Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 61 of 211 (2028)
01-13-2002 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by mark24
01-13-2002 8:06 PM


quote:
My concern is that the use of the word "fact", as used by others ( Schraf & Moose), is synonymous with the
creation "science" usage of "fact", ie. any old bollocks. (pushing guidelines, Percy, I know), when the word "fact",
doesn't mean this to most people. Science should use the word as a surgical instrument, not a blunt cudgel.
I prefer to think of the proof of a fact as being like proof of guilt in a U.S. court of law:
It is a fact, if found to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. By that measure, evolution is a fact, to the mainstream scientific community. In such a context, the anti-evolutionist (creationist) view would be looked upon as being unreasonable doubt.
As opposed to Gould's view, there is opinion on the Talk.Origins Evolution: Fact and Theory page, that concedes that there is a gray area between what is termed a fact and what is termed a theory. Percy has previously touched upon this same thing somewhere (maybe or maybe not in this topic string).
I would, however, be willing to concede that the "fact" of evolution is indeed "only" a particularly well supported part of the theory of evolution. That is, a very strong sub-theory, within a larger strong theory.
To me, the evidence within the geologic column is extremely strong evidence. Now all I need to do is drive a stake into the heart of the anti-uniformitarianism movement, and get the "flood geologists" to concede that there is no physical evidence for the "great flood" having happened.
Moose
ps. to paraphrase Bill Cosby's Noah routine:
Mark24: "Moose."
Moose: "Yes, Mark."
Mark24: "Don't use a blunt cudgel."
Moose: "Riiight. What's a cudgel?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by mark24, posted 01-13-2002 8:06 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 01-14-2002 4:17 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 211 (2029)
01-13-2002 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by TrueCreation
01-13-2002 1:37 PM


[QUOTE]"No, no, no.
You still don't understand how scientists use the words "fact" and "proof".
Evolution is a fact, because we observe and infer it in nature."
--I think we are getting a missinterperetation of the word 'fact' and how it is used, I mean to infer a 'fact' as something that is real, no question about it, it happens and is proovable. Such as gravity, we know it is there and that it is a true force of nature, there may be new discoverys on how gravity works and how to defy it or even switch it around or whatnot, but the context is still there, gravity is what holds us on the ground. The earth circles the sun is fact, because we see it, observe it and prove it by mathematics and sciences that are not based on any assumption but is hard science. That evolution happens I believe we are also missunderstanding. The fact of evolution is that we simply see changes in nature which is evolution per se. But if you wan't to say we are brought about from and are ancestors of simpler forms that is not 'fact' because we cannot directly prove it, it is theory.[QUOTE] We actually do observe evolution AND speciation, as you have been shown many times. I'll post the link again:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Also, read "Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner and the new companion book to the PBS series, "Evolution", by Carl Zimmer, by the same name.
Also, you are wrong that we have observed gravity directly. No one has ever directly observed gravity. We only observe the effects of gravity and have inferred it's existence and mechanism. Gravity is understood to be the result of the curving of space, and we certainly haven't seen that directly; only the inferred evidence for it.
So, by your logic of only considering scientific theories which are directly observed to be "facts", you don't think that gravity is a fact.
We can't directly observe electrons, quarks, or neutrinos either, so do you think that these sub-atomic particles aren't factual, either, because we have only ever inferred their existence and not seen them directly?
We understand the ToE and it's proposed mechanisms FAR better than we understand gravity.
quote:
This is why no one is going to collect that 250k and it is Hovinds whole point.
Hovind's whole point is that he is shady. And a nut case. And buys his PhD's from diploma mills. This is why he doesn't know anything about science.
quote:
"We aren't simply talking about different scientific interpretations of the same evidence, because Creation "science" isn't scientific, even though it tries to look like science."
--I have consistantly replied to your missinterperpretations of creation science, and I must say have failed to prove it so, creation science is no more religion than the ToE.
You have "consistently replied" to me concerning the scientific nature of Creationism, true. The problem is, you respond with non-responses, such as "Yes, it is too science". You do not SUBSTANTIVELY respond to my SPECIFIC points regarding the ways in which Creationism violates the tenets of scientific inquiry. You just say, basically, "IS TOO, IS TOO, IS TOO!!"
You (and others) are very difficult to pin down on specific points when asked directly, and since you (and others) do not demonstrate an understanding of what science is, and how Creationism is a clear departure from science, I have started a new topic in this regard entitled "Why Creationism isn't scientific."
quote:
"Hey you can believe any kind of religion that you want to, of course, but please don't try to call it science."
--We are not discussing religion here, If I was I would be a fool to say it so in an evolution vs creation debate. The science and the faith is not in one, though the science in the long run upholds the faith.
No, you have it backwards.
The "faith" in Creation "science" is the all-important, overarching concept that governs what is said, done, and concluded.
The ICR's motto is, "A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry". It doesn't say anything at all about science, research, or learning. It's a MINISTRY, which clearly means that it is most interested in promoting it's CHRISTIAN RELIGION, and not in scientific inquiry.
Before one is accepted as a graduate student into the ICR's program, one must display, "Evidence of personal integrity, good character. and agreement with the ICR purpose, goals, and tenets." In other words, before you are even taught anything, you must agree AHEAD of time that the ICR's particular interpretation of the Bible is correct. They also require all students to be Christian, which further points out their disinterest in actually doing science, and their great interest in promoting their religious agenda.
Here are the tenets of this supposedly "scientific" institute, and they are fundamentally faith-based.
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
From the tenets of the ICR:
"The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments."
By definition, science is NOT based upon revelation. EVER. It is based upon observation. By definition, science is NOT based upon any notion of "absolute truth". It is based upon tentativity, or the temnet that all ideas are subject to revision in the light of new evidence
So, Creation "science" violates what is arguably two of the most basic and important tenets of real science; empiricism and tentativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by TrueCreation, posted 01-13-2002 1:37 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by TrueCreation, posted 01-17-2002 10:41 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 63 of 211 (2031)
01-13-2002 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by TrueCreation
01-12-2002 9:01 PM


