Does it matter?

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by TheBear
No need for personal attacks, JohnR7. That is covered in the forum rules.

Yes, that is what I was trying to tell you. There is no reason on your part for a personal attack against me and how much knowledge you may think I do or do not have. You guys tend to chase people off, then you twiddle your thumbs and look at each other and wonder who your going to talk with about the subject at hand.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by David Gould
Evolution theory is natural selection plus DNA. You just said two contradictory things. You said that it was science and you said that it was junk.  

Maybe in your mind you can not draw a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection. If you go back and read Darwin, he will do it for you.

As Darwin said: "That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny." Also he tells us: "there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed"

Or as my mamma use to say, you can not thrown the baby out with the bath water. As I said before, Darwin made the water dirty. People today keep the water dirty by stiring up the same old nonsense.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by JohnR7
As Darwin said: "That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny." Also he tells us: "there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed"

Maybe if you included the whole quote instead of quote-mining, Darwin's point would be more clear (emphasis mine):

That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, -- that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, -- that all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable, -- and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed.

How about that? Evolution is variation plus selection.

Or as my mamma use to say, you can not thrown the baby out with the bath water. As I said before, Darwin made the water dirty. People today keep the water dirty by stiring up the same old nonsense.

Or as my mamma used to say: "Quote mining is the same a lying, son!" (I was quite an academic child )

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by JohnR7
You guys tend to chase people off, then you twiddle your thumbs and look at each other and wonder who your going to talk with about the subject at hand.

Yeah, well maybe if some creationist would show up here with something other than the usual pseudo-scientific junk, the conversation might last a little longer.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Or as my mamma used to say: "Quote mining is the same a lying, son!" (I was quite an academic child )

"Quote mining?

All I am trying to establish as was covered in the other thread is that frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution.

Darwin had no problem to seperate evolution from natural selection. But there just seems to be so may people who can not make that distinction.
 

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
well maybe if some creationist would show up here with something other than the usual pseudo-scientific junk,

Well, thanks for your contribution to the thread, but the comment you make can only bring a like comment in return.

So we have progressed from twiddling out thumbs to pointing fingers of accuastion at one another. Is this evolution? Are we making progress?

I had hoped we could go beyond exchanging quips to actually make some progress here. If evolution exists, then where is the real progress?

 

[TheBear]

JohnR7,

I think you may be oversimplifying what a scientific theory is, just to make your point. Scientific theories may start out as simple assumptions or interpretations, (hypothesis), but that is not the end of it.

Here's how it works in the scientific community. (roughly)

When observations and measurements are made by a scientist, he/she may develope a hypothesis, based on interpretation of the data. If so, the scientist 'tests' his/her hypothesis by trying to disprove it. When satisfied, confidence gets higher, and the hypothesis is then tested by his/her colleagues, again trying to disprove it. When satisfied at this point, confidence gets even higher, and the hypothesis is sent to a board of referees, who look at various methods used, flaws in testing procedures, etc. When accepted at this level, confidence begins to soar, and the hypothesis is published in international journals, to be scrutinized by worldwide scientific peers. If accepted at this level, confidence goes through the roof, and just maybe, it will earn the title of a scientific 'theory'.

In the scientific community, a 'theory' is extremely high in the confidence level, and should not be confused with the layman's term of a theory, (which could mean some half-baked idea, speculation, or guesswork).

So, in the context of science, to say, 'It's only a theory', is akin to refering to a top athlete as only a Gold Medal winner.

Most scientific assumptions or guesses, never earn the title of a scientific theory.

I really hope everyone can truly grasp and fully understand this concept.



John

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by JohnR7
All I am trying to establish as was covered in the other thread is that frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution.

Whatever point you were trying to make is moot since you haven't included the entire quote.

Darwin had no problem to seperate evolution from natural selection. But there just seems to be so may people who can not make that distinction.

Your assertion that Darwin separated natural selection from the theory of evolution is completely unfounded. It is clear that he considers selection a vital component of the theory.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by JohnR7
If evolution exists, then where is the real progress?

Thanks for proving my point. Applying evolutionary theory to some concept of social progress makes about as much sense as applying quantum theory to foreign policy. It's pseudo-scientific nonsense.

