-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Political Correctness and Darwin
- Thread starter 77zach
- Start date
eye95
Well-known member
No. The word is "species." Two animals of the same species have chromosomes that match up and can mate. Animals of different species do not have matching chromosomes and generally cannot mate. When they do, they create genetic abnormality that cannot reproduce. In order for a new species to evolve, two creatures would have to mate who have the exact same genetic mutation at the chromosomal level. This mutation must be survivable, and enough offspring would have to be produced and enough mating between them would have to happen to populate the species.
Horribly unlikely, even over millions of years, and there is no evidence that such has ever happened.
BTW, I am a Christian who chooses to believe Creation is a fact. I believe in a God who can create a universe that has all the evidence of having been around a lot longer and having a different origin. I also accept science as a system for revealing the function of the universe in order to allow useful predictions of outcomes in the future. It also can provide a framework for looking backward, but cannot do so with any certainty whatsoever.
So don't try to correct what I wrote. Write what you think. Please do not ever try to redefine what I say. I refuse to accept such behavior from anyone.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
georg jetson
Regular Member
Gravity is not a theory. It is observable and repeatable. The theory you speak of is our theoretical explanation of gravity. Don't confuse the theory with the fact. This also occurs with the theory of the origin of species. It is our explanations that are the theory, not the actual existence of the species.
There's a lot of hate that shows up from all sides when debating things like this. I would hope my Christian brethren recognize that the right side of the argument is always love.
Mr Birdman
Regular Member
species
I am very glad you are and I hope to see you some day at the Lord's table. But species is a man made word. Look in Genesis no where does it ever mention species. In the beginning God created the heaven the earth the sea's and all that in them is. The animals were perfect in every way. Man messed things up and sin begat death. Nothing died until man sinned. After that the perfect animals started to loose some of their genetic capabilities and the lesser canine animals took their genes and left town. Who wants to hang out with a bunch of wolves when you can be with some cute foxes. The still have enough gene's to get back with the wolf's and have puppies. In the beginning a horse had all of the gene's of a horse like animal. It lost some genetic make up and a donkey was born It lost some genetic info but it still has enough horse info to successfully reproduce with a horse. It is not a horse it is a mule and yes some mules have reproduced.
I am very glad you are and I hope to see you some day at the Lord's table. But species is a man made word. Look in Genesis no where does it ever mention species. In the beginning God created the heaven the earth the sea's and all that in them is. The animals were perfect in every way. Man messed things up and sin begat death. Nothing died until man sinned. After that the perfect animals started to loose some of their genetic capabilities and the lesser canine animals took their genes and left town. Who wants to hang out with a bunch of wolves when you can be with some cute foxes. The still have enough gene's to get back with the wolf's and have puppies. In the beginning a horse had all of the gene's of a horse like animal. It lost some genetic make up and a donkey was born It lost some genetic info but it still has enough horse info to successfully reproduce with a horse. It is not a horse it is a mule and yes some mules have reproduced.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
What you are describing is what many creationists do not understand. Gravity IS a theory.
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html said:When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predictnaturalphenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.
A scientific theory is more rigid than the common parlance of "Theory" and is where many people who literally don't know what they're talking about get caught up.
A scientific theory has been tested, and tested, and determined to be falsifiable.
Same with the Theory of Evolution.
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
Nope. Gravity is a fact. However, we as inquisitive little sun-of-a-guns, like to understand a bit about fact. So, we come up with theories about how something might work.
Notice in your quotation... "a theory is an explanation or model."
This is correct. Gravity is fact. However, our explanation or model(mathematical) of gravity, no matter how complete or insufficient, is the theory.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
You are not in any way grasping the tiers of science based on the scientific model, which is what I have described. This is par for the course.
Gravity IS at the theoretical level meaning that it has been refined to the point of all currently exhaustible data conforming to the presented definition. All of the metrics on what we understand of gravity are very well sorted, but not conclusive in that we do not know everything there is about Gravity.
However, what we know is significant. We understand many things about gravity and we have been able to test, verify, and falsify many findings to the point of a fairly comprehensive understanding. This meets the standard for "Theory" which is the end result of enormous (Hundreds of years of) research, falsification, and refinement.
If even one piece of data disrupts the totality of the model then the entire hypothesis is turned on end. As much as many creationists would love you to believe, the result of "Theories" is not scientists coming to a meeting and declaring what is best, or "correct". it is a painstaking labor sometimes taken over hundreds of years to reach a rational, logical understanding of a given hypothesis.
Gravity IS a Theory in the scientific model. "Theory" is EXTREMELY strong, stout, and resilient when critiqued.
