Evolutionary debate

[Wiccan_Child]

No, it sure hasn't.

No, it sure hasn't.

Unsurprising.

What happened to "Law of..." -- as in, "Law of Gravity" or "Laws of Thermodynamics"?

They were never theories to begin with. The Laws of Thermodynamics are mathematical statements, conclusions logically derived from analysing the concept of a 'system'. Any logical statement is true within the bounds of its premises; so long as the premises are true, the conclusions are also true. Since the premises of Thermodynamics are so very general, we would have to fundamentally alter what we know about the universe in order to overturn them . Thus, they have earned the (inaccurate) moniker of 'law'. They are ultimately just theories, albeit very general, very rigorous, and very well-established ones.

Or think of it this way. A theory describes, a law prescribes.

All I'm saying is that you guys seem to want us to adhere to this one theory, but where are the competing theories?

After all, the moon has four major ones?

Does evolution stand alone?

Yes. The Moon has four competing theories that explain its origins, since the evidence is somewhat scant: there isn't enough data to conclude beyond all reasonable doubt how the Moon formed. Contrast this with the explanation for rain: there is enough data to conclude how rain forms.

That we have one theory to explain a particular phenomenon doesn't mean the explanation is weak, but rather that it's strong: it's swept away all the other competing theories and hypotheses, and dominates the scientific arena. Sure, the overarching status quo might be overrulled in the future; paradigm shifts are not unheard of. But that there is a status quo doesn't detract from its veracity.

The Moon's origin has four theories because the evidence is weak. Life has only one theory because the evidence is very strong.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Moon's origin has four theories because the evidence is weak. Life has only one theory because the evidence is very strong.

Got it -- thank you.

This is the best explanation I've ever heard.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Got it -- thank you.

This is the best explanation I've ever heard.

Awesome. I'm gonna treat myself to a cake.

 

[Hespera]

Unsurprising.


They were never theories to begin with. The Laws of Thermodynamics are mathematical statements, conclusions logically derived from analysing the concept of a 'system'. Any logical statement is true within the bounds of its premises; so long as the premises are true, the conclusions are also true. Since the premises of Thermodynamics are so very general, we would have to fundamentally alter what we know about the universe in order to overturn them . Thus, they have earned the (inaccurate) moniker of 'law'. They are ultimately just theories, albeit very general, very rigorous, and very well-established ones.

Or think of it this way. A theory describes, a law prescribes.


Yes. The Moon has four competing theories that explain its origins, since the evidence is somewhat scant: there isn't enough data to conclude beyond all reasonable doubt how the Moon formed. Contrast this with the explanation for rain: there is enough data to conclude how rain forms.

That we have one theory to explain a particular phenomenon doesn't mean the explanation is weak, but rather that it's strong: it's swept away all the other competing theories and hypotheses, and dominates the scientific arena. Sure, the overarching status quo might be overrulled in the future; paradigm shifts are not unheard of. But that there is a status quo doesn't detract from its veracity.

The Moon's origin has four theories because the evidence is weak. Life has only one theory because the evidence is very strong.

Hess' law is true under all known conditions, so is the ToE.

lame efforts by creos to falsify the ToE notwithstanding.


There seems to be a lot of belief that the ToE "stands alone" in some way. Like other science is good but ToE is just antireligous speculation..

The ToE is so dependent on and profoundly integrated with physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, all of biology, that to extract it into some stand-alone theory is beyond possibility.

A person would have to pretty much falsify all of known theory in science in order to take out the ToE.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There seems to be a lot of belief that the ToE "stands alone" in some way. Like other science is good but ToE is just antireligous speculation..

The ToE is so dependent on and profoundly integrated with physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, all of biology, that to extract it into some stand-alone theory is beyond possibility.

A person would have to pretty much falsify all of known theory in science in order to take out the ToE.

Pretty much. It's only the religious beliefs of others that cause people to rail against it. If Christianity implied that matter was continuous, you would have half the world doubting the existence of atoms.

 

[sandwiches]

All I'm saying is that you guys seem to want us to adhere to this one theory, but where are the competing theories?

After all, the moon has four major ones.

Does evolution stand alone?

None with evidence. All empirical evidence points to species arising from random traits accumulating over time due to environmental pressures. Also, the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming and many degrees of magnitude more abundant than the origin of the moon, as per your example.

