Wow! So you can get suspended from posting on UM for coining the term Evo to refer to evolution zealots, but it's OK to call proponents of ID idiots? No, of course there isn't a double standard on UM.

Which logic error would that be? Arguements don't tire, and besides - that's the first time I've used it. I have a pretty high IQ and it looked to me like you were calling creationists idiots so - whatever.

* Puts mod hat on *

No. You can get suspended from UM for using a term calculated to cause a reactionary response repeatedly after being told not to by the Moderation Team. The term IDiot, for example, is entirely unacceptable and a clear violation of 3e and 3f from the Site's Terms and Conditions:

3e. Flamebaiting: Do not intentionally instigate "flame wars" or bait others in to making personal attacks.

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.

Hit The Lights - Please refrain from using the term in future, or action will be taken against your account.

Contrary to popular opinion, Mod's aren't psychic, nor are we physically able to read each post and blog entry individually. Hitting the report button helps us to find these instances, as and when they occur.

Tiggs
[Forum Mod Team]

Woah there Tiggs!

I never used the term IDiots here, I used it to refer to supposed "intelligent design proponents" that can't get their story straight on my external blog and never mentioned the term here at all. Instead I linked to a blog posted on the so-called process known as "microevolution" (which doesn't exist).


See?

The dude was referring to this post: http://copache.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/microevolution/

Nothing like that was said here, at all. I only explained the term here, I use it in derogatory fashion over there, so please get your story straight.

Full disclosure: when I coined the term on my blog, I used it to refer to those who would deny ever so obvious evidence of evolution in favor of something like ID which is clearly not science (just like astrology, alchemy, et al). In fact, I used it in a way that it was pretty much specifically aimed at whoever would deny evolution happens based upon the undeniable: viruses evolve often, as do bacterial infections.

However, I do not intend to use said term here, nor did I.

I feel as if I've been slandered somewhat, haha

Noted. As I said, however, please refrain from using the term in future on these boards.

Way to crush my youthful innocence. This feels like when I found out Santa and God don't exist... and the tooth fairy always seemed a little too far out, but mods aren't psychic?!!

To your post. Click.

You didn't ask anything, what was there to respond to? The title of the topic is why you do or don't accept evolution. i posted an article that explains my stance fairly well, and you posted your views. Why would I waste my time and yours by posting what is obvious: you and I don't agree on this topic.

Alternatively we could do a bit of the vs of this forum and stop being parrots. You know, arguing with our own knowledge as opposed to posting links to what may or may not be either irrelevant or extremely biased one way or another...

Maybe we need a link free zone? But can you imagine people saying things that are not true and no way of disproving them without a link. Sadly the internet has changed the way we discuss things but all and all it is for the positive. Information explosion is great!

I didn't post my views, I asked for you to explain one of your arguments and refuted another.



I'm not allowed to post a link to my own post from earlier in this thread?

Not that, Raptor. I wasn't pointing out anyone in specific. I was just questioning why anyone would base their arguments on what they've read at some random link from the internet. You're allowed to do that, though, it just doesn't provide a very convincing argument either way.

Still no reply. Apparently if you ignore arguments, that makes them untrue.

I was talking with a coworker about creation and evolution and his theory was that when It was first told that God created the earth, Adam, Eve and everything else was to mean that he created evolution. If this is true wouldn’t that mean that creation and evolution would both be correct? He also stated that “God is the name of the creator” Something has to be created in order for it evolve, and that evolution itself is possible because of God. Any thoughts?

Because there is Evidence.

They go hand in Hand, My daughter is not me and is smarter than me, More beautiful than me , Her daughter will be more smart than her band on and On.

My hammer was created, Then it turned in to a nail gun, still waiting for the next creation/ evolution.

Man was created, and will continue to evolve.

Love Omnaka

yes, something has to exist first, in order to evolve over the years.
but who said a big invisible entity sittin on the clouds did it?

I will present the new-age/metaphysical point of view. God is the original substance, which formed all out of itself, in order to enhance its own experience through the created beings, especially, on earth, Man. When we enhance our llives and the quality therof, we are pleasing God. One could only imagine that the Original Substance evolves thinking, self-aware being on every planet capable of supporting such life. God is thus present at some level even in the simplest bacteria and viruses. This all goes back thousands of years to the vedas, etc., and is there in the Hebrew and Xian scriptures, if you look deeply enough.

I never said God was some one floating in the clouds, I said "it" was the original creator. I may not have explained that part of it very well. My coworker was saying that "God" is the word for "how we came into existance", and that God could be a number of different things.. Superior being, Alien...it could be spiritual, it could be earthly...I never said I new what God "is" just that it created everything, and we evolve because of it.

Sorry guys I didnt realize my husband was still signed in under his name...this is Kaoticescape.

well, god is One explanation of how we came into existance.
kinda the easy way out, IMO

As far as I'm concerned...

