about half correct. His best friend John is also in the class. John is an excellent student, who is very diligent with his studies. John speaks out in class, but Mike does not. Both John and Mike received As on their midterms. The teacher thinks that Mike may have cheated on the exam, since Mike was sitting next to John.

Now let's classify the things above into evidence and hypotheses:

Evidence 1. Mike is a C student.
Evidence 2. Mike's homeworks are always half wrong.
Evidence 3. John is an A student.
Evidence 4. Both John and Mike get an A on the midterm.
Evidence 5. Mike was sitting close to John during the midterm.

Hypothesis 1. Mike cheated by copying his answers from John.
Hypothesis 2. Mike studied harder than ever before.

Only with the evidence above you could say that hypothesis 1 is the best you got, and you will go with it. Now let's suppose that after a few weeks you obtain the following evidence:

Evidence 6. During the week prior to the exam Mike borrowed many books from the library.
Evidence 7. After the midterm Mike starts bringing his homework 100% correct.
Evidence 8. Mike sits far from John in the finals and also gets an A.

So, three new pieces of evidence and Hypothesis 2 starts to get a lot nicer, doesn't it? Do evidence 6-8 make evidence 1-5 false?

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Hypothesis have to make logical sense or they will be immediately dismissed, but they do not necessarily have to be supported by evidence. Another good definition for it is "a statement that attempts to state what might be true in a particular situation".

2. Theory has to be supported by several different lines of evidence. However, how good a piece of evidence is partly depends on how the evidence was obtained: Was a reliable method used? How good are the tools that were used to gather or measure the evidence? Can the data be replicated in another experiment? Is the evidence an acknowledged fact or statistic? Is it a reliable memory or observation? Might some reasonable people disagree with the evidence?

So, in short, theories are supported by evidence, but they are only as good as the evidence that support them. One single piece of evidence can completely change a theory if this new evidence is better than the previous evidence, and if the previous evidence does not contradict the new theory.

Interesting -- thank you for the 411.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, three new pieces of evidence and Hypothesis 2 starts to get a lot nicer, doesn't it?

Yes

Do evidence 6-8 make evidence 1-5 false?

No

 

[CabVet]

Yes

No

That's how you can have 6 competing hypothesis to explain the origins of the moon, some of them based on the same evidence, but not necessarily contradicting each other. There is only one way to resolve this question, and it is with new (better) evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if a 7th hypothesis was better supported than any of the current ones if we could find new evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's how you can have 6 competing hypothesis to explain the origins of the moon, some of them based on the same evidence, but not necessarily contradicting each other. There is only one way to resolve this question, and it is with new (better) evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if a 7th hypothesis was better supported than any of the current ones if we could find new evidence.

I'll admit -- you caught me-off guard by agreeing that the moon has no theories.

I suppose if you're willing to admit that the moon has no theories, I will admit there's a difference between 'theory' and 'hypothesis', viz. [validated] evidence.

Interesting indeed; I learned something today --

 

[CabVet]

I'll admit -- you caught me-off guard by agreeing that the moon has no theories.

I suppose if you're willing to admit that the moon has no theories, I will admit there's a difference between 'theory' and 'hypothesis', viz. [validated] evidence.

Interesting indeed; I learned something today --

Yes, we do agree here. I think we need much more evidence to be able to say that we have a "theory of the origin of the moon".

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, we do agree here. I think we need much more evidence to be able to say that we have a "theory of the origin of the moon".

Don't get me wrong though, I still believe the moon was created ex nihilo by God; which, of course, is a different story altogether --

 

[CabVet]

Don't get me wrong though, I still believe the moon was created ex nihilo by God; which, of course, is a different story altogether --

As far as I can tell that is just another hypothesis. To me, it's much less likely than any of the other six, but again I don't consider the Bible to be evidence and you do.

 

[AV1611VET]

As far as I can tell that is just another hypothesis. To me, it's much less likely than any of the other six, but again I don't consider the Bible to be evidence and you do.

We have terms of basic doctrine we use that, in reality then, can be misleading:

1. Water Canopy theory
2. Gap theory
3. Moral Influence theory

Looks like some terms could use an overhaul, eh?

