Is evolution real?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I never thought speciation was considered as macro-evolutionism...yet the evo's need macro-evolutionism so they claim it to be.

I think speciation is still micro-evolution.

So why is it that you think micro-evolution exists but macro-evolution doesn't? Why can't loads of small changes end up leading to big changes?

And it's funny that we have creationists complaining about scientists making up words and terms when they do the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over and over...

 

[pitabread]

Baumgardner's computer model is only one of several models. It was developed in 1990 and I would imagine has been refined in many ways.

In general, creationist models of flood geology follow similar themes; namely massive cataclysmic events designed to explain contemporary geological features.

From what I've seen, they all invariably run into physics problems (e.g. excess energy release) that cannot be explained without miracles.

On a similar note, ICR's RATE project ran into the exact same issue trying to explain radiation release.

 

[JIMINZ]

Or it could be the fact that science has a very specific way of doing things and thus needs a very specific use of words to make sure that ideas and facts can be carried across without getting them confused or muddled up.

I like that, a Scientist tells you he needs to change the meaning of words in order for him to be better able to explain to you what he is talking about and all you can say is, OK!

I really think that you're charging at a giant that doesn't exist here, Senor Don Quixote.

Excellent comeback
I am supposing you believe you have just won the discussion don't you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I like that, a Scientist tells you he needs to change the meaning of words in order for him to be better able to explain to you what he is talking about and all you can say is, OK!

As opposed to doing what? Oh please tell us the answer, oh wise and noble scholar of scholastic and linguistic truth!

Excellent comeback
I am supposing you believe you have just won the discussion don't you?

Nothing in the slightest. I'm just pointing that you're making a mountain out of a molehill: you are arguing over something which means squat all in the long run and yet is something you feel should be used to denigrate scientists for no other reason than that it doesn't jibe with your religious beliefs.

 

[SelfSim]

Evolution is as real in science as a rock is.

Beliefs are generally excluded as being real in science, so it doesn't make sense to say scientists alter definitions to align with their beliefs.

What makes the difference between how science determines reality and how a believer does that, is the two distinct respective processes involved. Science objectively tests .. the belief method doesn't.

 

[pitabread]

I like that, a Scientist tells you he needs to change the meaning of words in order for him to be better able to explain to you what he is talking about and all you can say is, OK!

Or rather, it has to do with the fact that the meaning of a word depends on the context of its usage.

Again, why is this is having to be explained to people? Did they not teach you guys how words work in school?

 

[JIMINZ]

So why is it that you think micro-evolution exists but macro-evolution doesn't? Why can't loads of small changes end up leading to big changes?

And it's funny that we have creationists complaining about scientists making up words and terms when they do the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over and over...

Because you would have to demonstrate how they have combined in order for the big change to occur.

 

[SelfSim]

The meanings in language is how we all create our sense of reality, science included.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because you would have to demonstrate how they have combined in order for the big change to occur.

And scientists can do this, via genetics and DNA. It's really not that hard a concept, if you're just willing to look, learn and understand.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A Theory by any other name is still speculation.

Please go find out what a "scientific theory" is and what is meant by that phrase and then come back. Semantic arguments are poor; and semantic arguments with those who don't know the meanings used for the words they are arguing are worse.

 

[SelfSim]

Truth, in science, is nothing more than the last best tested theory.

 

[JIMINZ]

And scientists can do this, via genetics and DNA. It's really not that hard a concept, if you're just willing to look, learn and understand.

I could say the same to you about another subject couldn't I?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I could say the same to you about God, Salvation and Creation, couldn't I?

Oh, absolutely. No-one's saying that you can't.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Strange the way Scientists can and are allowed to change the meaning of words to fit their very own beliefs, and you readily accept it as truth, fact.

THe meanings of words drift as their usage changes. Without digging into the semantic history of the word theory, I suspect that it is the colloquial usage of the word that shifted. Perhaps it was because a specialized term entered into general usage. I don't know.

I should note that in the law they talk about the "theory of the case" which is an explanatory framework that explains the evidence. The two sides of the case will typically have different theories of the case, but in each it (like a scientific theory) explains things. In the law case, a jury or judge will weigh the evidence and may need to evaluate how the two theories work and choose one as the best explanation.

Science is like this where sometimes new theories are generated to better explain the evidence (data) than earlier theories. Sometimes two theories will exist side-by-side, but usually one will be put aside in favor of the other. (or one will be consigned to a sub-set of situations where the simpler theory is still useful as is the case for Newtonian gravity and mechanics, relative to their relativistic replacements.)

Unfortunately, the colloquial usage in English of "theory" is as a a *speculative* explanation for certain facts or events. Typically these would never qualify as a legal or scientific theory.

Maybe we should make up new words every time we use a modified version of a concept in a new situation, but that's where context comes in. In a scientific arena or context, we mean "scientific theory" even if the first word is not stated.

[Aside: We should also note that the word evolution in general refers to "change with time" and can apply to many things. The unmodified word in a scientific context is take to be "biological evolution", though the astronomers are fond of referring to the changes in stars and galaxies as "stellar evolution" and "galactic evolution", though they don't use the word "evolution" just by itself.]

 

[Hans Blaster]

I could say the same to you about God, Salvation and Creation, couldn't I?

Wrong part of CF for that.

 

[JIMINZ]

Oh, absolutely. No-one's saying that you can't.

The point was, you would not listen or understand, you have your mind already made up.

 

[JIMINZ]

Wrong part of CF for that.

Thank you sooooo much I will remove it OK?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The point was, you would not listen or understand, you have your mind already made up.

How do you know that? You don't know me from Adam. You don't know anything about me apart from the meager bits of information I've given you on this thread.

 

[JIMINZ]

I should note that in the law they talk about the "theory of the case" which is an explanatory framework that explains the evidence. The two sides of the case will typically have different theories of the case, but in each it (like a scientific theory) explains things.

Sure they do they are both speculating on how the crime was carried out, but at the point the both make their closing arguments they remain in the realm of Speculation Assumption, Hypothesis.

Even the jury does not 100% accept what either side has proposed, there are modifications depending on the 12 people deliberating, the outcome is not guaranteed by either sides Theory.

 

[pitabread]

if you're just willing to look, learn and understand.

Which, 99.9% of the time, creationists are not.