Political Correctness and Darwin

[slowfiveoh]

I'm sorry, but your definition is contrary to modern usage, including strict scientific usage.

"Gravitation" is, in my experience, used in a qualitative sense and never used to refer to objects with mere gravitational influence on one another (stellar objects in orbit, etc). It specifically refers to the fact of one object decidedly moving towards another, independent of the cause of the force.

Show specifically where my definition is contrary to scientific usage.

Note:

snip
Falling is the action of attractive acceleration of the smaller mass to the larger mass minus any force propelling it.
snip

Read this statement, then read yours. Note, the "attractive acceleration" is in this case caused by "Gravity" or "Gravitation". The motion of the two celestial bodies, for example, would in fact be referred to as "Gravitation". If I wanted to point out the process that the two celestial bodies are engaging in, I could say with scientific confidence, "Look at the heliocentric elliptical orbit of the earth to the sun, and how on the return epoch they gravitate towards each other.". This would be a scientifically accurate statement.

I never referred to "Gravitation" as "objects with mere gravitational influence on each other". The objects are separate.

"Gravity" is one of those terms that like "Theory" is misunderstood in common parlance.

Statements like, "Oh he doesn't realize the gravity of the situation." really just show the disconnect between the literal, scientific application of the word, and the actual, scientific understanding.


Here is an entire article for you, no wait, here are quite a few:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/newton-gravitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
http://www.arachnoid.com/gravitation_equations/
http://physics.info/gravitation/

Want some .edu examples of modern astrophysics?

http://www.stanford.edu/~buzzt/gravity.html
http://video.mit.edu/watch/11-work-energy-and-universal-gravitation-1727/ (Has a nice video)
http://physics.yale.edu/people/vincent-moncrief (head of Gravitational Physics Group)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969ApJ...157..857F (Finite Rangr Gravitation)


Here, and excerpt from one:

"Surprisingly, the first of Kepler’s laws—that the planetary paths are elliptical—is the toughest to prove beginning with Newton’s assumption of inverse-square gravitation"

Want a video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY0GcFRVmVs

Pay attention to the bolded parts.

Yup.

I have to say I expected more from you. You are usually thorough, but in this case you are not.

ANYBODY on this forum or elsewhere that has taken Introduction to Science (101 level) or more advanced science courses has been introduced to the "Scientific Process".

Anybody who has taken said classes would know that "Theory" represents an entire model denoting a hypothesis that has met its burden of falsifiability and validation. All current determinations of carefully examined and applied datum have been validated and are far more refined than the common public usage of the word "Theory".

The same applies to the word "Gravity" and all terms that utilize it as a root.

Gravity is: F = G × [(m1m2)/r²]
This equation was obtained through the same series of falsification and validation, and found to be the BEST explanation for the purpose of the initially observed "falling".

Hence, "Theory of Gravity".

The same stands true for theory of evolution, the theory of tectonic plate shift, and thousands of other theories.


You come across at times as an English Major, which is cool. I appreciate a certain command of the language.

However, it seems you do not possess the prerequisite courses to actually know what I am talking about in reference to the scientific model.



As I sit here, I realize there is another word that could be used to demonstrate the difference.

"Cindy is smokin hot."

This statement would be used in common usage to denote attractiveness. The word "Hot" being a colloquialism. It transfers the term of literal heat to the sensation of attractiveness and likens it to fire.

"That's a great theory you have there." could have different depths if stated by a 6 year old to his sister, and then again from a professor to his grad student. Willing to bet which one is applying the scientific model?


I think there's more to this than your grasping, and the POINT, is to show that "Theories" in scientific circles are very well vetted understandings about our natural world. This INCLUDES the Theory of Evolution.

To disprove these theories in a field of occupation that THRIVES on things that throw theories on end, creating excitement for kicking the entire theory back into the hypothesis stage, would earn you a Nobel prize.

Disprove Evolution? Nobel prize, and I promise you scientists would LOVE you to do that. It just means they are still needed, and the new evidence, whatever it may be, is fresh air and puts their minds back to work.


As to the definition, I don't really care for the Dictionary definition. Please, next quarter, take some science classes. Even if its just Science 101. Question the instructor on what comprises a "Theory".

Then just sit back and listen.

 

[marshaul]

Please, next quarter, take some science classes. Even if its just Science 101. Question the instructor on what comprises a "Theory".

BTDT. Getting to be over-educated at this point (I doubt you're seriously interested in my academic pedigree).

I'll simply submit that, although deriving the same root, "gravitate" is not strictly the verb form of "gravitation".

 

[MattinWA]

BTDT. Getting to be over-educated at this point (I doubt you're seriously interested in my academic pedigree).

I'll simply submit that, although deriving the same root, "gravitate" is not strictly the verb form of "gravitation".

Lol I love these posts, now I know to skip this entire thread...
thx all :lol:

 

[slowfiveoh]

BTDT. Getting to be over-educated at this point (I doubt you're seriously interested in my academic pedigree).

I'll simply submit that, although deriving the same root, "gravitate" is not strictly the verb form of "gravitation".

We're discussing the credibility of "Theory" but the problem is that there is a dichotomy that exists. The science version, and the commonly socially used version.

When a scientist is talking about a "Theory", it is very specific and far FAR more in depth than the commonly used term. Same with Gravity, which is the point I am getting across.

As to your focus of degree, yeah actually, I would be interested.

 

[Mr Birdman]

theroy

We're discussing the credibility of "Theory" but the problem is that there is a dichotomy that exists. The science version, and the commonly socially used version.

When a scientist is talking about a "Theory", it is very specific and far FAR more in depth than the commonly used term. Same with Gravity, which is the point I am getting across.

