Make me an evolutionist

[mikeynov]

One last bump to see how honest the OP is. He states that


and yet after being shown that he doesn't understand the definition of an observation, theory, law, hypothesis, and the scientific method he hasn't replied.

Rule #1 of evolution/creation debates: a creationist will NEVER admit he or she is in error.

In fact, he or she will forget this thread ever happened and later resurface to make the same claim again. If not on this message board, then surely others.

 

[Dr.GH]

One last bump to see how honest the OP is. He states that


and yet after being shown that he doesn't understand the definition of an observation, theory, law, hypothesis, and the scientific method he hasn't replied.

Don't bother. It is a waste of electrons.

 

[random_guy]

Don't bother. It is a waste of electrons.

It's very maddening, though, as when people make claims but disappear when shown to be wrong. Maybe I should create a thread with people making incorrect scientific claims. It will contain the person's name, their claim, and a follow up post that clearly refutes the claim.

When the person admits that his/her claim is wrong, I'll remove the posts and their name. Think an idea like this could possible work?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

It's very maddening, though, as when people make claims but disappear when shown to be wrong. Maybe I should create a thread with people making incorrect scientific claims. It will contain the person's name, their claim, and a follow up post that clearly refutes the claim.

When the person admits that his/her claim is wrong, I'll remove the posts and their name. Think an idea like this could possible work?

Sounds good to me… the hard part is what to call it… hmmm… The thread of shame? Post and run threads? Say your sorry and admit you’re wrong you lying sack of hominid excretia?

 

[Elduran]

It's very maddening, though, as when people make claims but disappear when shown to be wrong. Maybe I should create a thread with people making incorrect scientific claims. It will contain the person's name, their claim, and a follow up post that clearly refutes the claim.

When the person admits that his/her claim is wrong, I'll remove the posts and their name. Think an idea like this could possible work?

I like it

 

[random_guy]

The question is how to actually set it up. I would like to to work for both sides. For example, if an evolutionist claims that Creationists can't be good scientists (as long as they keep their beliefs out of their research and follow the SM, they can believe anything they want), then this is clearly wrong, and they'll be added till they retract their claim.

However, I doubt the thread will have many evolutionists at all. How should we regulate what goes in and what doesn't? Should I maintain the first post by posting the name of the poster, linking to the false claim and the refutation and all following posts in the thread be suggestions by people?

 

[mikeynov]

I'd like to suggest that a "Retraction Thread" is a fabulous idea. Holding people accountable for their claims would be magnificent, and certainly deter some people (hopefully) from making their typically wild ass claims.

 

[random_guy]

Retraction Thread is a great name. Can anyone think of a good way to set it up? Should everything be in the first post?

 

[Tomk80]

Hypothesis: Shadowseldil is speaking the truth when he says this:

I know all about theories in science, and all sorts of science terms.

Potential falsification: statement confusing law and theory, for example by stating that the theory of gravity was elevated to a law.

By-the-by, the "theory" of gravity was elavated to "law" status long ago. Keep up, or get left behind .

Hypothesis falsified.

Conclusion: Shadowseldil still has a lot to learn about theories in science.

 

[mikeynov]

Retraction Thread is a great name. Can anyone think of a good way to set it up? Should everything be in the first post?

My personal opinion is that a post per retraction never made would be appropriate.

Some sort of standard format would be good:

* Name of poster who made the particular claim

* The claim quoted verbatim and in-context, including a link to the original thread

* An indication who corrected the claim and what the source of correction was

So, individual posts could be edited/deleted (though we can't delete posts, can we? Almost lends weight to a single post for all claims) after the person retracts the claim. It could become a matter of proper ettiquette to correct previous claims before people are willing to engage in any sort of formal debate with that person again.

 

[Dr.GH]

The question is how to actually set it up. I would like to to work for both sides. For example, if an evolutionist claims that Creationists can't be good scientists (as long as they keep their beliefs out of their research and follow the SM, they can believe anything they want), then this is clearly wrong, and they'll be added till they retract their claim.

However, I doubt the thread will have many evolutionists at all. How should we regulate what goes in and what doesn't? Should I maintain the first post by posting the name of the poster, linking to the false claim and the refutation and all following posts in the thread be suggestions by people?

I don't know exactly how this could work on the web, but in science journals, we just publish a retraction. We hate doing it, but there your are, really? What else can you do as an honest person? The best of a bad situation is to be able to retract your own paper before anyone else can beat your head into the ground.