I'll have to watch that in the future -- thanks for the heads-up!

 

[USincognito]

It was written for children, so they simplified it to just theories in order not to confuse them.

And yet...

 

[cupid dave]

Yes, we do agree here. I think we need much more evidence to be able to say that we have a "theory of the origin of the moon".

How is this different from the different Bible Interpretations of Genesis by the seven theologies that all differ?

Wasn't your prediction for a seventh, Theistic Evolution right?


The seven types of creationism:
1) Young Earth creationism
2) Old Earth creationism
3) Day-Age creationism
4) Progressive creationism
5) Gap creationism
6) Intelligent design
7) Theistic evolution: Genesis 1: The Theistic Evolutionary Creation

 

[CabVet]

How is this different from the different Bible Interpretations of Genesis by the seven theologies that all differ?

Wasn't your prediction for a seventh, Theistic Evolution right?


The seven types of creationism:
1) Young Earth creationism
2) Old Earth creationism
3) Day-Age creationism
4) Progressive creationism
5) Gap creationism
6) Intelligent design
7) Theistic evolution: Genesis 1: The Theistic Evolutionary Creation

We were talking about the six hypotheses for the origin of the moon. Oh, and by the way, you can add 100 other "types of creationism" to your list:

8) Navajo creationism
9) Egyptian creationism
10) Korean creationism
11) Chinese creationism
12) Norse creationism
.
.
.
.
99) Dreamtime creationism
100) Aztec creationism

 

[cupid dave]

We were talking about the six hypotheses for the origin of the moon. Oh, and by the way, you can add 100 other "types of creationism" to your list:

8) Navajo creationism
9) Egyptian creationism
10) Korean creationism
11) Chinese creationism
12) Norse creationism
.
.
.
.
99) Dreamtime creationism
100) Aztec creationism

Oh yeah...

But in the discipline of Christian Theology based upon the same text, the Bible, there are six medieval erroneous interpretations which have no science or academic credentials to support them, and then this new one which says science confirms every item in its interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Huram Abi]

I see you are back on the numerology kick, which means you will purposely include made-up items tor leave out very real items in order to hit those magic numbers of 7 or 12.

It will probably be no surprise to you when I point out that you left out neo-creationism, and omphalos hypothesis, among others.

 

[Inept]

So we go from Darwinism, to NeoDarwinism, to PostNeoDarwinism. What are they going to call it next?

We being whom? Those who accept evolution don't seem to be too keen on that term.

 

[Jazer]

How is this different from the different Bible Interpretations of Genesis by the seven theologies that all differ?

Only 7? What about the 11-dimensional theory?

 

[Jazer]

We being whom? Those who accept evolution don't seem to be too keen on that term.

"Gould's most significant contribution to science was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972.[2] The theory proposes that most evolution is marked by long periods of evolutionary stability, which is punctuated by rare instances of branching evolution. The theory was contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the popular idea that evolutionary change is marked by a pattern of smooth and continuous change in the fossil record."

They do not like it but you can not get away from it. Neo Darwinism represents "gradualism". Then Gould came along with "punctuated equilibrium" in 1972 and changed all of that. What do they call that? A "Paradigm shift"?

 

[CabVet]

Neo Darwinism represents "gradualism".

Neo-Darwinism has nothing to do with gradualism. Neo-Darwinism is the modern synthesis of evolution through natural selection and Mendellian genetics (which was not known by Darwin). Once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge in the subject.

 

[Miami Marlins 2012]

These two very short videos illustrate the Creationist vs. Evolution argument in a nutshell!

The evidence for Creationism

Kirk Cameron And Bananas - YouTube

The evidence for evolution

How To Shut Up Pesky Creationists - YouTube

Now, which one do you think is science and which one is not? If you still can't figure it out, let me give you a hint. Banana man forgot to do his research, or else he'd know bananas are domesticated plants, and the wild bananas are totally different. But hey, who would you rather listen to (1) a scientist with extensive scientific evidence or (2) a preacher with a hidden agenda, no knowledge of science, and flawed research?

 

[Miami Marlins 2012]

Sorry for the double post