What has he said that is outrageous??
Here you go...
This person was persistent enough to fially get ahold of a copy of Hovind's "thesis". Here's the overview. Pretty embarrasing for Hovind:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm
Source: http://home1.gte.net/dmadh/hovind6.htm
I did not even know what being a humanist meant. I was only sixteen, and the brain doesn't even start developing until about twenty.
I believe the Great Pyramid was built to be the Bible in stone. The Egyptians did not build it.
The purpose if the New Age Movement is to get everybody together under one government, one religion, and then institute Lucifer to be the
leader.
When God first made the world, there was not a genetic load. Therefore, they married sisters in the first generation, and in the second generation, they married cousins. After that, they were diversified enough to be no problem.
Some people think that [Cain] became a giant. That is a very real possibility, but we don't know for sure.
There has been research that indicates nearly all homosexuals come from families that have a weak father figure, and a dominate mother. I
believe that research shows that there is a social link where the children are raised to be wimps or whatever.
Is it true that a chromosome has been found that proves that homosexuals are born with the inability to choose their life style? [.....] I do not buy the so-called chromosome link, and I believe that research has been shown to be erroneous. There never was a chromosome link. [emphasis added]
Some people say that demons came in human form and cohabited with women and begat half demon and half human, and their offspring were
men of renown; people that were able to great things. They were supposed to have had wings on their feet, and to be able to fly. This is where the Greek mythology originated, which may not be too far fetched.
Therefore, there may not be any other stars in the solar system that have planets around them. [emphasis added]
If you are traveling down the highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights?
Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour. [Einstein must be turning in his grave]
..... a lizard laid an egg, and a chicken hatched out. That is the general idea behind punctuated equilibrium.
What I think happened is, the hippies of the sixties are now the college professors. They are still radical Communists who still want to destroy this country. One of the things they must do to be successful is bankrupt this country, make the currency useless, and put the people in poverty. Environmental issues are a great way to bankrupt the country.
The Pogue carburetor was designed back in the 1930's, and it allowed a vehicle to get well over two hundred miles per gallon on any vehicle.
[urban legend]
The ACLU (The American Communist Lawyers Association, no, I'm sorry, it's the Anti Christian Lawyers Association)
As far as cloning goes, it is defiantly [sic] not being done, and probably would be an impossibility. [Said circa 1996]
Stanley Deyo, a Christian, is a genius who wrote the book ["The Cosmic Conspiracy"]. Way over my head. Deyo says that there are two kinds
of UFOs. First, there are US government owned and operated UFOs. That really got my attention. The US government has UFOs? He said that
the second kind is the satanically - owned and operated UFOs. He says that Sattan has always used that mode of transportation to get around
because the devil can only be at one place at one time, whereas God is all places at all times. That may be far fetched, so please do not accuse me of saying this is true. I do not know if it is true, but it is an interesting theory.
God made the stars in order to be a light upon the earth.
There is definitely a conspiracy, but I don't think that it is a human conspiracy. I don't believe there is a smoke filled room where a group of men get together, and decide to teach evolution in all the schools. I believe that it is at a much higher level. I believe that it is a Satanic conspiracy. The reason these different people come to the same conclusion is not because they all met together; it is because they all work for the devil. He is their leader and they don't even know it.
I believe that the zodiac is the gospel in the stars.
The Sphinx is the face of a woman with the body of a lion, symbolizing how the zodiac begins with Virgo the virgin, and ends with Leo the lion.
Did you know that the black suited organization that attacked the Koresh cult was a United Nations task force?
I heard a man give his testimony who manages a mental institution. He told me that the government pays him to keep 60 percent of his beds
empty.
.... the Federal Reserve system that prints the money is not part of the government, but rather, it is a private corporation. They print our paper bills for about two and one half cents each. They rent them to the government for face value. That is one thing that continually increases the national debt. We owe money to the federal reserve system.
There are those who really object to nationalities. Part of the globalist movement is to get people to think globally instead of nationally. Nationalism like, "I love America!" is really offensive to the globalists. They want to get you to get rid of the "I love America!" and get you to say "I love the world! ". They want to get all the children involved in the "Save the Planet," "Plant a Tree," "Go Hug a Tree." Watch out for the globalist movement, and the ridicule and the eventual persecution of nationalist, the people who love a country instead of the world.
Could it be that people accept evolution because [....] They know that evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political
agenda of:
i. Communism
ii. Racism
iii. Abortion
iv. Nazism
v. Socialism
vi. Gay rights
vii. Women's liberation
viii. Extreme environmentalism
ix. Euthanasia
x. Pornography
xi. Humanism
xii. New Age Movement
You say, Brother Hovind, you don't believe in fire breathing dragons do you? Yeah, you better watch video tape number three; there really werefire breathing dragons.
http://home1.gte.net/dmadh/hovind4.htm
The Smithsonian Institute [sic] has 33,000 sets of human remains in their basement right now as you are reading this. Many of them were taken while the people were still alive. They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it.
Nutty as a fruitcake, the dear Dr. Dino is!
.... this New World Order has plans to reduce the population by May 5 of the year 2000 .... down to one half billion very soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TrueCreation, posted 01-12-2002 9:01 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by joz, posted 01-17-2002 10:09 AM nator has not replied
 Message 147 by joz, posted 04-18-2002 11:27 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 211 (2033)
01-13-2002 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by mark24
01-13-2002 8:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
[b]I am unhappy with the use of the word "fact" to describe evolution.
To most people, "fact" means a theory with 0% chance of failure.[/QUOTE]
Science is ultimately based upon induction; in that patterns in nature are recognized and predicted. To the degree that these patterns remain consistent, we develop strong theory and law.
My feeling is that if we are going to have a discussion about what a scientific "fact" is, we should do so in a scientific context, not "what most people mean" when they use "fact".
Everything in science is tentative, but not everything in science is equally tentative. The word that scientists use, to date, to describe something that we are very, very, very sure of is "fact".
quote:
Gould uses "fact" as having another definition. ie, one that allows for a degree of error. This is not the definition I subscribe to.
The problem is, that evolutionists quote "fact" as Goulds usage, when they mean ABSOLUTE INCONTROVERTABLE FACT, though they claim the former.
That is not true, at least for me personally. Falsifications would mean something to me if we observed them.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by mark24, posted 01-13-2002 8:06 PM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 65 of 211 (2038)
01-14-2002 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Minnemooseus
01-13-2002 9:22 PM


