Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[doubtingmerle]

4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x

Ok.

x.

 

[Valletta]

Scientific theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be or that has been repeatedly tested and has corroborating evidence in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.​

​

Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It may or may not be accurate.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It may or may not be accurate.

The scientists on this very forum will affirm that it's accurate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It may or may not be accurate.

Buddy, you used a definition given from the internet. Pot calling kettle.

 

[Valletta]

Buddy, you used a definition given from the internet. Pot calling kettle.

Oxford Languages has been publishing dictionaries for over 150 years.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oxford Languages has been publishing dictionaries for over 150 years.

But you didn't use Oxford Languages, you directly linked to the Google dictionary definition, which granted does use Oxford Languages as a source, but here's the amazing thing: if you put something onto Wikipedia, you are asked explicitly and clearly to cite your sources.

Wikipedia, while not perfect as per the usual rule for the internet, is still a good enough source to start with. And an attempt to discredit the definition of theory by going, in your own words, "Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It may or may not be accurate." is not a good look for you, especially when it's something you clearly disagree with. Tinker Grey was right to cite the Wikipedia article for scientific theory because it's accurate.

 

[Lost4words]

Evolution is a modern invention....

God created EVERYTHING at the same time....in the 6 day creation period.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is a modern invention....

God created EVERYTHING at the same time....in the 6 day creation period.

And you can read it right here for yourself in the Good Book!

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Ok.

x.

Re this thread, standard #2 applies.

 

[Valletta]

But you didn't use Oxford Languages, you directly linked to the Google dictionary definition, which granted does use Oxford Languages as a source, but here's the amazing thing: if you put something onto Wikipedia, you are asked explicitly and clearly to cite your sources.

Wikipedia, while not perfect as per the usual rule for the internet, is still a good enough source to start with. And an attempt to discredit the definition of theory by going, in your own words, "Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It may or may not be accurate." is not a good look for you, especially when it's something you clearly disagree with. Tinker Grey was right to cite the Wikipedia article for scientific theory because it's accurate.

If you don't want to use a prestigious dictionary publisher for a definition that's up to you. I sure wouldn't be giving anyone a hard time for doing so.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't want to use a prestigious dictionary publisher for a definition that's up to you. I sure wouldn't be giving anyone a hard time for doing so.

Our church's go-to dictionary is the 1828 Webster's Dictionary.

Websters Dictionary 1828

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you don't want to use a prestigious dictionary publisher for a definition that's up to you. I sure wouldn't be giving anyone a hard time for doing so.

But you didn't use Ofxord Language, you used Google Search definition. You show that in the post you created where is specifically links to the Google Search page.
In fact, even when you go back through the link you provide, the definition that Tinker Gray gives through the Wiki article is given front and centre BEFORE the definition you used.

But let's use some actual dictionary definitions.
Cambridge - theory:
a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation.

Merriam-Webster - theory:
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Oxford - theory:
... turns out I can't use the online Oxford English Dictionary with paying for a subscription!

So let's go for Dictionary.com - theory:
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.
But then we can use the specific scientific definition of the word:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Our church's go-to dictionary is the 1828 Webster's Dictionary.

Websters Dictionary 1828

... why is an over 200 year old dictionary your church's go-to dictionary?

 

[AV1611VET]

... why is an over 200 year old dictionary your church's go-to dictionary?

Less tares in it.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Like I said, there are multiple specimens. Plus, hominids are symmetrical.

And yet, we continue to make correct predictions about fossils that are found.

That's a laugh; lets go back into our piles of old bones and see if we missed something. Surely there has to be connections between this bone and that bone. Oh and lets not forget about those "ghost" creatures that haven't had their bones found yet (and probably never will). There were multiple species of Homo; where did they come from; how did they get there.

Yes, I see those many correct predictions made by archeologists - here today, gone tomorrow. Their guesses are as good as the next bone dug up out of the Earth. Here is what I hear from archeologists - it's hard to find intact bones because many don't survive the harsh conditions they were left in but from the bones we have we deduce that this is how evolution played out. Bravo!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Less tares in it.

Translation: definitions you don't personally, or your church, doesn't like.

I have to say, out of everything I know about you...

 

[Valletta]

But you didn't use Ofxord Language, you used Google Search definition. You show that in the post you created where is specifically links to the Google Search page.

Google allows one to search for information on the Internet. Researchers and scientists use Google quite a bit in these time to locate sources of information. As a courtesy I searched using Google, quickly checked the origin and noted the information was from Oxford Languages, and provided the link for all. The ultimate source of the information is what is important to the topic. You seem to be under some misconception. The definition is not owned by "Google" or "Google Search."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's a laugh; lets go back into our piles of old bones and see if we missed something. Surely there has to be connections between this bone and that bone. Oh and lets not forget about those "ghost" creatures that haven't had their bones found yet (and probably never will). There were multiple species of Homo; where did they come from; how did they get there.

Yes, I see those many correct predictions made by archeologists - here today, gone tomorrow. Their guesses are as good as the next bone dug up out of the Earth. Here is what I hear from archeologists - it's hard to find intact bones because many don't survive the harsh conditions they were left in but from the bones we have we deduce that this is how evolution played out. Bravo!

How many bones, fossils and intact skeletons do you think we've discovered?

 

[AV1611VET]

Translation: definitions you don't personally, or your church, doesn't like.

I have to say, out of everything I know about you...

Example: "fetus"

Webster: The young of viviparous animals in the womb, and of oviparous animals in the egg, after it is perfectly formed; before which time it is called embryo. A young animal then is called a fetus from the time its parts are distinctly formed, till its birth.

Oxford: The unborn offspring of a viviparous animal, particularly a human or mammal, during the later stages of development within the womb.

 

[BCP1928]

That's a laugh; lets go back into our piles of old bones and see if we missed something. Surely there has to be connections between this bone and that bone. Oh and lets not forget about those "ghost" creatures that haven't had their bones found yet (and probably never will). There were multiple species of Homo; where did they come from; how did they get there.

Yes, I see those many correct predictions made by archeologists - here today, gone tomorrow. Their guesses are as good as the next bone dug up out of the Earth. Here is what I hear from archeologists - it's hard to find intact bones because many don't survive the harsh conditions they were left in but from the bones we have we deduce that this is how evolution played out. Bravo!

Feel free to knock down your own straw man. Nobody else will bother with it, but be sure to get back to us when you have a cogent criticism of the actual science.