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Yes, that is what I was trying to tell you. There is no reason on your part for a personal attack against me and how much knowledge you may think I do or do not have. You guys tend to chase people off, then you twiddle your thumbs and look at each other and wonder who your going to talk with about the subject at hand.

No John, you have it all wrong. No one here is attacking you personally. My remarks were to anyone who does not understand the definition of a scientific theory. And, when anyone makes an erroneous claim on these boards, you better believe that those claims will be met head-on, with some 'reality check' remarks.

Let me give you an example. Let's say I make the claim that the Bible was originally written in 1611. You or someone else would respond quickly with 'corrective' statements, letting me know how erroneous my claim was.

And, please don't broad-brush the members here. You don't speak for me with your remark about the twiddling of the thumbs or trying to chase people off. The fact is, there are those who try to debunk this or disprove that, under the gise that they are able to stand their ground, fully prepared to defend their positions. But, when met with counter-points, sound reasoning and overwhelming evidence, their position falls flat on it's face. (At this point, their is usually the sound of tap dancing in the background. )

So John, if you or anyone is going to make claims, that's fine. That is what these boards are all about. And, if someone disagrees with you, takes you to task, and asks for you to back up your statements, this is the normal course of any discussion or debate, not a personal attack.

John

 

[sven]

One thing that everyone here seems to agree upon is that evolution is a theory. What intrigues me is that that no one refers to the theory of creationism. If both sides of the debate propose evolution as a theory, why do they not also classify creationism as a theory, if not a hypothesis?

 

[OneLargeToe]

One thing that everyone here seems to agree upon is that evolution is a theory. What intrigues me is that that no one refers to the theory of creationism. If both sides of the debate propose evolution as a theory, why do they not also classify creationism as a theory, if not a hypothesis?

For something to be a scientific theory it must be testable.  I mean, if I sat here and said that I had this idea that an invisible man under my bed created the stars in the sky, is that enough to say it's a theory?

Creationism is in the same boat.  It makes no predictions, is not testable, and cannot be falsified since the goal posts are allowed to move around on a whim.

 

[sven]

Originally posted by OneLargeToe
For something to be a scientific theory it must be testable.  I mean, if I sat here and said that I had this idea that an invisible man under my bed created the stars in the sky, is that enough to say it's a theory?

Creationism is in the same boat.  It makes no predictions, is not testable, and cannot be falsified since the goal posts are allowed to move around on a whim.

  


 I agree totally. I would, at best, consider creationism a hypothesis. My point is that evolution is often dismissed as "just a theory" (where theory could be used in the context of a scientific theory or in a more general sense) when all the same arguments used to classify it as "just a theory" are equally applicable to creationism.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by sven
    My point is that evolution is often dismissed as "just a theory" (where theory could be used in the context of a scientific theory or in a more general sense) when all the same arguments used to classify it as "just a theory" are equally applicable to creationism. [/size]

The "theory" of evolution has been around for thousands of years. Still after all this time, it changes from week to week. It is more the soup of the day or the flavor of the week.

Creation is based on truth and is then consistant. An arguement presented 2000 years ago would be just as valid today. A arguement presented 2000 years ago in favor of non-creation would not be accepted as being true today, even by evolutionists.

"all the authors and poets, and those called philosophers, are wholly deceived; and so, too, are they who give heed to them. For they plentifully composed fables and foolish stories about their gods, and did not exhibit them as gods, but as men, and men, too, of whom some were drunken, and others fornicators and murderers. But also concerning the origin of the world, they uttered contradictory and absurd opinions. First, some of them, as we before explained, main-mined that the world is uncreated. And those that said it was uncreated and self-producing contradicted those who propounded that it was created. For by conjecture and human conception they spoke, and not knowing the truth." (Theophilus of Antioch. AD 169).

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't even need Rant Mode for this one...

Originally posted by JohnR7
The "theory" of evolution has been around for thousands of years. Still after all this time, it changes from week to week. It is more the soup of the day or the flavor of the week.

Yes, it does change. All good ideas do. They change to fit the facts as we learn them. Creationism, on the other hand, twists facts to fit its dogma.

