"Separation of Church and State..."

[lucky4034]

Level.eleven is correct in that no matter HOW proven something like Evolution or Creation is it will not be considered a LAW like gravity because it is not repeatable. In Evolution terms a fish that turned into a reptile one day and the next the same type of fish could turn into an amphibian.

In Creation- well you just don't see the universe getting created more than once do you?

This is also incorrect in many cases.... rapid evolution of bacteria caused by certain medicines are tests that are repeatable and have yielded the same exact results thus making them considered "fact".... with that said "facts" should not be confused with "absolute truth" and scientific facts exist independent of theory.

 

[Roadie]

Absolutely... there have been hundreds of them? This is what I mean by not understanding the concept of evolution and not being able to distinguish the difference between the term "evolution" from the term "theory of evolution" and realizing that in OUR LIFETIMES we have observed evolution many many many times.... but obviously can't follow evolution back in time to the origin of life.

Theory of Evolution: is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years.

Evolution: is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.

Big difference between the two terms....

Evolution is a fact of life... just like I said. You can make the argument that God exists and all life didn't diversify from the same organism, because as of right now, there is no way to prove or disprove that. However, what you can not argue is that evolution takes place.

Point of order..

Are you, and others on this thread, that are arguing for Evolution, stating that lifeforms evolve, or that Evolution is the origin of Man?

(ie macro vs micro evolution)

 

[Bummer]

Not dishonest. Because the Theory of Evolution does not fit into the first definition.

What are the tested propositions? What are the principles of explanation and prediction? Einstein's Theory of Relativity can be tested mathematically. Not so with the Theory of Evolution.

You'll have to try harder.

Now that's funny. He'll have to try harder. ROTFLOL.

Tests of theories need not be mathematical in nature. The theory of evolution has been tested for over 150 years. It has survived and been refined. It makes predictions. The predictions are used in the biological sciences every day. The fact that you don't understand it doesn't make it any less a viable theory.

Anybody got that elusive link to the Theory Of Intelligent Design? How about the Theory of Creation? It isn't possible to teach something that doesn't exist.

A question for anyone who actually stayed awake in Science Class: is a chimera like HeLa not a new species?

 

[lucky4034]

Point of order..

Are you, and others on this thread, that are arguing for Evolution, stating that lifeforms evolve, or that Evolution is the origin of Man?

(ie macro vs micro evolution)

To be honest, I'm not arguing either.... I know the answer, but I feel that if there is gonna be a discussion about it, that you should at least understand it, which apparently isn't the case in this thread.

It seems quite clear to me that there are at least two people here that can't distinguish a difference between the two, yet are trying to come across like experts on the subject.

 

[Bummer]

Point of order..

Are you, and others on this thread, that are arguing for Evolution, stating that lifeforms evolve, or that Evolution is the origin of Man?

(ie macro vs micro evolution)

Point of nonsense: macro evolution is merely many examples of micro evolution viewed from both ends.

Evolution does not address the origins of life. That's biopoesis or abiogenesis.

As to the origins or man, we came from dust. Yahweh sat in the dirt and played patty cakes because he was not sufficiently powerful to create the entire universe and everything in it from a singularity. Women came from a rib. I thought all you guys knew that.

 

[Roadie]

Now that's funny. He'll have to try harder. ROTFLOL.

Tests of theories need not be mathematical in nature. The theory of evolution has been tested for over 150 years. It has survived and been refined. It makes predictions. The predictions are used in the biological sciences every day. The fact that you don't understand it doesn't make it any less a viable theory.

Anybody got that elusive link to the Theory Of Intelligent Design? How about the Theory of Creation? It isn't possible to teach something that doesn't exist.

A question for anyone who actually stayed awake in Science Class: is a chimera like HeLa not a new species?

So you are saying that there are no other theories in the history of science that were the accepted norm for decades, then later proven incorrect?

 

[Bummer]

So you are saying that there are no other theories in the history of science that were the accepted norm for decades, then later proven incorrect?

I said no such thing. Theories are falsified. It's the point of science. What I've said, several times, is that if you can falsify the theory of evolution you'll win the Nobel Prize. So far it hasn't happened. We're waiting.

