Evolution's Brick Wall

[AV1611VET]

Or there were lots of individual, experimental creation events, over hundreds of millions of years until the creator finally got a human.

Omnipotence without omniscience?

 

[xianghua]

See, that's the source of the confusion. When you talk about "evolution" we are never sure whether you are talking about the fact that life has changed and diversified since it began or the theory which purports to explain how that happened.

its not a fact but a belief. and not a good one. according to evolution a part of a feces (bacteria) can evolve into a supermodel (human) .

 

[VirOptimus]

its not a fact but a belief. and not a good one. according to evolution a part of a feces (bacteria) can evolve into a supermodel (human) .

... what a stupid strawman.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, not proven. Rather confirmed or supported.

As I said before... which means exactly the same thing as proof to you, just not to anyone else who either says it does or doesn't. As elastic as a rubber band, the same way the meaning of species was redefined with the classification system.

 

[xianghua]

... what a stupid strawman.

where do you see any strawman? according to evolution a bacteria can evolve into a supermodel or not?

 

[Kenny'sID]

A theory is an EXPLANATION for a set of related hypotheses and observations. Again, it is an explanation, not a proposition.

So, since you have been shown an official dictionary definition which fits what we are saying, are you now going to accept that definition, as you claim here?

Wonder how many "optimistic" ratings I'll get on this post.

Are you now going to accept mine as a theory also, according to the dictionary?

It is also exactly what I said it was, so now what? Why do I have to keep repeating that? Clearly you are now bursting with "see, I was right" but nothing has changed....get over yourself, please, if nothing else, it just looks bad.

 

[Kenny'sID]

In all honesty, I wouldn't be reaching to a dictionary as a primary source for technical definitions of terms.

IOW, your comment was shut down so now you have to move to not using a dictionary at all?

Someone made a comment about my attitude earlier.. these are the type things I mentioned that bring it on.

 

[Kenny'sID]

LMAO. Sure, you can use your definition all you want, it is simply irrelevant to the claim that science theories cannot be proven. THAT is what you were arguing against. And your argument is essentially: scientific theories can be proven correct, because colloquial theories can. Sorry, doesn't follow.

Your burning silk analogy is meaningless, cause it addresses a claim that none of us made. Of course, when theory is used colloquially to be equivalent to hypothesis, it can be confirmed. We never said otherwise.

Please try to keep up, it was absolutely meaningful according to the definition of theory that I found in *the dictionary*.

 

[46AND2]

Are you now going to accept mine as a theory also, according to the dictionary?

I never denied it. The problem is that you are using the wrong definition based on the context of the discussion. You, on the other hand, denied that our definition was correct. I'm not the one who has to backtrack, here.

It is also exactly what I said it was, so now what? Why do I have to keep repeating that? Clearly you are now bursting with "see, I was right" but nothing has changed....get over yourself, please, if nothing else, it just looks bad.

And again I say, so what? Your example has absolutely nothing to do with whether a scientific theory can be proven or not. It's like arguing that a type of bird cannot be a crane, because a crane is a piece of machinery which lifts heavy objects.

 

[Kenny'sID]

In your "analogy" you predict that it will burn, based on your "theory". And then it burns. So your prediction was accurate.

No, not proven. Rather confirmed or supported.


Also, if this is what you consider proven, then evolution theory is also proven according to those exact same criteria.

In your "analogy" you predict that it will burn, based on your "theory". And then it burns. So your prediction was accurate.


Well....
Some time ago, paleontologists predicted, since according to evolution theory sea-life evolved into land life in the late devonian, that if go dig in an appropriate site made of devonian rock, they should find fossils of fish with clear tetrapod features.

So they went to such a site, started digging and found Tiktaalik. A fish/tetrapod hybrid. Exactly as predicted.

So there you go... According to your VERY OWN criteria of how to apparantly "prove" a scientific theory, evolution theory has been proven.


ps: this is just one example of how predictions based on evolution theory turned out accurate. There are thousands and thousands of such examples. If not millions.


pps: your "analogy" also kind of shows that you really have no idea what a scientific theory actually is. You don't have a theory in your example. You have an expectation based on previous observation. You have no theory. Theory would answer the how/why question: "why does the silk burn? what is it about silk that's different from a rock, that it burns? Why doesn't it also burn in a vacuum?". A theory would be a model of "burning", which answers those questions, and can then also be used to further predict under what, previously untested conditions, it would also burn (or not). And that's when you have a usefull idea: when you can accurately predict previously untested stuff.

Your "theory" here, does not do that. At all. Because it's not a theory.

The problem with that is mine was simple, cut and dry, while your "proof", based on my actual theory according to the dictionary, comes from huge stretches, some much so, I have to say, you have GOT to be kidding.

 

[46AND2]

Please try to keep up, it was absolutely meaningful according to the definition of theory that I found in *the dictionary*.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As I said before... which means exactly the same thing as proof to you

It absolutely doesn't.

As elastic as a rubber band, the same way the meaning of species was redefined with the classification system.

Not even close.
If the meaning of species was redifined with the classification system, then it was only done because we had more accurate information. It's called progress.

Yes, science is dynamic and from time to time makes explanations change.
While you seem to be complaining about that, scientists rejoice when that happens, because every time that happens, it means we took jumps forward in understanding the world. We learned more and new things. We alter explanations, models of reality, the way we think about things, our beliefs,... accordingly.

It's called learning.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The problem with that is mine was simple, cut and dry, while your "proof", based on my actual theory according to the dictionary, comes from huge stretches, some much so, I have to say, you have GOT to be kidding.

