Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

"evolution is just a theory"

GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 5:20:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Like gravity, evolution is both a theory and a phenomenon.

Evolution is what happens when S. aureus becomes MRSA. The theory of evolution is how we explain it.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 5:46:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

As far as I am aware, evolution does not speak to the origin of life.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 6:39:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

you read my mind.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 5:58:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 6:39:21 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

you read my mind.

Great minds think alike.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 6:01:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 5:46:21 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

As far as I am aware, evolution does not speak to the origin of life.

Okay, yes, I made a mistake in my statement, I accept you correction. Evolution is the process through which life diversifies.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:00:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 6:39:21 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

you read my mind.

gosh, both of you would be wrong then
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 7:36:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 5:58:25 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/22/2015 6:39:21 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

you read my mind.

Great minds think alike.

No, they think for themselves
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 8:12:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

You give it way too much credit. If you're going to draw a distinction between the general use of the word "theory" and what you consider to be a "scientific theory", yet allow evolution to fit into the latter category, then that category has no effective meaning for me.

Darwin called it a "theory" when he wrote Origins of Species, even though he couldn't prove his belief that all life forms are related. Since then, it has been "theorized" by those who seek a natural explanation for origins, which is a logically self-refuting principle in the first place. Basically, what it boils down to is that some scientists think [ insert theory here ]. Well ok, that's fine, but some scientists don't believe it, and there must be some valid reason for that.

No matter how much one argues for a distinct difference between a "scientific theory", and "theory in the general sense", you're still just positing someone's interpretation and giving it some kind of "special" status. Do you give their interpretation special status because they are a scientist and you believe they are an expert?? I agree that someone can qualify as an expert on biology, geology, paleontology, etc., because they work in that particular field and can see the subject of their work. However, when they begin to weigh in on the issue of origins, they lose that expert status. There is no such thing as an expert on origins, thus they are outside the scope of their expertise. Their belief is of no special meaning to me, and their "theory" of something that is outside their scope, deserves no special status.

I do not discount everything that is part of "theoretical science", but I do know that it involves someone else's interpretation, and I treat that accordingly. Too few people are highly critical of the "theoretical science" that allows kids to be taught that we are the result of spontaneous generation, and living organisms turning from one type into another. Neither of those concepts is even remotely consistent with what we see in the natural world. So yeah, to me, "it's just a theory", and a pretty nonsensical one at that.

If evolutionists were open-minded, willing to follow the evidence no matter its implications, and half as critical of their own theory as they are fearful of the dreaded "Creationist", they'd understand why Creationists exist in the first place. But one doesn't have to believe in Creation to see the failures in the theory, as there are also atheists who don't buy into Darwinism.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 8:30:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 5:46:21 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

As far as I am aware, evolution does not speak to the origin of life.

It's true that the ToE doesn't speak to how the first life originated, but it does say that all life forms evolved from one "universal" common ancestor, often called LUCA.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:10:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 8:30:52 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/22/2015 5:46:21 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

As far as I am aware, evolution does not speak to the origin of life.

It's true that the ToE doesn't speak to how the first life originated, but it does say that all life forms evolved from one "universal" common ancestor, often called LUCA.

I'd hate to think of what they call the First Universal Common Ancestor.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:32:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Evilution is not even a theory. It is nothing but hypothesis on top of hypothesis, in belief of a theory which cannot be tested, cannot be observed. Adaptation of species is not evilution. Speciation is not evilution. The belief that one kind of animal changed into another kind of animal is nothing but hypothesis on top of hypothesis.

The definitions or "theory" and the guidlines of scientific method have to be twisted and stretched with all kinds of mental gymnastics to claim evilution is a valid theory.
It's nothing more than a belief elaborated by hypothesis on top of hypothesis......nothing more than a desire to justify one's own life to embrace death and believe one is too good to burn in Hell.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:33:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

Science never accepts anyting as 100 percent proven? So science cannot assert that you actually exist?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:33:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:10:37 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 8:30:52 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/22/2015 5:46:21 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

As far as I am aware, evolution does not speak to the origin of life.

It's true that the ToE doesn't speak to how the first life originated, but it does say that all life forms evolved from one "universal" common ancestor, often called LUCA.

I'd hate to think of what they call the First Universal Common Ancestor.

lol...Took me a minute to get that.
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:43:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:33:40 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

Science never accepts anyting as 100 percent proven? So science cannot assert that you actually exist?

no. Your point and how it is relevant to this thread?
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 1:03:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:33:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:10:37 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 8:30:52 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/22/2015 5:46:21 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

As far as I am aware, evolution does not speak to the origin of life.

It's true that the ToE doesn't speak to how the first life originated, but it does say that all life forms evolved from one "universal" common ancestor, often called LUCA.

I'd hate to think of what they call the First Universal Common Ancestor.

lol...Took me a minute to get that.