"I have not all my facts yet but I do not think there are any insuperable difficulties. Still, it is an error to argue in front of your data. You find yourself insensibly twisting them around to fit your theories." --Sherlock Holmes

Creation is based on truth and is then consistant. An arguement presented 2000 years ago would be just as valid today. A arguement presented 2000 years ago in favor of non-creation would not be accepted as being true today, even by evolutionists.

Does this even make sense? "the idea is old and hasn't changed; people have believed the same thing for two thousand years,  so it must be true."

And any argument presented 2000 years ago in favor of non-creation would've been squashed by the religious authorities. Do a web search on Giordano Bruno and/or Gallileo sometime. Creation was a popular idea at the time. The Church has had immense political and social power throughout history. Those who disagreed with the dogma seldom lived long. Does might make right?

"all the authors and poets, and those called philosophers, are wholly deceived; and so, too, are they who give heed to them. For they plentifully composed fables and foolish stories about their gods, and did not exhibit them as gods, but as men, and men, too, of whom some were drunken, and others fornicators and murderers. But also concerning the origin of the world, they uttered contradictory and absurd opinions. First, some of them, as we before explained, main-mined that the world is uncreated. And those that said it was uncreated and self-producing contradicted those who propounded that it was created. For by conjecture and human conception they spoke, and not knowing the truth." (Theophilus of Antioch. AD 169).

What exactly is this quote supposed to prove? "Creation stories from other religions are nonsense, but God snapping his fingers and *POOF*ing everything into being is perfectly logical." Right....

C'mon John, you can do better than this.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by JohnR7
The "theory" of evolution has been around for thousands of years. Still after all this time, it changes from week to week. It is more the soup of the day or the flavor of the week.

 

Been around thousands of years while changing week to week. 

Since you like quotes from ancient christian scholars, here you go:

Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430)

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
And any argument presented 2000 years ago in favor of non-creation would've been squashed by the religious authorities.

The "authorities" your refering to did not exist 2000 years ago. At that time the Romans were the authorities and they were polytheistic, and that means just about anything goes. The Hebrew authorities only had control over the Hebrews.

There could well be a problem with those who promote creationism, as there is with most all 'ism's. There is going to be a problem with most anything that is taught by man.

Those who are taught by the Creator really have no debate with those who do not beleive. They are only required to give a witness and a testimony to show what they know to be true. The truth of what they say is usually demonstrated with a show of power. In the early church that show of power was in the form of miracles, healing and so forth. Moses had to show he had more power than his competition by things like the parting of the Red Sea. Then there was Elijah who showed the truth over the teaching of the followers of Baal when he was able to call down fire from Heaven.

Even those who follow Evolution be it a ism or not, they must offer proof. Just an observation or a opinion of a observation is not enough.

Today we establish what we know to be true through the miracles and the healings. When we go to Africa many are healed of Aids. Science can delay death from aids, maybe for even up to 12 years, but they can not duplicate the results that the followers of creation can, by having a person who once was HIV positive come back with HIV negative results.

The proof then is that the rate of infection from Aids was 4 million a year and it is now down to 3.6 million a year in the south part of the African Continent. A change of .4 million.

It is the same with science. When they came up with a way to end the Polio epidimic, it did more then put a few feathers in their cap to gain them acceptance.

 

[TheBear]

Hey, John.

Should any and all scientific "theories" be dismissed and tossed out?

Thanks,
John

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by sven
What intrigues me is that that no one refers to the theory of creationism.

Creationism is pretty much a theory, because their approach is pretty much the same as those who try to promote the theory of evolution.

Creation is a fact and never changes. The foundation as we know it was set by Moses 3500 years ago, and has remained unchanged. Even tough there are those who will add to it or build upon it. Still truth is truth, always has been, always well be. The truth does not ever change. The universe will come and go, but truth will remain consistant. Truth was in existance before there was ever a universe. Truth will still be in existance long after the universe as we know it is gone.

 

[lithium.]

Even those who follow Evolution be it a ism or not, they must offer proof. Just an observation or a opinion of a observation is not enough

Well there will never be proof for any theory. Evidence is all we have. Do you believe that we have proof for gravity well we don't we never will just evidence that it exist,