"According to the famous geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' And according to Julian Huxley, the grandson of Darwin's great defender, 'Evolution is the most poweerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on Earth.'
Unfortunately, within the general public this topic is known as the 'theory of evolution', giving the impression that it is only an idea that has not been properly tested and that is quite likely not to be true.
Evolution has been rigorously tested by thousands of scientists in many different fields of biology and has not yet been found to be false. This testing has elevated it to the level of law.(The way all theories are made laws.) It is just through tradition that it is still called a theory.
Today, the rapid advancement in genetics and the study of proteins is providing further support for the law of evolution."

That's a misconception. Theories don't ever become laws, they're two different things. A scientific law is a concise statement which describes an event based on observational data, and a scientific theory is an explanation of that event (how/why it happened). So to use an example from this page, ancients were able to predict eclipses occurring but they didn't know how they happened, so they had a law but not a theory.

From my experience of learning biology, that is not my concept of a 'law'
But a quick search has taught me its not exactly clearly defined anywhere...
Here's what I can gather...

"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory." " from...here[/email]"]here

and to quote...
(If a theory is proved should its name not change into law?
We speak of Newton's Law but of Einstein's SR theory
and GR theory.)

-Nicolaas Vroom

Raptor's correct

Raptor's correct... what?

Do finish your sentence.

Raptor's post regarding theories and laws was correct. Laws are clearly defined.

Laws describe
Theories explain

And what about the steps in the scientific method, that I was taught in school?
You're confusing me here
Okay I get the meaning of the words, laws describe, and theories explain...
But what about the hierarchy? When theories are, in scientific terms, proven, are they not referred to as 'the law', and no longer 'the theory'?

i.e. (If a theory is proved should its name not change into law?
We speak of Newton's Law but of Einstein's SR theory
and GR theory.)
What is wrong what this person has said? It seems to be consistent with what I have been taught.

I am simply trying to clarify here, there seems to be an inconsistency here with what I've learnt in school
But I admit that I am no expert.

There isn't a hierarchy in this sense. Its like saying there is a hierarchy between apples and oranges. Theories and facts are two different things.

Its a fact that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Its a theory that explains why this happens.

God may be considered an easy way out to explain creation...but for someone who belives in God and faith is enough to support that for them its the ONLY anwser to explain creation.

I know what you're saying (I think I'm getting there ) that a Law is a fact, but...
Can't a theory be scientifically proven? As in it is accepted as a Principle or Law, it is then recognised as fundamentally true?
Is it still then only referred to as 'theory'?
And were not the Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment once hypotheses, then theories (as they withstood rigorous testing)?

This is the backbone of what I have been learning about The Scientific Method

Well in keeping with the words I used, Newton's laws describe motion while general relativity attempts to explain the relation between time, space and gravity.



Nope. One can only be improved through being modified to accomodate new observations, or be disproven. Their strength is measured according to their ability to produce accurate explanations and predictions. Even if a theory seems absolutely perfect you've got to leave a little room for doubt, that perhaps another explanation could be the right one, so a theory must always be capable of being proven wrong. The same goes for laws, which aren't necessarily the truth.

'Theory' and 'only' shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Theories are very powerful. Theories can be scientifically tested and measured but can't be proven to absolute certainty, the issue here lies with your understanding of the nomenclature.

A theory doesn't turn into a fact.

Life first appeared more than 2 billion years ago is a fact. How life came to be is a theory. If we scientifically prove how life came to be, it would still be a theory because it explains and doesn't describe. Facts, if anything, hold less weight than theories, because they are useless all by themselves.

Of course, I know the proven wrong thing...
I'm just struggling here because I am taught there is a sort of ladder system, from hypothesis to theory, and from theory to principle or law.
And that it is all down to rigorous testing.
Now I'm going to have an even harder time trying to Ace this exam next week

What class is it and what level course?

Oh Lord...The worst part is that I actually understand what you are saying , and now what I was taught has become pretty much redundant...

All I can say is that The Scientific Method better not come up in my exam next week!

And thank you for taking the time to help clarify the matter with me

Laws are statements made about ideal systems mostly mathematical in nature. These systems are ideal, not actual systems. Theories define the why and explain how some fact or law may occur.

For instance, Newton's law of universal gravitation states:

(Borrowed from Wikipedia)

But WHY, are these masses actually attracted to one another? Above, all we have is a definitive statement regarding interactions, it doesn't help us understand why and how these interactions are taking place. Sure we have mathematical descriptions of gravitation from Newton's works, but they don't explain how these phenomena come to be, merely that they exist in this manner.

To explain this we need Einstein's theories which explain the interaction between space, time and mass.

Theories contain laws, facts, observations, hypotheses and logical inferences. "Upgrading" a theory to a law would be a great disservice to the theory.

~Hope that helps

I'm doing Honours level Biology for my Leaving Certificate It is a level 5 certificate on a scale of 10, if that makes more sense if you're not aware of the Irish educational system! (It is a whole lot of cr*p )

So this is pretty discouraging at such an amateur level, LOL!