ETA: And is there something wrong with me questioning this stuff? Am I treading on sacred ground here? Is the Darwin Squad about to issue me a summons?

Strawman. No need to try to incite people, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

Awesome. I'm gonna treat myself to a cake.

Here -- let me:

Care for a spot of tea to go with it?

 

[sfs]

They were never theories to begin with. The Laws of Thermodynamics are mathematical statements, conclusions logically derived from analysing the concept of a 'system'. Any logical statement is true within the bounds of its premises; so long as the premises are true, the conclusions are also true. Since the premises of Thermodynamics are so very general, we would have to fundamentally alter what we know about the universe in order to overturn them . Thus, they have earned the (inaccurate) moniker of 'law'. They are ultimately just theories, albeit very general, very rigorous, and very well-established ones.

Or think of it this way. A theory describes, a law prescribes.

There is also an issue of convention here: no one names a new concept in science as a "law" anymore, whatever it explains and however good the evidence. This probably reflects a different understanding of how science works, but in any case is a real change in the language of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

No need to try to incite people, AV.

I just don't want the Darwin Squad kicking in my door and demanding I surrender my alleles.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is also an issue of convention here: no one names a new concept in science as a "law" anymore, whatever it explains and however good the evidence. This probably reflects a different understanding of how science works, but in any case is a real change in the language of science.

​

Ah, yes -- no laws -- I should have thought of that in the first place.

 

[sandwiches]

I just don't want the Darwin Squad kicking in my door and demanding I surrender my alleles.

Trudat.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I just don't want the Darwin Squad kicking in my door and demanding I surrender my alleles.

You're assuming someone wants them.

 

[pchotrodder]

This subject is something I really enjoy discussing. I have not read every post in this thread yet so if I mention something that has already been discussed please forgive me. The thread ask do you believe in evolution. What kind of evolution? I only believe in micro evolution. As for macro evolution, it is pure speculation (some say religion) as it has 0 proof what so ever. Micro evolution is diversification within a species, example different kinds of dogs. Macro evolution involves new species evolving from another species. Let me throw out a couple of question to get some thinking going.

1 Is it harder to believe in God, or that everything on earth evolved from nothing but water that ran over some rocks? This is why people say evolution is a religion. Because you simply have to believe in it as it has no proof that this step ever happened.

2 People bring up the missing links arguement alot. Why are there no (0) missing links for any other creature or plant on earth? Sidenote that all missing link specimens have been proven false.

3 Dinosaurs were supposedly extinct before humans. The first bones were discovered in the late 1800's. If no one on earth has ever seen a dinosaur then how do we have paintings and decorations showing dinosaurs on ancient pottery, shields, cave walls, etc before the first discovery of the bones? Also why are there fossolized human foot prints in the dinosaur tracks in Texas?

I will go back and read through the previous post to see what other points people have brought up to see if I can add anything to them.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

3 Dinosaurs were supposedly extinct before humans. The first bones were discovered in the late 1800's. If no one on earth has ever seen a dinosaur then how do we have paintings and decorations showing dinosaurs on ancient pottery, shields, cave walls, etc before the first discovery of the bones? Also why are there fossolized human foot prints in the dinosaur tracks in Texas?

I will go back and read through the previous post to see what other points people have brought up to see if I can add anything to them.

If you going to bring up bogus creationist claims you might at least bring ones that have been debunked less than 25 years ago.
Creation Evidence Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Both scientists and creationists have criticized Baugh's claims. In 1982–1984, several scientists, including J.R. Cole, L.R. Godfrey, R.J. Hastings, and S.D. Schafersman, examined Baugh's purported "mantracks" as well as others provided by creationists in Glen Rose. In the course of the examination "Baugh contradicted his own earlier reports of the locations of key discoveries" and many of the supposed prints "lacked characteristics of human footprints." After a three-year investigation of the tracks and Baugh's specimens, the scientists concluded there was no evidence of any of Baugh's claims or any "dinosaur-man tracks".[35]

 

[Hespera]

This subject is something I really enjoy discussing. I have not read every post in this thread yet so if I mention something that has already been discussed please forgive me. The thread ask do you believe in evolution. What kind of evolution? I only believe in micro evolution. As for macro evolution, it is pure speculation (some say religion) as it has 0 proof what so ever. Micro evolution is diversification within a species, example different kinds of dogs. Macro evolution involves new species evolving from another species. Let me throw out a couple of question to get some thinking going.