Science isn't sweet.

 

[Shadowseldil]

I appreciate all the comments on this; however, I am having some internet problems. I cannot say how long it will take to get things resolved, as I don't know what is wrong. I will answer everyone as soon as I get things fixed. And, I intend to set some working definitions for things such as evolution, macro- vs. microevolution, ect. Sorry about my delay, but I didn't want you to think I had given up.

 

[Physics_guy]

I appreciate all the comments on this; however, I am having some internet problems. I cannot say how long it will take to get things resolved, as I don't know what is wrong. I will answer everyone as soon as I get things fixed. And, I intend to set some working definitions for things such as evolution, macro- vs. microevolution, ect. Sorry about my delay, but I didn't want you to think I had given up.

I recommend not making totally misinformed statements about simple scientific definitions like you did earlier regarding laws and theories or you will never get to the thrust of your original post. I also recommend you apologize for making such a ridiculously wrong statement just after talking yourslef up as a genius - it wasn't a smooth move, but apologizing for it and admitting you were wrong would be.

Oh and by the way, as a physicist, I can tell you with absolute certainty that we know far more about how evolution works (i.e. the Theory of Evolution) than we do about how gravity works (i.e. the Theory of Gravity).

 

[aeroz19]

I have seen this thread many times, yet going the other way, i.e. "Make me a christian", "make me a creationist" ect.
Well, evolutionist, now it's your chance. If you are willing to calmly, and peacefully discuss this, I will listen to you, rebut you if I do not like your point, and agree if you can prove something to me.
There are three things I am looking for. First, you must tell me why evolution is right. Second, you must back up your claims with proof. Thrid, you must convince me as to why I should want to become an evolutionist.
The floor is yours.

It won't take very long, unless you're closed-minded. If you are receptive to new ideas and are eager to learn the truth, but are afraid that the truth might damage your faith, run. Run now, and never return.

 

[aeroz19]

The problem is, scientists have tryed for years to do that and have not been able to.
That is why the THEORY of evolution is a philosophy, not science.

You have no concept even of a philosophy, much less of a theory.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

And he didn't bring his swim trunks.

And you can bet he still thinks he's dry.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Speciation is macroevolution by definition. You've been told this, and still ignore it.

Suggesting otherwise at this point makes you a liar. So stop lying - your God wouldn't appreciate it.

Perhaps he doesn't agree? Not falling into line doesn't automatically make someone a liar.

Fruit fly experiments showed speciation, but they were still fruit flys, so that is not necessarily "macroevolution."

 

[notto]

Perhaps he doesn't agree? Not falling into line doesn't automatically make someone a liar.

Fruit fly experiments showed speciation, but they were still fruit flys, so that is not necessarily "macroevolution."

By that reasoning, humans evolving from other apes would show speciation but not macroevolution so he should have no problem with it because humans are still apes.

 

[Jet Black]

....Fruit fly experiments showed speciation, but they were still fruit flys....

still not getting cladistics? you do know don't you that drosophila (fruit fly) is a genus, containing many many species with massive morphological and physiological differences. there are even drosophila that no longer ea fruit, and eat meat and bread instead.

 

[mikeynov]

Perhaps he doesn't agree? Not falling into line doesn't automatically make someone a liar.

Fruit fly experiments showed speciation, but they were still fruit flys, so that is not necessarily "macroevolution."

I can be harsh, but I'm also very serious.

The accepted definition of macroevolution is "the formation of new biologically distinct taxa." Speciation is the formation of a new species, and meets this criteria.

So unless we redefine speciation and/or macroevolution, then what I'm saying is absolutely correct.

And I'm still not sure what you'd expect fruit flies to turn into. Think of my automobile examples - at what point does a brand of car stop being a car?

The tree of life doesn't suggest that "one organism can change into any random, other organism." It describes a process in which very particular lineages arose from pre-existing lineages, and, in total, accounts for a vast amount of diversity through time.

Evolution suggests new branches in the tree of life will always closely resemble the branches from which they grew. Given the proper selective pressure and an incredible amount of time, some very distant descendent of a fly may not look like a fly at all. But in that branching sequence that lead to that event, between any two species, you'd notice very subtle difference. It's only when all of that change cumulates do you notice (perceptually speaking) "big" change.