Posted on 12/03/2005 5:28:45 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
Which one is the missing link?
How can evo be a fact if it's never been proven?
No you did not.
Getting testy, are you?
Yeah, yeah, all my links are distorting, but yours are not. (sarcasm) Same ole tune.
When introns were discovered, some evolutionists suggested that these represented ‘junk’ DNA. Introns, as well as other sequences which did not code for protein, were considered to be left-overs of evolutionary ancestry — ‘vestigial’ DNA.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/junk.asp
Please read the SIXTH word.
Sorry, that is absolutely incorrect. It might be so in the vernacular, or in creationist's wishful thinking, but it is not true in science. Please take a look at these definitions.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
On the other hand, from the current Dover trial:
319. Intelligent design does not qualify as science for a variety of reasons:
(a) It violates the ground rules of science, as they have been practiced for hundreds of years since the scientific revolution, because it i) posits a supernatural actor as an explanation for natural phenomena and ii) it cannot be tested.[Dover] Plaintiffs' Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pp. 140-141.(b) It has been universally rejected as science by the scientific community.
(c) It finds no support in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
(d) It is not the subject of scientific testing and research.
(e) It makes no predictions and offers no explanations other than “the intelligent designer did it.”
(f) It is primarily a negative argument against evolution.
(g) The arguments made against evolution distort and misrepresent the real state of scientific knowledge.
"you know it's funny I've spent all night researching the supposed "evidence" of evolution via the links they've provided, and all I've found is theories, built upon theories, built upon theories about fossils they've found. And the sad thing is, the fossils they've found, all amount to people with disfigurements. Children with similar deformities are born in todays society, but we don't attribute it to evo, instead we call it tragedy. The only other source I can see is the concept of micro evo, which is a valid thought, but, ... in order for the world to evolve from ape to man, using micro evo, I kinda did the math charting population growth charts, and man hasn't existed long enough by far, we missed the boat by eons built upon eons. in conclusion their "evidence" is just plain wrong. Using their own sources they themselves have even more strengthened my belief in "Creation by God" Thank you and good night."
I hear you. I used to think that maybe God could have worked through evolution, but the more I read, the more I realized that evolution is BUNK.
The evo scientists keep trying to prove a theory, but they cannot.
My post of the fossil skulls was in response to the following comment:
And the sad thing is, the fossils they've found, all amount to people with disfigurements.That comment was absolutely false.
As far as which one is the "missing link"???
Why, none, of course! They're all there!
One of the meanings of theory is guess, and in the case of evolution, it is both applicable and true.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm not one to get hung up on semantics.
However, I do believe that students should be allowed to decide for themselves, and whether you call evo and ID science, or whatever, they need to be taught side by side to accomplish that (so students can compare).
"As far as which one is the "missing link"???
Why, none, of course! They're all there!"
So were the evo scientists mistaken all this time?
"Yes, I did, you liar."
I won't respond to any more of your posts until you apologize for your rudeness. And if you don't apologize, it is YOUR loss, not mine.
Post #986: The evo scientists keep trying to prove a theory, but they cannot.
Your ignorance of the methods of science does not constitute an argument against it.
This has been pointed out to you many times, but you simply refuse to see it. I think you are blinded by your belief. (None is so blind... )
One more time: science cannot prove anything. It can, however, make a very convincing argument based on good evidence and testing. This is called a theory. It is considered wise, in some circles, never to bet the rent money against a well-supported scientific theory.
The "evolution" that involves change from one generation to the next (you might know this as microevolution) is a fact. There is nobody outside of a narrow creationist circle who will dispute this. Where do you think the bird flu that people are worried about comes from?
The "how" of evolution, that is, the explantion for all of it, is the "theory" part. This is separate from the "fact" part. So, evolution is both a fact and a theory, on two different levels. Your disbelief does not constitute any evidence in this field.
Not in science. Only in layman's usage and on the creation websites.
I know there is no convinving you, but really, in science it takes a lot of work to get a well-supported theory. It is not just a guess.
To me it appears you are out to destroy science, so you are making up your own definitions. This is not honest.
No, scientists who study paleontology and evolution were "not mistaken all this time." There have been some mistakes, but they have been correct and science moves on. So? What advances has ID made?
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
We can keep going round and round, but at least the ID folks believe in academic freedom!
It's a bit of a stretch to say that science can't prove ANYTHING.
Evo scientists would agree with me, because they continuously try to prove a theory.
Evo scientists would agree with me, because they continuously try to prove a theory.
I am (or was) one of those evil evol scientists. We do not try to prove a theory. Only laymen and creationists make such a mistake. But its getting late and I haven't shaved.
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.