1 Is it harder to believe in God, or that everything on earth evolved from nothing but water that ran over some rocks? This is why people say evolution is a religion. Because you simply have to believe in it as it has no proof that this step ever happened.

2 People bring up the missing links arguement alot. Why are there no (0) missing links for any other creature or plant on earth? Sidenote that all missing link specimens have been proven false.

3 Dinosaurs were supposedly extinct before humans. The first bones were discovered in the late 1800's. If no one on earth has ever seen a dinosaur then how do we have paintings and decorations showing dinosaurs on ancient pottery, shields, cave walls, etc before the first discovery of the bones? Also why are there fossolized human foot prints in the dinosaur tracks in Texas?

I will go back and read through the previous post to see what other points people have brought up to see if I can add anything to them.

If this kind of moldy nonsense is all you have to add please dont.

 

[pchotrodder]

If you going to bring up bogus creationist claims you might at least bring ones that have been debunked less than 25 years ago.

Well I read through 20 something pages and found mostly name calling and criticizing like above. I thought this was for debating. Yes this is creationist claims. What do you think the option to believing in evolution is? As for the prints being degradated to the point of not being identifyable due to erosion I agree, yet when they remove some of the other stones to the sides of the stream they uncover more tracks that are not eroded. Also you still can't explain art depicting dinosaurs that supposedly according to text books have never been seen by humans.

I also noticed a large amount of criticism for people pointing out creationist that are not in the field of biology and being hammered for it. Everyone says evolution only pretains to biology. That is not true. Evolution requires time, energy, chemicals, etc. Weither you like it or not evolution depends on every field of science. The reason scientist in other fields are shifting away from evolution is because with the newer technology in their fields they are finding that the time required for evolution to take place is simply not there.

Now in regards to your rather arrogant response please answer the other 2 questions I asked or can you simply refute half of the 3rd one. I will tell you right now I am not a scientist. I don't have a degree in any scientific field, but if you would like to have a discussion without the wisecracks and abusing responses. I would like to continue a debate, but if all your going to do is make fun and criticize. I know science will never prove God because God is not Science, but I also believe alot that is taught as evolution is not true.

 

[pchotrodder]

If this kind of moldy nonsense is all you have to add please dont.

Are you saying that you lack intelligence to repond in a positive intelligent manner?

I could say that if that is all you have to add then please don't right back at you.You reponse contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion/debate.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know science will never prove God because God is not Science, but I also believe alot that is taught as evolution is not true.

Welcome to CF, bro --

Glad to have you aboard!

 

[pchotrodder]

Thank you glad to be here

 

[Hespera]

Are you saying that you lack intelligence to repond in a positive intelligent manner?

I could say that if that is all you have to add then please don't right back at you.You reponse contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion/debate.

Way to go on the setting an example of how not to be insulting. I made no personal remarks, its not classy if you are going to do it.

What you posted is moldy nonsense. i dont feel like sugar coating that.


"The reason scientist in other fields are shifting away from evolution is because with the newer technology in their fields they are finding that the time required for evolution to take place is simply not there. "

L
Far from it being the case that "scientists in other fields are shifting away"
( a claim you could make if 2 psychologists were) ALL other areas of the hard science corroborate and contribute to and verify the ToE, one way or another; to falsify the Toe would involve falsifying most of known scientific theory in the world.

If you are not aware of that, its something to think about.

Like so many creationists, here you are with a vast swath of claims and asking for highly detailed responses to it all.

Try this. Not one person between the poles of the earth has one real data point, not one, of any kind, that would serve to falsify evolution or even call it into anything resembling reasonable doubt.

Your second half, point 3. is, all of it, simply untrue. People get this stuff from creo websites, then repeat it. i guess its an invitation to play dueling websites. A person with background in something like historical geology for example finds this stuff about as tiresome as an astronomer might find astrology; they stand in about the same sort of relationship. If there were real human tracks as you say, the paleontologists would be all over it.

Now, if you can come up with so much as one real data point, lets hear it.

No creationist has ever been able to meet that simple challenge, but you are welcome to go for it.