Schrafinator,Moose,
A cudgel is a club.
I hear you loud & clear re. your definition of fact. But do the people you are talking to? To most people, fact is an absolute certainty. We gain nothing by changing the definition & then saying evolution is a fact, to people who don't understand it to have that meaning. In fact it puts us back a step, creationists will simply argue we are claiming absolute certainty, & show why it isn't, they can score a point.
I'm repeating myself now, but, if we complain that creationists will rigidly apply one definition (new information) to make their point, we can hardly do the same.
At the end of the day, it's apples & oranges. There is no harm done provided we define our meanings as Gould did, but there's a world of misunderstanding if we don't. I'm just a bit suspicious of the necessity of using your meaning of fact.
Also, are the existance of fossilised organisms 100% fact? There are patterns in rock, that is fact. That they are fossilised organisms is an interpretation of the facts. How can we be 100% sure then, that the fossil record does show evolution when the basic premise isn't absolutely factual? It is a VERY reasonable inference, (99.99% recurring), but thats all.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-13-2002 9:22 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by nator, posted 01-14-2002 9:48 AM mark24 has replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 211 (2047)
01-14-2002 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by joz
01-12-2002 1:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Here is an analogy of this challenge...
I will give you $250,000, the crown jewels and the moon if you provide me with evidence that that "no more a prince .... Egypt" prophecy is fulfilled.