Its not surprising, the little FUCA is often ignored.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 3:37:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 8:12:42 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

You give it way too much credit. If you're going to draw a distinction between the general use of the word "theory" and what you consider to be a "scientific theory", yet allow evolution to fit into the latter category, then that category has no effective meaning for me.

Darwin called it a "theory" when he wrote Origins of Species, even though he couldn't prove his belief that all life forms are related. Since then, it has been "theorized" by those who seek a natural explanation for origins, which is a logically self-refuting principle in the first place. Basically, what it boils down to is that some scientists think [ insert theory here ]. Well ok, that's fine, but some scientists don't believe it, and there must be some valid reason for that.

No matter how much one argues for a distinct difference between a "scientific theory", and "theory in the general sense", you're still just positing someone's interpretation and giving it some kind of "special" status. Do you give their interpretation special status because they are a scientist and you believe they are an expert?? I agree that someone can qualify as an expert on biology, geology, paleontology, etc., because they work in that particular field and can see the subject of their work. However, when they begin to weigh in on the issue of origins, they lose that expert status. There is no such thing as an expert on origins, thus they are outside the scope of their expertise. Their belief is of no special meaning to me, and their "theory" of something that is outside their scope, deserves no special status.

I do not discount everything that is part of "theoretical science", but I do know that it involves someone else's interpretation, and I treat that accordingly. Too few people are highly critical of the "theoretical science" that allows kids to be taught that we are the result of spontaneous generation, and living organisms turning from one type into another. Neither of those concepts is even remotely consistent with what we see in the natural world. So yeah, to me, "it's just a theory", and a pretty nonsensical one at that.

If evolutionists were open-minded, willing to follow the evidence no matter its implications, and half as critical of their own theory as they are fearful of the dreaded "Creationist", they'd understand why Creationists exist in the first place. But one doesn't have to believe in Creation to see the failures in the theory, as there are also atheists who don't buy into Darwinism.

I could point out, for the umpteenth time, all the mistakes you have made in your post, where your misunderstanding of the topic at hand lies, where your ignorance of the scientific method lies; but that is too taxing and would serve no point in any case as you keep on parroting the same old nonsense in every thread even though everyone has already refuted everything you have to say. So I am just going to ask you: have you nothing better to do than trolling the science forum?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 3:43:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 7:36:51 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/22/2015 5:58:25 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/22/2015 6:39:21 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

you read my mind.

Great minds think alike.

No, they think for themselves

Indeed. They use logic and science to come to their conclusions.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:41:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 3:37:25 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 8:12:42 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

You give it way too much credit. If you're going to draw a distinction between the general use of the word "theory" and what you consider to be a "scientific theory", yet allow evolution to fit into the latter category, then that category has no effective meaning for me.

Darwin called it a "theory" when he wrote Origins of Species, even though he couldn't prove his belief that all life forms are related. Since then, it has been "theorized" by those who seek a natural explanation for origins, which is a logically self-refuting principle in the first place. Basically, what it boils down to is that some scientists think [ insert theory here ]. Well ok, that's fine, but some scientists don't believe it, and there must be some valid reason for that.

No matter how much one argues for a distinct difference between a "scientific theory", and "theory in the general sense", you're still just positing someone's interpretation and giving it some kind of "special" status. Do you give their interpretation special status because they are a scientist and you believe they are an expert?? I agree that someone can qualify as an expert on biology, geology, paleontology, etc., because they work in that particular field and can see the subject of their work. However, when they begin to weigh in on the issue of origins, they lose that expert status. There is no such thing as an expert on origins, thus they are outside the scope of their expertise. Their belief is of no special meaning to me, and their "theory" of something that is outside their scope, deserves no special status.

I do not discount everything that is part of "theoretical science", but I do know that it involves someone else's interpretation, and I treat that accordingly. Too few people are highly critical of the "theoretical science" that allows kids to be taught that we are the result of spontaneous generation, and living organisms turning from one type into another. Neither of those concepts is even remotely consistent with what we see in the natural world. So yeah, to me, "it's just a theory", and a pretty nonsensical one at that.

If evolutionists were open-minded, willing to follow the evidence no matter its implications, and half as critical of their own theory as they are fearful of the dreaded "Creationist", they'd understand why Creationists exist in the first place. But one doesn't have to believe in Creation to see the failures in the theory, as there are also atheists who don't buy into Darwinism.

I could point out, for the umpteenth time, all the mistakes you have made in your post, where your misunderstanding of the topic at hand lies, where your ignorance of the scientific method lies; but that is too taxing and would serve no point in any case as you keep on parroting the same old nonsense in every thread even though everyone has already refuted everything you have to say. So I am just going to ask you: have you nothing better to do than trolling the science forum?

The option to not read anything I post is yours. Don't like it, don't read it. Problem solved.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:44:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:41:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:37:25 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 8:12:42 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

You give it way too much credit. If you're going to draw a distinction between the general use of the word "theory" and what you consider to be a "scientific theory", yet allow evolution to fit into the latter category, then that category has no effective meaning for me.