Why hallo thar!


Nice little article we got here, hmmmm?



IT is TIME FOR...........................................
STATING A LOGICAL LAW'
Here's the law kids!
I'll call it the Law of the obvious.

SOME EVOLUTION CAN ACCOUNT FOR ALL EVOLUTION UNLESS THERE IS A SPECIFIC MECHANISM STOPPING CERTAIN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES FROM HAPPENING.

Woa there! Now what could that mean?


Basically, people the law of the obvious states that unless a specific and necessary mutation is impossible, then these small changes add up to become large changes.

In otherwords, UNTIL A CREATIONIST CAN GIVE AN ADEQUATE RESPONSE TO THE LAW, WE HAVE NO REASON TO NOT BELIEVE MACRO EVOLUTION IS MICRO EVOLUTION OVER TIME.


ok.




Guess what?

IT is TIME FOR...........................................
STATING A LOGICAL LAW

I'll call it: The Law of Yesterday:
The Law of Yesterday States:
THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE THAT THE UNIVERSE WASN'T CREATED YESTERDAY BY THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.(FSM-YESTERDAY THEORY)
Catching my drift?
Sure, there's a huge, ridiculous amount of evidence to the contrary, but we can't PROVE IT.
Just like Evolution: The amount of evidence is sheerly overwhelming, but we CAN'T PROVE IT.
And NOT like Creationism. Oooh, I know!

IT is TIME FOR...........................................
STATING A LOGICAL LAW

I'll call it: How to decide who is winning the debate:
CREATIONISM IS JUST AS VIABLE AS THE FSM-YESTERDAY THEORY. NEITHER HAS A SHRED OF EVIDENCE, OR AT LEAST ANY NON-LIE/FAKE/FRAUD/TWIST-OF-WORDS EVIDENCE.
And Evolution has an incomprehensible amount of evidence.


EXACTLY!!!
Thank you, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

Everybody hear this one, overhere?!

IT is TIME FOR...........................................
STATING A LOGICAL LAW

I'll call it: The Law of Species
Species are like Country lines on a map: Man-made boundaries that are helpful to US, and really mean little to nothing.

I mean, there are the numerous OBSERVED, FACTUAL records of new species forming which prove that species aren't a barrier to Evolution.


Sigh. Evolution is backed up by ACTUAL OBSERVED SCIENCE, EXPERIMENTS, RECORDS, SCIENCE, and tons of Evidence.
Creationism has none, or, at least none I've ever seen. Be happy to check some out.
Which would you believe?
Stop using the FSM-Yesterday attack, please.

IT is TIME FOR...........................................
STATING A LOGICAL LAW

I'll call it the: What we are doing Law:
We are trying to explain why Evolution is a much, much, much, much, much better theory then Creationism or the FSM-Yesterday theory. We are not trying to 'prove it happened', just show explain there is a 99.99% chance it did.


EXACTLY!


Simple:
THE FRUIT FLIES HAVE HAD NO barrier to their reproduction. All those mutations don't help much if they are in a nice, comfy cage. The mutated have an equal chance of survival. AKA no natural selection.
The experiment just proved that mutations actually are pretty common.


Yet, none of these 'features' have been offered. Nope, not 1 example.

OK. In case you haven't gotten it by now, Creationists, I'm TRYING TO BAIT YOU WITH STATEMENTS LIKE THAT! I know that I would immediately jump and try and give tons of examples of features. I would immediately jump and give evidence for Creationism.

WHY, OH WHY MUST YOU KEEP ON GOING WITH VAGUE CLAIMS, FSM-YESTERDAY ATTACKS, AND WHINING ABOUT BEING MADE FUN OF?
Why NOT debate?

Granted, in the past, a few have. They get a lot more respect and credit.



Sigh. Cimber Explained already. BIG sigh.


Yep. Creationists won't tell you that though. Makes no sense.




Looking forward to replies!

SQLServer

^No point, SQL. If you're lucky enough to get any response at all it'll be an illogical one filled with all of the same fallacious arguments as before.

I hate to agree... same story up and down...every time. It gets tiresome....

Might as well add another law to the bundle:

Logically, Creationism should be given the exact same credit the FSM-Yesterday theory should: Both contradict a lot of known evidence and offer no evidence themselves.

SHOW me why I'm wrong. CHANGE that statement.

Please?

As a believer in the flying spaghetti monster and his awesome powers of creating things yesterday, I am very offended that you would group my beliefs with the ridiculous idea of creationism.

I was taking the piss. Your post made no sense.

Raptor's correct

Sounds like you're saying...

Raptor's correct something. For example, Raptor's correct dog. The correct dog belonging to Raptor. Or just the correct belonging to raptor?

You had no full stop. And 's when you mean is looks a bit blerrrgh.

That is all.