I'll keep that in mind. Just remember it's the crown jewels, not the family variety.
[This message has been edited by redstang281, 01-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by joz, posted 01-12-2002 1:32 PM joz has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 211 (2048)
01-14-2002 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by edge
01-12-2002 1:43 PM


[b] [QUOTE] Evolutionists don't say that science proves evolution, either. It supports evolution overwhelmingly, but proof? You need to go elsewhere for that.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Then I want every single school textbook that the kids are learning to say that the theory has never been proven.
You know that those books present evolution as proven fact, and that simple isn't true.
Until anything is proven fact it's just a belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by edge, posted 01-12-2002 1:43 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by mark24, posted 01-14-2002 9:40 AM redstang281 has replied
 Message 75 by joz, posted 01-14-2002 12:16 PM redstang281 has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 211 (2050)
01-14-2002 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by nator
01-13-2002 10:01 AM


[b] [QUOTE] Evolution is a fact, because we observe and infer it in nature.
[/b][/QUOTE]
There are six different kinds of evolution that would have to happen to get us where we are today.
Only ONE has been observed and that is adaptation. Assuming that adaptation proves the other 5 forms of evolution is in no way scientifically provable.
Adaptation is also evident of a "good design."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by nator, posted 01-13-2002 10:01 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 1:33 PM redstang281 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 69 of 211 (2052)
01-14-2002 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by redstang281
01-14-2002 9:16 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b]
Then I want every single school textbook that the kids are learning to say that the theory has never been proven.
You know that those books present evolution as proven fact, and that simple isn't true.
Until anything is proven fact it's just a belief.
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, that it is presented as the "theory of evolution", or "evolutionary theory" is indicative that it is not 100% proven. Nothing in science is. I suppose your going to tell me that God isn't represented in church as anything less than absolute Truth to young people?
Secondly a belief has no evidential basis, a scientific theory does. God is belief, ToE is scientific theory.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by redstang281, posted 01-14-2002 9:16 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by redstang281, posted 01-14-2002 10:08 AM mark24 has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 70 of 211 (2053)
01-14-2002 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mark24
01-14-2002 4:17 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:
[B]Schrafinator,Moose,
A cudgel is a club.
I hear you loud & clear re. your definition of fact. But do the people you are talking to? To most people, fact is an absolute certainty. We gain nothing by changing the definition & then saying evolution is a fact, to people who don't understand it to have that meaning. In fact it puts us back a step, creationists will simply argue we are claiming absolute certainty, & show why it isn't, they can score a point.[/QUOTE]
OK, but to most people, "theory" means "guess", while it means something much different to scienctists. Do you suggest that we have a discussion about scientific theories and not call them theories just because the common usage means "guess"?
I actually do think we gain something when we use the word "fact" or "theory" properly in a scientific discussion. At the very least, it reveals the relative level of knowledge of the basics of science if the people who we are debating with use the terms incorrectly.
Ignorance is so often accompanied by arrogance in the people deriding the ToE and science. They rarely come to the discussion assuming that because they have never studied Biology in depth, they might not have a basis to object strongly to a major theory.
This arrogance is the reason they don't know how scienctists use the terms that they do; they don't feel the need to understand because they already know it all.
quote:
Also, are the existance of fossilised organisms 100% fact? There are patterns in rock, that is fact. That they are fossilised organisms is an interpretation of the facts. How can we be 100% sure then, that the fossil record does show evolution when the basic premise isn't absolutely factual? It is a VERY reasonable inference, (99.99% recurring), but thats all.
Right.
So what?
Am I 100% certain that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow?
No.
Do I worry about it not happening?
Also no.
If everyone waited for 100% certainty to accept something as fact, then we would never move on to anything else. Seems silly to me.
It's the degree of certainty that science strives to increase, yet never reach 100% certainty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 01-14-2002 4:17 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by mark24, posted 01-14-2002 10:03 AM nator has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 71 of 211 (2054)
01-14-2002 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by nator
01-14-2002 9:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:

OK, but to most people, "theory" means "guess", while it means something much different to scienctists. Do you suggest that we have a discussion about scientific theories and not call them theories just because the common usage means "guess"?

