Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a basic, biological process
Tal
Member (Idle past 5707 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 96 of 306 (173963)
01-05-2005 2:56 AM


To the OP, your topic is what frustrates me about die hard evolutionists. My biology 101 teacher at least admitted that evolution was a theory. When going over the origins of life according to the theory, he told us, "And from step 4 to 6, we don't know what happened."
That was at MSU.
I have a buddy that went to UT. He swore up and down that evolution was an established fact. His teachers taught him that.
Now when I cornered one of my teachers, I asked him, "Did evolution happen."
He said, "Without a doubt, yes. Evolution is change. Change has happened and is happening." He wouldn't elaborate as to whether or not species mutate into other species.
So do you guys with PhDs intentionally attempt to run word circles around the young, impressionable minds? Or are you simply geared to be biased?

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Quetzal, posted 01-05-2005 10:25 AM Tal has replied
 Message 136 by Soplar, posted 01-06-2005 8:43 PM Tal has replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5707 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 137 of 306 (174579)
01-07-2005 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Soplar
01-06-2005 8:43 PM


Re: Die Hard Evolutionists
First, do you agree with this statment by Loudmouth? (Biological Evolution I)
Gravity is a theory, just as evolution is a theory. If I were striving for accuracy I should actually say "it SHOULD fall to the floor" but given all of the evidence supporting the theory of gravity it is easier to say "it will" instead of "it should". The same applies to Evolution. The evidence that supports common ancestory for all organisms is on the same level as the evidence that supports gravity.
From the 4-6 other replys I recieved on that thread which are similiar, I gather that most evos see things this way. (For the record, Quetzal gave a detailed answer to my questions, which I will reply to in his other thread. Thanks Quetzal!)
First, Gravity is a Law (yes?). It is a Law because people have observed and tested it enough to make "theoretical" guesses as to what would happen in a given experiment with gravity and those guesses will be accurate, because we understand how gravity works.
My problem is that isntances in the evolutionary process are often spoken as if they were as sure a thing as gravity.
/more to follow
*EDIT* Ok I'm back. We had some rockets come in.
Humans, in the great scheme of things, have not been around for very long. We can figure out how old the fossils are through radiocarbon dating, or if they are too old for that, potassium-argon testing can be used, as well as other methods. We also know they have not been around since the beginning of the Earth because they do not share the same layers as very old creatures, for example, trilobites, or dinosaurs. Because they have not been around for more than a few million years, we can assume that there will be fewer primate fossils than, say, trilobite fossils, because trilobites lived for a greater span of time than primates have thus far, and they existed in greater numbers than primates ever have.
There are other factors. For example, trilobites might be common because they lived in places where fossilization readily occurs, while the ancestors of humans lived in places where they were likely to decompose completely, or have their remains eaten by wild animals.
Trilobite in human footprint
The oldest fossil footprint yet found was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. He was accompanied by his wife and two daughters, and by Mr. and Mrs. Francis Shape and their two daughters. The party had already discovered several fossils of trilobites
A trilobite crushed within a human sandal print Found on June 1, 1968 near Antelope Spring, Utah. when Meister split open a two-inch-thick slab of rock with his hammer and discovered the print. The rock fell open "like a book." revealing on one side the footprint of a human with trilobites right in the footprint itself. The other half of the rock slab showed an almost perfect mold of the footprint and fossils. Amazingly the human was wearing a sandal! The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be.
Note in the top quote the evo says trilobites lived millions of years ago (statement of fact instead of "this is our best guess based on what we know").
Now I go and read the trilobite found in the sandle. There is an obervable piece of evidence that suggests trilobites are not millions of years old.
Another example would be that Animal A evolved from aquatic animal X.
It's reffered to as a hard fact instead of "this is our best guess based on what we know."
This message has been edited by Tal, 01-07-2005 03:25 AM

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Soplar, posted 01-06-2005 8:43 PM Soplar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Parasomnium, posted 01-07-2005 4:17 AM Tal has replied
 Message 151 by Quetzal, posted 01-07-2005 9:53 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 167 by Soplar, posted 01-07-2005 5:25 PM Tal has not replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5707 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 139 of 306 (174588)
01-07-2005 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Parasomnium
01-07-2005 4:17 AM


