Posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT by DannyTN
The hypothesis of common descent, like the many hypotheses of gravity, have yet to be demonstrated.
We are not talking about common usage. We are talking about how terms are used in science. There is often a substantial difference between the two.
The fact that a penny drops is a...fact. This is matched on the evolution side by the observation that genetic change occurs between one generation and the next. Both are examples of "fact" or "data."
The theory part comes in as an explanation for the many facts (or many thousands of facts). This is done according to the following 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." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)From our past conversations I gather that you do not accept the theory of evolution for religious reasons.Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
That's fine. But your religious belief does not constitute scientific data, nor does it negate scientific theory.
I think you are confusing modern science with cheap labor. We aren't manufacturing overseas because China has more advanced technology that we do. We are manufacturing overseas because they will work for $1 a day.
It would seem any creationist who cross-posts on one of the "evil foreign importers" threads, is a complete hypocrite and fool.
Most Bizaare Conclusion Award.
My aunt used to say that my cousin and I were going to the dogs!
"Now you can quibble about the naturalness of this, but the fact is that until recent decades, all such mutations were natural, and humans simply changed the rules for selecting which variants got to produce the most offspring. The principles of evolution can be useful without being written down in books ..."
Well, my goodness. Are you actually saying that selective breeding is applied evolutionary theory? You've certainly changed your tune from those interminable Hitler-Darwin threads, where you would scarcely admit that there was even such a thing as applied science at all.
I see you conveniently overlooked the biggest problem with that particular skull. That the skull was badly diseased, a fact that even the Smithsonian admits for which I provided a link in the debunking.
Whether it was a recent skull with a bullet wound, a 100,000 years old or 400,000 years old as the various claims are made, is not as important as why evolutionists feel the need to include a badly diseased human skull as an example of a traditional.
spam placemarker
Neither am I, which should be obvious from the content of my post. I expected more from you than a conditioned response.
Save your list for some one who needs it.
Wow, that's cool..
Placemarker for me, it's not 3 days old, but it will have to do.
That's fine. But your religious belief does not constitute scientific data, nor does it negate scientific theory.
My religious beliefs are irrelevant to what I posted, and if you judged my post based upon the merits of my argument, you would have concluded the same.
Again, I'm very disappointed....but thank you for the response anyway.
"One reason why Mindell might fail to sell Darwin to the critics is that his examples all involve microevolution, which most modern creationists (including advocates of intelligent design) accept"
Now this quote is really kind of amusing.......i'm a creationist.....but i've never heard the term "modern creationist" Can someone define it? Creationists have never rejected the classic definition of microevolution. God said "he created kinds" and thus we obviously know that there is plenty of variation within a "kind".
of course evolution is accepted by many scientists...I was just making the point that there are also many scientists that are very bright that are teaching about the falsness of the theory. And I was rebutting your point of believers in God not being smart, or to that effect...in that many of the most famous scientists of history were believers. The belief in a creator makes learning alot more fun because one can see more of a good purpose to everything.
See how easy it is? Even early agriculturalists, and even hunter-gatherers could do it.
And how did they learn this?
By observing nature. Just as, many years later, Darwin did. But he figured out the details and wrote it down.
But you say, "That's selection, but it's not evolution." When you select for certain traits (or nature selects for certain traits), other traits are less common. These small changes add up over time.
Fast forward a hundred thousand years and we'll see what we have. That's tough to do. Fortunately, with evolutionary theory, we can look backwards a hundred thousand years, or a million years, and see what we have.
Evolution is often slow, but paleontology and genetics provide a good look at the past and can see the changes that occurred. And, what to you know, these two different approaches support each other.
You say, "Evolutionary theory didn't have squat to do with it."
Sure, evolutionary theory didn't have anything to do with the changes in the past, as Darwin proposed his theory in 1859. But his theory (as modified and improved for 150 years) accounts for those changes and explains those changes.
Early folks through observation came up with a lot of the details, but it took the genius of Darwin to bring it all together and write it all down. And what he wrote down is the beginning of evolutionary theory--and it has everything to do with it!
...you obviously have no evidence or you would be PROUD to show it to the world. Just as I thought.
Which is why we have 800+ inheritable human genetic diseases and maybe 1 known positive human mutation (2 if you count sickle cell anemia for malaria protection, and 3 if you count being born without legs for gangrene of the toes protection).
Because some weak mutations will survive and spread their degraded genes among the gene pool until the species is completely degraded.
Apparently, if you degrade a bacteria enough, you get a human.
Ladies and Gentlemen: These people have been calling me all kinds of names for not believing in evolution. I asked them to show me ONE crumb of evidence of evolution amf they can't produce one!!
Come on!! DRAWINGS??? you can do better right???
Then why is it able to make true predictions about lab and field results? EG the Tiktaalik find, or the verification of Darwin's prediction of pre-Cambrian fossils?ToE claimed that mammals evolved from reptiles, and that birds evolved from dinosaurs; after these claims were made, many fossils of just such intermediate forms were found, and none that link birds more directly to mammals, or mammals to dinos.
Are yuo seriously claiming this is just luck? fraud? Why can't ID or creationism make predictions like these, predictions that turn out to be true?
geesh...DRAWINGS???? You call that evidence???
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.