Theory CAN mean guess. Scientific theory means something altogether different to most people, & indeed it is. Perhaps "scientific theory of evolution" would be more accurate.
quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:

I actually do think we gain something when we use the word "fact" or "theory" properly in a scientific discussion. At the very least, it reveals the relative level of knowledge of the basics of science if the people who we are debating with use the terms incorrectly.

But at what point do you know you have achieved XX% surety, in order to use your definition of fact? A poorly supported theory may in the end to be absolutely correct, when a highly supported theory is overturned completely. You can not possibly KNOW the relative level of knowledge, so how can you define when to use your definition of fact, to assign it to a scientific theory? It would be wrong to do so.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nator, posted 01-14-2002 9:48 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 1:44 PM mark24 has replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 211 (2055)
01-14-2002 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by mark24
01-14-2002 9:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Firstly, that it is presented as the "theory of evolution", or "evolutionary theory" is indicative that it is not 100% proven. Nothing in science is. I suppose your going to tell me that God isn't represented in church as anything less than absolute Truth to young people?
Secondly a belief has no evidential basis, a scientific theory does. God is belief, ToE is scientific theory.

People go to truth because they believe in God and want to know more about God. If someone doesn't believe in God, they don't have to go to church. If someone doesn't believe in all the 6 types of evolution they still have to go to school.
Creation has scientific basis and religious basis.
Evolution just has the belief that it is scientific based.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by mark24, posted 01-14-2002 9:40 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by mark24, posted 01-14-2002 10:28 AM redstang281 has replied
 Message 76 by joz, posted 01-14-2002 12:59 PM redstang281 has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 73 of 211 (2058)
01-14-2002 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by redstang281
01-14-2002 10:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:

Creation has scientific basis and religious basis.
Evolution just has the belief that it is scientific based.

People who go to religious schools because their parents make them have God presented as 100% FACT. They also have the THEORY of evolution presented to them.
1/ Present evidence that leads to a falsifiable theory of creation. This is required to make it "scientific".
2/ Why is evolution not science based?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by redstang281, posted 01-14-2002 10:08 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by gene90, posted 01-14-2002 11:40 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 77 by redstang281, posted 01-15-2002 8:53 AM mark24 has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3854 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 74 of 211 (2071)
01-14-2002 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by mark24
01-14-2002 10:28 AM


quote:
Then I want every single school textbook that the kids are learning to say that the theory has never been proven.
Inconsistent.
This is evidence of a clear bias against evolution because it could apply to any other theory in science.
If we don't have a disclaimer saying the Theory of Gravity is not proven then we shouldn't have a disclaimer saying evolution is unproven. In fact, the purpose of a science class is to educate students so that they better understand the current (scientific) understanding of the natural world and therefore are better able to function in a technological society. To treat a major theory in science differently from other theories is to imply (incorrectly) that evolution is somehow not as well supported as any other theory.
quote:
Assuming that adaptation proves the other 5 forms of evolution is in no way scientifically provable.
There is only one "kind" of evolution recognized, that is the change in a population over time. Changes can be micro or macro.
Perhaps you can provide justification for creating five dichotomies where none are needed.
quote:
Adaptation is also evident of a "good design"
In that case, so is evolution, as adaptation is a product of evolution. Of which there is only one mechanism or "kind".
[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mark24, posted 01-14-2002 10:28 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by redstang281, posted 01-15-2002 9:27 AM gene90 has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 211 (2076)
01-14-2002 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by redstang281
01-14-2002 9:16 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b]
Then I want every single school textbook that the kids are learning to say that the theory has never been proven.
You know that those books present evolution as proven fact, and that simple isn't true.
Until anything is proven fact it's just a belief.
[/QUOTE]
The THEORY of evolution is not a fact, in the same way as Newtons laws are not a fact they are theories and are taught as such.....
Nothing in science is a 100% certainty fact. All science is potentially falsifiable and therefore not fact.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by redstang281, posted 01-14-2002 9:16 AM redstang281 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024