Here is something to help you, as you clearly are not even remotely comprehending:
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
Note that the "Theory of Evolution" is likewise tried and tested by this same objective, unbiased, and arduous process of refinement and falsification.
The most wonderful thing about the scientific process, is that it is extremely demanding on definition, and all processes are repeatable. The same cannot be said for the hypothesis that there is a "God", or any other deity for that matter.
I know you will try to twist and contort this. It's what you do, and frankly I expect nothing less. For those who have actually taken ANY collegiate or higher level science and actual still apply this model, it's really just basic common sense, and everything I have said here will correspond with your observations and understanding.
I am not saying anything that ANY reputable professor would deny in his collegiate science class.
eye95
Well-known member
Now you are being ridiciculous. All words are man-made. It is how we communicate. Even if you erroneously believe that God created the language that was used at Creation, we no longer use that language, and have long since adapted language that meets our needs to communicate, including scientific terms like species. However, Genesis tells us that God instructed Adam to name all the animals. Clearly, the origin a most language is mankind, even if you accept the Bible as truth, as I do.
If you are going to operate from such a wild perspective as species being a man-made word, yet other language not being, then discussion with you is fruitless. I will move on.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Less than 10,000 years old like real science tells us.
Even the bible doesn't say that.
In the beginning there was the heavens and the earth.....no time frame.
JamesCanby
Activist Member
Less than 10,000 years old like real science tells us.
That, sir, tells me everything I need to know about your grasp of "real" science.
Moving on.
77zach
Regular Member
I know what you hoped to accomplish by asking this question, but I don't think the answer you hope for means what you think it means because there are several confounding issues. An evolutionist (one that believes we came from apes, etc) is operating from the assumption that the Bible is not true, whereas Mr Birdman is assuming it is true.
1. The Bible actually allows for the "earth" to be as old as you want it to be. It does not allow post-fall history to be more than thousands of years old.
2. If the Bible were true, time frames in cosmology aren't valid. For example, read John 2: 1-10:
"On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.”
It takes years to make good wine. According to the Bible, Jesus did the complex chemistry that has to have years to finish instantly. Of course in Genesis, the Bible also says that God made adults instantly too. In the Bible, things that appear to be "old" are in fact seconds old.
eye95
Well-known member
If you believe that God created our universe (I do), then it is reasonable to believe that He created that feature of our universe that we call "time." Therefore, He exists outside of time. He might communicate that idea to folks without science by saying something along the lines of "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Running Wolf
Campaign Veteran
Again, facts do not depend on belief. And vice versa.
eye95
Well-known member
If Geometry teaches anything, it should teach us that all facts, all truth come from axioms and postulates that we accept as true without proof. Another word for that acceptance is belief.
We can KNOW nothing. We can only build up a system of what we believe to be knowledge based on a set of assumptions, not the least of which is that what we perceive is actually real.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Running Wolf
Campaign Veteran
This is actually on the right track. You acknowledge that our perceptions are nothing more than beliefs. The implication for this particular thread is that both evolution and creation have equal validity. As you said, we can know nothing. (my emphasis)
georg jetson
Regular Member
Slow, you're besties with the straw man. Nothing in your post refutes what I said. As a matter of fact, your initial response was not related to what I posted.
Good to see you're still around though.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Ad Hominem
The territory of georg jetson.
What I stated was a precise reply to your statement that Gravity was not a theory.
Have a great day.
jhfc
Regular Member
You more philosophical types may enjoy this wiki article on "Criteria of Truth".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth
For example, it looks like all have some problems, but "coherence", "consistency" and "correspondence" are the least problematic.
Notice, "Coherence" sounds very much like what a scientist would recognize as a "Theory" and is as close to "proof" as humans are able to come, due to our inherent inability to acquire all facts. This is also why Newtons "laws" of motion, while wrong at a fundamental level (since they don't take into account relativistic effects), work quite well for most situations. When Einstein came along, did we through out all of Newton's work and start over? Nope. We build knowledge on prior knowledge and sometimes throw out archaic, incorrect explanations. Newton knew a celestial object had an elliptical orbit. What he didn't know was the foci of the ellipse moved. Now we do know that and the reason why. Coherence. Our fundamental understanding was incorrect, and now we are closer to understanding what is really going on.
Evolution is exactly the same as the above example. Mankind has been artificially selecting plants and animals for millenia. Nature has been doing so for billions of years. The evidence is overwhelming. Evolution is an observable fact. The Theory of Natural Selection is currently the only coherent theory explaining what we observe and it does so in a spectacularly successful and accurate way. There is no "controversy" to teach and it is extremely unlikely the theory of natural selection will be supplanted, only refined.