Re: Die Hard Evolutionists
That's because they are.
Help me out here. Why is it then not called the law of evolution?
A theory becomes law when the theory is proven based on empirical data.
Gravity has such evidence. Evolution does not, or it would be a law.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Parasomnium, posted 01-07-2005 4:17 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2005 4:46 AM Tal has replied
 Message 142 by Parasomnium, posted 01-07-2005 5:18 AM Tal has not replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5707 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 141 of 306 (174593)
01-07-2005 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by PaulK
01-07-2005 4:46 AM


Re: Die Hard Evolutionists
That's why it is the LAW of Thermodynamics?
Or is it the Theory of Thermodynamics, but I've been taught wrong all these years?

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2005 4:46 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2005 5:22 AM Tal has not replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5707 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 144 of 306 (174598)
01-07-2005 5:32 AM


Sorry Pual and Para, I'm going to wait for Soplar's reply.
I've had several officers (all of whom have masters degrees or higher) read the last few posts about this and they side with me on this one. You are trying to pass off a theory as if it holds the same weight as a law using semantics.
Soplar...hope you read this soon.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2005 5:54 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 149 by CK, posted 01-07-2005 8:37 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2005 10:35 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 01-07-2005 10:45 AM Tal has not replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5707 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 152 of 306 (174670)
01-07-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Quetzal
01-05-2005 10:25 AM


Re: Benefit of the Doubt: Or Every Dog Gets One Bite
Excellent reply. I hope you've read some of the more recent posts about law vs theory. This is really the meat of what I'm arguing about.
Guess what? S/he was right. This is an example where the terminology of science has a completely different meaning from the definition used colloquially. A scientific theory is a collection of explanations that unifies a whopping number of observations. It has been tested six ways from Sunday, and has always passed. In addition, most often a scientific theory has spawned innumerable new lines of investigation, and often whole new sciences. It is about as unshakeable as it gets. However, it can be overturned as new evidence or new technologies are uncovered. Understand though that to overturn a scientific theory, the new idea MUST be able to not only answer all the questions and explan all the observations of the old theory, but also to answer questions that the old theory did not. This is why you most often hear that a theory has been modified, rather than discarded. What they mean by modified is that one or more of the underlying explanations has been changed or discarded - not that the theory as a whole is invalid or needs to be scrapped. See the difference?
/agree
The "fact" of evolution is that species change over time. Moreover, new species arise, others go exinct (the complex, detailed evidence for this needs to be addressed in a separate thread). Some of the explanations for this fact, globally contained in the Theory of Evolution, may or may not be accurate - and have been subject to many modifications over the years. Thus we have a double confusion here: evolution is both a fact (the observations) and a theory (the explanations) which coupled with the common misunderstanding of the scientific use of the term "theory" leads to confusion. Hope this explanation helps.
/agree
Would you mind reading some of the earlier posts in this thread about laws vs theories?
I still don't equate evolution with gravity. They don't hold the same weight (pun).
Do you agree that evolution (no semantics, you know what I mean..not is change happening/ed, but did species evolve into other species over x time) is just as absolute (or reasonably so...we know its not absolute) as gravity?

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Quetzal, posted 01-05-2005 10:25 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by NosyNed, posted 01-07-2005 10:33 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 158 by Quetzal, posted 01-07-2005 11:48 AM Tal has not replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5707 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 170 of 306 (174937)
01-08-2005 2:06 AM


Well that is it then. It has been proven to me beyond doubt that the theory/law of evolution is just as relevant as the theory/law of gravity.
*EDIT*
And I'm in the International Zone at The Presidential Palace. The most targeted place in Iraq for indirect fire. Oh happy days.
This message has been edited by Tal, 01-08-2005 03:46 AM

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Quetzal, posted 01-08-2005 11:31 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 172 by NosyNed, posted 01-08-2005 11:34 AM Tal 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