Awesome.

First you say that being able to make accurate predictions based on a theory, proves that theory.

And when it is pointed out to you that according to such criteria, evolution is a proven theory, then all of a sudden it's not enough.

Absolutely mindblowingly hilarious!




I guess this nonsense about "theory" kind of backfired on you, didn't it?
You can return to denial mode now.



ow and PS: Accurately predicting both the locality as well as the morphological / anatomical feature set of a previously unknown creature that's been extinct for a few 100 million years... infinitly more impressive then predicting that silk will burn. Just saying.

 

[inquiring mind]

Awesome.

First you say that being able to make accurate predictions based on a theory, proves that theory.

And when it is pointed out to you that according to such criteria, evolution is a proven theory, then all of a sudden it's not enough.

Absolutely mindblowingly hilarious!




I guess this nonsense about "theory" kind of backfired on you, didn't it?
You can return to denial mode now.

ow and PS: Accurately predicting both the locality as well as the morphological / anatomical feature set of a previously unknown creature that's been extinct for a few 100 million years... infinitly more impressive then predicting that silk will burn. Just saying.

Using an elastic interpretation of an elastic definition to define the definition... that should be confusing enough.

 

[pitabread]

IOW, your comment was shut down so now you have to move to not using a dictionary at all?

That isn't what I said.

What I said was that if one is looking to understand the ways words are used in a specific technical field, the best source for those meanings would be technical literature or glossary from that field.

I work as a finance professional. There are words in my field that have specific meanings that may not be accurately reflected in the dictionary. An example would be the words amortization and depreciation. Technically speaking, these refer to different things: amortization being the reduction of value of intangible assets and depreciation being the reduction of value of tangible assets. Dictionaries don't make this distinction.

A wire (in banking) is another example. Dictionary definitions are borderline useless in describing what a bank wire is, if they describe it at all. Plus there are regional differences. The term "wire" is used differently in American banking versus Canadian banking. Depending on whether I'm dealing with an American or Canadian bank, I have to be aware that certain words have different meanings. Dictionaries don't cover this.

If you want to discover the way words are used in specific fields, your best source is technical literature or glossaries from that field. Your second best source would be to ask professionals in that field how words are used. Once you've exhausted those avenues, only then I'd reach for a generic dictionary.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I never denied it. The problem is that you are using the wrong definition based on the context of the discussion. You, on the other hand, denied that our definition was correct. I'm not the one who has to backtrack, here.

And again I say, so what? Your example has absolutely nothing to do with whether a scientific theory can be proven or not. It's like arguing that a type of bird cannot be a crane, because a crane is a piece of machinery which lifts heavy objects.

My example was perfect according to the definition I used and the context I deemed correct. You will need to show me the accepted scientific dictionary of different definitions (the ASDDD) before you can possibly expect us to use your terminology, otherwise you are going to have confusion. Sorry you cannot accept that, and it you wan to continue wasting our time harping on it, that's completely up to you, but a point will come when I'm just going to ignore you.

So, if you can get over the problem, recognize the confusion/understand what happened and what will continue to happen until you provide and official ASDDD, and until then just drop your accusations, "I'm right and you are wrong" when you aren't necessarily for reasons I've mentioned several times, we can move on. If for no other reason, neither of us will ever completely give in here, so it's a waste of time.

So, with any luck, moving on from the present stagnant disagreement...What is your detailed definition of "theory"...scientific theory?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Awesome.

First you say that being able to make accurate predictions based on a theory, proves that theory.

And when it is pointed out to you that according to such criteria, evolution is a proven theory, then all of a sudden it's not enough.

Absolutely mindblowingly hilarious!




I guess this nonsense about "theory" kind of backfired on you, didn't it?
You can return to denial mode now.



ow and PS: Accurately predicting both the locality as well as the morphological / anatomical feature set of a previously unknown creature that's been extinct for a few 100 million years... infinitly more impressive then predicting that silk will burn. Just saying.

Show me your fossil, and the official short story of what you are claiming..

And no, didn't backfire at all, but lets just stick to the discussion, and see what huge stretches supported your prediction before you get too elated...k?

 

[46AND2]

My example was perfect according to the definition I used and the context I deemed correct. You will need to show me the accepted scientific dictionary of different definitions (the ASDDD) before you can possibly expect us to use your terminology, otherwise you are going to have confusion. Sorry you cannot accept that, and it you wan to continue wasting our time harping on it, that's completely up to you, but a point will come when I'm just going to ignore you.

So, if you can get over the problem, recognize the confusion/understand what happened and what will continue to happen until you provide and official ASDDD, and until then just drop your accusations, "I'm right and you are wrong" when you aren't necessarily for reasons I've mentioned several times, we can move on. If for no other reason, neither of us will ever completely give in here, so it's a waste of time.

So, with any luck, moving on from the present stagnant disagreement...What is your detailed definition of "theory"...scientific theory?

Lol. I already posted TWO dictionary definitions (that you say didn't exist) from the very dictionary (Webster's) that you said didn't contain it. One of them had it as the very first definition. The other one was from 190 years ago, and specifically described how, in science, a theory differs from an hypothesis.

Why are you pretending I didn't already do this?

 

[Kenny'sID]

That isn't what I said.

I know, it was my take on what you said.

 

[pitabread]

I know, it was my take on what you said.

Did the rest of my post clarify things as to why I don't consider generic dictionaries the best source of technical definitions?