How many steps does it take?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oops, you are defining an adjective ("scientific") using the noun "science." What is your definition of science?

You asked for the definition of scientific, not science. I gave you a definition of scientific, but you don't want to accept it.
You're question to me was:

please define your use of the word "scientific"

And I gave you the definition that I accept for the word scientific. Scientific DOES pertain to anything to do with science.

Your/The dictionary definition of "theory" concur with. However, since you copied and pasted from a dictionary, how do I know that you are clear about a theory? Can you give an example of a theory?
Once we get these settled, I guess we can get back to the talk at hand and use them coherently in a discussion of the topic? This way, we can remove a great deal of confusion and even frustration. I look forward to that.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory.
The only confusion is the confusion you are needlessly creating.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because a creature can live in both water and on land, does that constitute a transitional fossil?

Here is what you said:

"Please note, that each of these major changes above in features would require numerous micro-changes; and that these micro-changes would create a freakish, incomplete transitional animal that would be easy prey for predators and or fail in the environment it was morphing into."

All I need to do to show that you are wrong is to find a species that is half aquatic, half terrestrial that is not freakish or incomplete. Seals are a perfect example. Your claim is thoroughly refuted.

When I speak of freakish, I am suggesting deformity - how is a seal deformed?

That's the whole point. A species with a mixture of aquatic and terrestrial features doesn't need to be deformed, as you claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

What do you mean by theory? Can a theory be falsified?

Here is a good description given by Gould:

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

And yes, the theory of evolution is falsifiable. In fact, here are more than 29 potential falsifications:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe, if you say that enough times, you will start to believe it.

You are projecting. You keep telling yourself that evolution is just a belief, over and over and over, in an attempt to convince yourself that it is true. All the while, we have the evidence:

 

[Jfrsmth]

You are projecting. You keep telling yourself that evolution is just a belief, over and over and over, in an attempt to convince yourself that it is true. All the while, we have the evidence:

What evidence? These are a bunch of neatly arranged hominid skulls that are assumed to be what, changing from what, one form to another until we finally get to modern man? Was it observed? No? Then all you have is an assumption from a naturalistic belief.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Here is a good description given by Gould:

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

And yes, the theory of evolution is falsifiable. In fact, here are more than 29 potential falsifications:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

So, you are claiming this man's statement as irrefutable "evidence" that evolution is a "fact"? Wow. What is this evidence that shows evolution as a "fact"? How do we know "ape-like" creatures evolved into humans? Was it observed? Notice also, that Gould is not even sure of the "mechanism" of evolution here: "humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." So, he is proposing a fact based on an assumption, that has yet to be observed. Hmmmm...

 

[Jfrsmth]

Here is what you said:

"Please note, that each of these major changes above in features would require numerous micro-changes; and that these micro-changes would create a freakish, incomplete transitional animal that would be easy prey for predators and or fail in the environment it was morphing into."

All I need to do to show that you are wrong is to find a species that is half aquatic, half terrestrial that is not freakish or incomplete. Seals are a perfect example. Your claim is thoroughly refuted.

That's the whole point. A species with a mixture of aquatic and terrestrial features doesn't need to be deformed, as you claim.

You are operating from the assumption that a seal is a transitional creature. How do you know that it is? Because it can live on land and water? So? How is that evidence of a transitional form? Creatures must live on land or on water, with no variance or they are assumed to be transitional forms? If they're transitional, what are they evolving into?

 

[Jfrsmth]

You asked for the definition of scientific, not science. I gave you a definition of scientific, but you don't want to accept it.
You're question to me was:

And I gave you the definition that I accept for the word scientific. Scientific DOES pertain to anything to do with science.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory.
The only confusion is the confusion you are needlessly creating.

You however defined scientific using the word science to define it, thus we still do not have a working understanding of what it is. Could we simply agree that science has to do with observable, testable models of the natural world?

If we do not address this, then we will have confusion. If you are confused here, how much more when we are talking apples and oranges.

Saying Evolution is a theory does not fall into observable, testable science. How is evolution observed? How is it tested? A theory can be in some people's minds just an idea, or it can be in science, a model that has support from facts and laws. Evolution does not qualify. It has been and can be falsified. Therefore, it is a fallacious theory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You however defined scientific using the word science to define it, thus we still do not have a working understanding of what it is. Could we simply agree that science has to do with observable, testable models of the natural world?

If we do not address this, then we will have confusion. If you are confused here, how much more when we are talking apples and oranges.

Saying Evolution is a theory does not fall into observable, testable science. How is evolution observed? How is it tested? A theory can be in some people's minds just an idea, or it can be in science, a model that has support from facts and laws. Evolution does not qualify. It has been and can be falsified. Therefore, it is a fallacious theory.