Darwin called it a "theory" when he wrote Origins of Species, even though he couldn't prove his belief that all life forms are related. Since then, it has been "theorized" by those who seek a natural explanation for origins, which is a logically self-refuting principle in the first place. Basically, what it boils down to is that some scientists think [ insert theory here ]. Well ok, that's fine, but some scientists don't believe it, and there must be some valid reason for that.

No matter how much one argues for a distinct difference between a "scientific theory", and "theory in the general sense", you're still just positing someone's interpretation and giving it some kind of "special" status. Do you give their interpretation special status because they are a scientist and you believe they are an expert?? I agree that someone can qualify as an expert on biology, geology, paleontology, etc., because they work in that particular field and can see the subject of their work. However, when they begin to weigh in on the issue of origins, they lose that expert status. There is no such thing as an expert on origins, thus they are outside the scope of their expertise. Their belief is of no special meaning to me, and their "theory" of something that is outside their scope, deserves no special status.

I do not discount everything that is part of "theoretical science", but I do know that it involves someone else's interpretation, and I treat that accordingly. Too few people are highly critical of the "theoretical science" that allows kids to be taught that we are the result of spontaneous generation, and living organisms turning from one type into another. Neither of those concepts is even remotely consistent with what we see in the natural world. So yeah, to me, "it's just a theory", and a pretty nonsensical one at that.

If evolutionists were open-minded, willing to follow the evidence no matter its implications, and half as critical of their own theory as they are fearful of the dreaded "Creationist", they'd understand why Creationists exist in the first place. But one doesn't have to believe in Creation to see the failures in the theory, as there are also atheists who don't buy into Darwinism.

I could point out, for the umpteenth time, all the mistakes you have made in your post, where your misunderstanding of the topic at hand lies, where your ignorance of the scientific method lies; but that is too taxing and would serve no point in any case as you keep on parroting the same old nonsense in every thread even though everyone has already refuted everything you have to say. So I am just going to ask you: have you nothing better to do than trolling the science forum?

The option to not read anything I post is yours. Don't like it, don't read it. Problem solved.

That doesn't answer my question.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:16:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 3:43:14 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 7:36:51 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/22/2015 5:58:25 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/22/2015 6:39:21 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

you read my mind.

Great minds think alike.

No, they think for themselves

Indeed. They use logic and science to come to their conclusions.

yep
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:16:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 3:43:14 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 7:36:51 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/22/2015 5:58:25 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/22/2015 6:39:21 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

you read my mind.

Great minds think alike.

No, they think for themselves

Indeed. They use logic and science to come to their conclusions.

yes they do
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 2:51:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 10:16:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:43:14 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 7:36:51 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/22/2015 5:58:25 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/22/2015 6:39:21 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/21/2015 4:53:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

I would add that evolution (the process through which life originates and diversifies) is a fact, it happens, DNA shows it, the fossil record shows it, embryology shows it, etc. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory of evolution, just like neo-Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or Darwinism was a theory of evolution, or hell, Lamarckism was a theory of evolution. But it is impossible to get creationists to understand this point.

you read my mind.

Great minds think alike.

No, they think for themselves

Indeed. They use logic and science to come to their conclusions.

yes they do

Of course.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 5:56:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This should settle it:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force."

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Edwar3je
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 11:47:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:33:40 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

Science never accepts anyting as 100 percent proven? So science cannot assert that you actually exist?

Technically the matter of whether you exist, or anything for that matter, is concerned with philosophy (most metaphysical works such as Descartes' "Meditations, Objections, and Replies" is a great work that concerns that very topic). On the other hand, perception of existence could be attributed to some areas of psychology such as your perception of what's real and what isn't real.

Moving that aside, science doesn't set any principle or theory for that matter in stone, so yes "science never accepts anything as 100 percent proven." The fact of the matter is that, through the scientific process, we can gain information that's most likely true, but it needs to be retested multiple times in order for it to be verified as true. From what I take from your previous posts, you essentially try to cite a belief as "the truth" but never stop to consider of it could have some margins of error within it.

In short, to answer your question, science doesn't assert anything to be 100 percent true, but this isn't any weakness on its part. The scientific method encourages reevaluating old ideas while controlling for different variables and situations in order to find what's closest to the truth. If we didn't reevaluate old ideas, science would eventually become dogma and critical thinking would be heavily discouraged. This would be detrimental towards our understanding of scientific knowledge.

On a final request, please stop trolling the Science section with your "devilution" claims.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2015 3:20:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 5:56:43 PM, Otokage wrote:
This should settle it:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Sigh... well, it should...
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 4:47:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 1:20:26 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
Creationists say this a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means. A "theory," in scientific context, is simply an idea that is widely accepted among scientists. But science never accepts anything as %100 proven, and its practitioners must be open to evidence that might disprove an idea they accepted thereof. So, yes, evolution is "just a 'theory,' "
Just not in the way Creationists use the word.

It's a scientific theory, so it's substantiated by fact.
You can call me Mark if you like.