So, got that link to the Theory of Intelligent Design or the Theory of Creation?

Still waiting...

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Are you still operating under the impression that theory can become law, your initial premise?

If the question is can a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation become a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met, yes, they can.

Absolutely... there have been hundreds of them? This is what I mean by not understanding the concept of evolution and not being able to distinguish the difference between the term "evolution" from the term "theory of evolution" and realizing that in OUR LIFETIMES we have observed evolution many many many times.... but obviously can't follow evolution back in time to the origin of life.

Theory of Evolution: is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years.

Evolution: is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.

Big difference between the two terms....

Evolution is a fact of life... just like I said. You can make the argument that God exists and all life didn't diversify from the same organism, because as of right now, there is no way to prove or disprove that. However, what you can not argue is that evolution takes place.

I didn't make any such argument about God. I asked a simple question. Name one species that has evolved under observed conditions. You baldly assert there are hundreds, yet fail to name one.

 

[dross]

The Bible states clearly that God is eternal, infinite and that God exists separate and outside his creation. The Bible also states that God's creation is finite. Science has proven that the universe and everything in it is finite, science has yet to prove or disprove anything outside of our finite universe.

The fact that science has limitations isn't proof that things exist. You can't make an assertion that something exists, but it exists outside our finite universe, then use the inability of science to prove or disprove it as evidence. That argument is twisted all around itself.

No. It means that scientists should be making room for the possibility, which most do not. Scientists often like to try to find truth only through science. I guess that's alright, considering it's their job, but they fail to take into account anything that can't be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted BY THEM. Those last two words are important, because they don't take into account that there is a very good possibility that dimensions exist that they aren't aware of. In fact, many people claim to have seen supernatural/paranormal events taken place, but scientists who openly claim to subscribe to the idea that these events are not figments of the imagination are thought of as crackpots who know nothing of science. Is science the study of what we can perceive with our five senses, or is it a quest to find objective truth?

Scientists should make room for every possibility.

You've provided zero evidence that there is a "good possibility" that dimensions exist that scientists aren't aware of.

Yes, many people claim to have seen and experienced supernatural/paranormal events. Many of these can be explained by natural events. Others have been proven to be hoaxes. Others rest completely on anecdotal evidence. No supernatural/paranormal event has met any standard higher than "unexplained."

Many, many scientists have attempted to discover the supernatural. The scientist who first does so will be famous and rich and his name will be known forever.

To say something exists, however, you must be able to perceive it in some way. Is there a possibility there are things that we can't perceive that have power and influence over our lives? Certainly. The possibility however, is zero evidence of their existence.

This is the leap out of logic that must always be made in order to believe something supernatural. You must jump from, "It could be true," to "It is true," or even, "It's probably true." You can't make that jump without evidence.

Now, it's perfectly reasonable to study things. The fact that 20 people all saw an object flying across the sky and then hovering over the desert is a very good reason to investigate. But if you can't figure out what it is, you can't leap into, "It must be a spaceship from outside our solar system built by
creatures far superior to us."

You just have to say, "Gosh that was strange and we can't figure out what it was."

 

[lucky4034]

I think you may be trying to apply the common usage of the terms law and theory to the field of science. A law, as is used in day to day language, is a rule written on paper that you must follow or you will be penalized. Funny enough, this type of law can be completely disregarded or arbitrarily changed. A law in science is a a description of the natural world, almost exclusively mathematical. F=MA. Newton's Second Law of Motion (note, not Newtonism). What that law provides, is a known outcome for a scenario in the natural world. What is doesn't describe, is why. Another example would be Newton's Law of Gravity. Two objects attract one another. What answers the question as to why, is the Theory of Relativity. Enter the theory.

Again, theory takes on a different meaning in science than in day to day life. For this definition, I will rely on the Academy of Sciences. A scientific theory is a “well- substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” Theories are supported by evidence, and you can test them, and, most importantly, you can use them to make predictions.

Finally, the process is not a linear progression. A theory cannot become a law. Formulating theories is the end goal of science.

Whats interesting about this definition is that Evolution is an easy comparison to the "Law" of gravity.

