Why you accept evolution? Or, why you don't?

[Cimber]

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

[LittleIrishVampiress]

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.

[Cimber]

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.

[kaoticescape]

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.

[LittleIrishVampiress]

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.

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

Edited May 27, 2008 by LittleIrishVampiress

[Raptor]

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.

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.

Can't a theory be scientifically proven?

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.

[Cimber]

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

'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.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Cimber

[LittleIrishVampiress]

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.

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

[Cimber]

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?

[LittleIrishVampiress]

'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.

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

[Copasetic]

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

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:

Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses

(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

Edited May 27, 2008 by Copasetic

[LittleIrishVampiress]

What class is it and what level course?

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!

[SQLserver]

Why hallo thar!

“Evolution” is a word I never planned on using on Rational Christianity, given that I feel that “Evolution” has stolen the stage in the God debate, and it shouldn’t have. However, with the “Expelled” movie that recently came out, Evolution is against thrust into the spotlight, with both sides arguing from flawed positions.

Nice little article we got here, hmmmm?

5. Some Evolution Happens

Admit it. Christian or non-Christian, we know it’s true. Things change. Natural selection occurs. It’s part of science. Sound like I’ve converted? Don’t worry I haven’t. But honesty forces me to admit this.

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.

3. Common Descent Can’t Be Proven

The idea that all animals formulated from the same organism is simply unprovable. This is especially true of plants and animals. It’s also a souped up version of “Goddidit”. If two things are similar, and another thing is later discovered that looks like both, does this mean they evolved from each other?

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.

2. Evolution Is Vague

We don’t know exactly what a “species” is. That’s kind of important. Even Darwin said, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other.”

“Closely resembling each other”? That’s helpful.

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.

1. Can’t be Falsified

This is actually a huge gaping hole in Evolution theory. For a theory to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable. This is what the atheists say at least. “You can’t say Goddidit! That isn’t unprovable! All of reality could have been formulated by a pink, invisible unicorn last night, that erased all the evidence! See? You can’t prove that’s not true. It has to be falsifiable.”

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.

But if we don't have a bunch of these how are the worshipers of evolution going to scoff at the stupid Christians?

EXACTLY!

church, researchers have been studying thousands of generations of fruit flies. they have subjected these fruit fly populations to all kinds of different environmental conditions, they've irradiated them, fed them various diets, changed humidity and temperature, and after thousands of generations all we have are... fruit flies. There have been mutations, there has been adaptation, but the populations always seem to return to a stable medium, with the variations at the edges being either sterile, or weak and dying off, so, where is the "macro" part?

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.

Intelligent Design proponents, also known as creationists, neo-creationists, or IDiots, state that organisms have appeared suddenly because certain features about them are too complex to have evolved.

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.

Namely, that evolution happens in short rapid bursts and that new species do appear suddenly. You have contradicted yourself and you are leaking.

Sigh. Cimber Explained already. BIG sigh.

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?

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

Looking forward to replies!

SQLServer

[Raptor]

^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.

[questionmark]

^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....

[SQLserver]

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?

[FurthurBB]

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.

[HAJiME]

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

Laws describe

Theories explain

I was taking the p***. 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.