How am I supposed to define the word scientific without using the word science when scientific means anything pertaining to science?!

You know what? Forget it. This isn't worth my time. You're a troll. Nothing more. You're going on my ignore list.

 

[Hoghead1]

Contrary to what you have to say, Jfrsmith, evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories that we have. That's why it is central in mainstream science. On more than one occasion, it has been observed in the lab with bacteria. Also, in Russia, there has been a longitudinal study on whether foxes can be evolved into dogs. This has been going on since the early 50's. So far, the results are quite promising. They are then going to keep at it. I mention this experiment, because evolution can be a very slow process and therefore impossible for any one to observe.

 

[Jfrsmth]

How am I supposed to define the word scientific without using the word science when scientific means anything pertaining to science?!

You know what? Forget it. This isn't worth my time. You're a troll. Nothing more. You're going on my ignore list.

A troll, wow... nice guy.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Contrary to what you have to say, Jfrsmith, evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories that we have. That's why it is central in mainstream science. On more than one occasion, it has been observed in the lab with bacteria. Also, in Russia, there has been a longitudinal study on whether foxes can be evolved into dogs. This has been going on since the early 50's. So far, the results are quite promising. They are then going to keep at it. I mention this experiment, because evolution can be a very slow process and therefore impossible for any one to observe.

"...evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories that we have." If you keep saying that enough, you will definitely start to believe it. I'm sorry Hoghead1, but I read this mantra all of the time. People keep saying it over and over. It's really kind of frightening to see this kind of mind control happening at such a grand scale. But, this mind control is the consequence of those who do not want to take the Genesis account at face value.

Evolution is central in mainstream science because no other possibility or discussion of "real science" is allowed to dilute the religion of evolution. People laugh at it, scoff at it, and do what they can to discredit it. If YEC is so bogus, why so much energy given to disqualify it?

Bacteria is still bacteria, with no new information created.

But, I thought that science meant "observable" and "testable" phenomena?? So, are we discussing the "science" of what may be, if we give it millions of years to happen? Who would be able to observe that here and now and verify it? It is therefore not science, but a prediction based on a naturalistic worldview.

 

[-57]

Contrary to what you have to say, Jfrsmith, evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories that we have. That's why it is central in mainstream science. On more than one occasion, it has been observed in the lab with bacteria. Also, in Russia, there has been a longitudinal study on whether foxes can be evolved into dogs. This has been going on since the early 50's. So far, the results are quite promising. They are then going to keep at it. I mention this experiment, because evolution can be a very slow process and therefore impossible for any one to observe.

That would be like me saying....Jesus never died onthe cross but the best supported scientific answer is that Jesus swooned....so that must be the answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence?

Transitional fossils.

These are a bunch of neatly arranged hominid skulls that are assumed to be what, changing from what, one form to another until we finally get to modern man? Was it observed? No? Then all you have is an assumption from a naturalistic belief.

Nothing assumed. You can see for yourself that they have a mixture of ape and human features. They are transitional.

 

[Loudmouth]

"...evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories that we have." If you keep saying that enough, you will definitely start to believe it.

No belief necessary. We have the evidence.

But, I thought that science meant "observable" and "testable" phenomena??

The mixture of features in fossils is one of those observable phenomena, and only the theory of evolution is able to explain why we see specific mixtures of features, and not others such as bird/mammal transitionals.

 

[Loudmouth]

You however defined scientific using the word science to define it, thus we still do not have a working understanding of what it is. Could we simply agree that science has to do with observable, testable models of the natural world?

You don't observe the model. The model explains the observations. Observations and theories are two different things.

 

[Jfrsmth]

You don't observe the model. The model explains the observations. Observations and theories are two different things.

Didn't I say, "...science has to do with observable, testable models of the natural world"? This is a simplified, abbreviated definition.

 

[Jfrsmth]

No belief necessary. We have the evidence.

The mixture of features in fossils is one of those observable phenomena, and only the theory of evolution is able to explain why we see specific mixtures of features, and not others such as bird/mammal transitionals.

What are these neatly arranged fossil skulls supposed to be observed doing?

 

[Jfrsmth]

Transitional fossils.

Nothing assumed. You can see for yourself that they have a mixture of ape and human features. They are transitional.

You are assuming they are related because of what you may have been told. Apes and man do have similarities, does that mean they evolved from the same ancestor? Neatly arranged fossil skulls do not verify anything. You have to assume that they are transitioning from one form to another. No one observed it. Remember, according to evolution, this process supposedly took millions of years. Who saw it happen?

 

[Loudmouth]

What are these neatly arranged fossil skulls supposed to be observed doing?

As already stated, these fossils have a mixture of modern human and ancestral ape features which is the observation. Such observations are called transitional fossils which are evidence for evolution.