The way you use the terms "fact" and "theory" in evolution are the same way we use them when discussion gravity.

Gravity:

Fact of gravity - objects always fall towards the earth (when close enough to the earth)

Theory - two objects of mass seem to attract one another
​

Evolution:

Fact - Exposing Bacteria 'X' to Medication 'Y' always produces a mutational change 'Z' in Bacteria 'X' over 4+ generations

Theory - Organisms evolve over time through genetic mutations.

Theory of Evolution - All organisms have diverged from the same origin of life over the history of this planet.​

 

[lucky4034]

I didn't make any such argument about God. I asked a simple question. Name one species that has evolved under observed conditions. You baldly assert there are hundreds, yet fail to name one.

Just one? lol....

 

[dross]

If the question is can a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation become a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met, yes, they can.



I didn't make any such argument about God. I asked a simple question. Name one species that has evolved under observed conditions. You baldly assert there are hundreds, yet fail to name one.

It's refreshing to watch someone else attempt to encourage disciplined thinking.

To mix your thread with mine, I'll name a species that has evolved under observed conditions.

There's a worm that evolved into a peacock over millions of years. I observed this because in a trance-like state I was guided backwards in time by a supernatural being who allowed me to watch this evolution. Millions of years were compressed into just seconds in my time, as I watched this evolution occur. Also, this species of peacock is now extinct and there is no fossil record.

Then this being guided me back to this consciousness. Upon leaving he said, "Don't try to prove this happened. Our powers are such that we can take you out of the dimension where this can be proved or disproved by science."

So there you have it. Evolution is not a theory, it's fact.

So

 

[Titanium_Frost]

So, got that link to the Theory of Intelligent Design or the Theory of Creation?

Still waiting...

First chapter of Genesis was written, and tested, and to this day (some 3,500 years later) never disproved. It works for me.

 

[dross]

First chapter of Genesis was written, and tested, and to this day (some 3,500 years later) never disproved. It works for me.

A negative can't be disproved.

It's the responsibility of the argument to provide proof, it's not the responsibility of the world at large to disprove the argument.

I can make any number of statements that can't be disproved. That doesn't mean they are true.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I believe that the discussion which has developed while I have been gone serves to support my point. The fact that the discussion is taking place and the nature of it demonstrate that this matter is far enough from being settled that it should not be in the realm of K-12 public schools.

 

[thebishopp]

Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists | Wired Science | Wired.com

On one of the bacteria "evolution" examples, just to be fair, here is the counter argument:

'Live Evolution' Not Witnessed After All

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists | Wired Science | Wired.com

Are you proposing that interbreeding between species is proof of evolution?

 

[lucky4034]

It's refreshing to watch someone else attempt to encourage disciplined thinking.

To mix your thread with mine, I'll name a species that has evolved under observed conditions.

There's a worm that evolved into a peacock over millions of years. I observed this because in a trance-like state I was guided backwards in time by a supernatural being who allowed me to watch this evolution. Millions of years were compressed into just seconds in my time, as I watched this evolution occur. Also, this species of peacock is now extinct and there is no fossil record.

Then this being guided me back to this consciousness. Upon leaving he said, "Don't try to prove this happened. Our powers are such that we can take you out of the dimension where this can be proved or disproved by science."

So there you have it. Evolution is not a theory, it's fact.

So

Ok... I get it...

E. coli bacteria is one of the most commonly observed laboratory organisms used to demonstrate mutational change and evolution.

Here is a nice website of an ongoing long term experiment rife with hundreds and hundreds of evolutionary changes complete with cataloged observation and data....

E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site

 

[dross]

Ok... I get it...

E. coli bacteria is one of the most commonly observed laboratory organisms used to demonstrate mutational change and evolution.

Here is a nice website of an ongoing long term experiment rife with observation and data....

E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site

Hey, I think evolution is a good theory.

But, it is still a theory.

 

[Bummer]

First chapter of Genesis was written, and tested, and to this day (some 3,500 years later) never disproved. It works for me.

Wasn't Genesis written down in about 100 CE when the Jews noticed that everybody else was writing their stories down and decided they had better do it too?

Who tested the first chapter of Genesis?