As to your focus of degree, yeah actually, I would be interested.

Any smart person can have a theory that they try to make them self:shocker: look good. But when your theory is proven wrong. (like evolution) and you keep preaching it, you are just a lair. :shocker:

 

[Venator]

Any smart person can have a theory that they try to make them self:shocker: look good. But when your theory is proven wrong. (like evolution) and you keep preaching it, you are just a lair. :shocker:

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.


The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.[SUP]1[/SUP] That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.


In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.[SUP]2[/SUP] It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions.

In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are calledtheories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.


Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.


Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)[SUP]3[/SUP] happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.[SUP]4[/SUP] Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for thefact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.


Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.[SUP]5[/SUP]


Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

---

• [SUP]1[/SUP] Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. American Heritage Dictionary
• [SUP]2[/SUP] Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science - National Academy Press
• [SUP]3[/SUP] A standard, scientific definition of evolution is: In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Biology - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, W H Freeman
• [SUP]4[/SUP] Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution. Evolution as Fact and Theory - Stephen Jay Gould
• [SUP]5[/SUP] The Cobb County School Board required a sticker with the following text to be placed on all biology textbooks: This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. Decision of the Court Striking Down the Cobb County Evolution Disclaimer

​

 

[Mr Birdman]

theory

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.


The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.[SUP]1[/SUP] That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.


In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.[SUP]2[/SUP] It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions.

In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are calledtheories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.


Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.


Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)[SUP]3[/SUP] happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.[SUP]4[/SUP] Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for thefact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.


Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.[SUP]5[/SUP]


Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

---

• [SUP]1[/SUP] Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. American Heritage Dictionary
• [SUP]2[/SUP] Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science - National Academy Press
• [SUP]3[/SUP] A standard, scientific definition of evolution is: In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Biology - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, W H Freeman
• [SUP]4[/SUP] Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution. Evolution as Fact and Theory - Stephen Jay Gould
• [SUP]5[/SUP] The Cobb County School Board required a sticker with the following text to be placed on all biology textbooks: This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. Decision of the Court Striking Down the Cobb County Evolution Disclaimer

​

Once again you keep saying over and over that is a fact because you say so with no proof. No one on this forum has ever mentioned any proof. There is none. Every one keeps mentioning living animals with out even mentioning how the living got here any way. No one even mentions's the other 5 forms of evolution. Why? Of course animals change people change. Every birth is different from their parents. They are different they are taller smaller fatter shorter different color variations but (dogs as a example) did not change to a different animal. Many so called experts (evolution religious zealots), say that dinosaurs turned into birds. I ask you how did that happened? As they slowly change from one animal to another at one point you are going to have a animal who's legs are useless because it's pelvis is trying to reverse it's self. 2 of it's legs are trying to turn into wings. I ask what fed it for millions of years while it's laying there helpless for many generations trying to evolve into a bird. And how did it mate? Evolution ='s lie. Never happened. :shocker:

 

[77zach]

It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.

Then I guess evolution (by which I means apes to humans, etc) doesn't even meet the threshold for theory. It's just a atheistic religion.

 

[slowfiveoh]

Then I guess evolution (by which I means apes to humans, etc) doesn't even meet the threshold for theory. It's just a atheistic religion.

And you would be wrong.

Evolution has continued to be well substantiated Theory in every bit of the scientific sense.

Kick, stomp, make cute little religious quips all you like. It doesn't change the fact that evolution has more foundational science behind it than 90+ percent of the Bible.

Evolution is as supported as Gravity, and hundreds of other theories.

Also, your adamant stance that Atheism is a religion really shows how crassly unintellectual you are.

Atheism is a single position on a singular topic. This is just as Theism is a singular position, on a singular topic.


Most of you people commenting in the negative on Evolution literally have no idea what you're talking about and are simply doing your best to smash your caps lock key and make unfounded statements as if they were fact.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism

Read. Learn.

I read John Lennox and William Lane Craigs drivel. Least you can do is read what Atheism actually is.

 

[Mr Birdman]

athisism

And you would be wrong.

Evolution has continued to be well substantiated Theory in every bit of the scientific sense.

Kick, stomp, make cute little religious quips all you like. It doesn't change the fact that evolution has more foundational science behind it than 90+ percent of the Bible.

Evolution is as supported as Gravity, and hundreds of other theories.

Also, your adamant stance that Atheism is a religion really shows how crassly unintellectual you are.

Atheism is a single position on a singular topic. This is just as Theism is a singular position, on a singular topic.


Most of you people commenting in the negative on Evolution literally have no idea what you're talking about and are simply doing your best to smash your caps lock key and make unfounded statements as if they were fact.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism

Read. Learn.

I read John Lennox and William Lane Craigs drivel. Least you can do is read what Atheism actually is.

Atheism is a satanic religion just like evolution. Still no proof just saying it is so does not make it so. duh:shocker:

 

[georg jetson]

I'm starting to get it now. There appears to be several lay persons with respect to science who are trying to explain this magical word "theory".

Well... I have a BS in EE with a minor in Physics. I understand the word as it pertains to science and as it pertains to the lay-person.

I use electron theory often in my profession. However, I also understand that the observed phenomenon called electricity is real. It's not real because of the explanation, it is real because it's observable.

All of this discussion of the word "theory" is useless in the context of this thread. It's an attempt to make things seem "mysterious" to the less educated. There is no observable incidence of a human evolving from something else. It's an explanation looking for a reality.

It reminds me of when I questioned the math in emag. It indicated that the magnetic field rotated axially with the ferrous material. Experimentally it is not true. The theory of magnetism, gravity, evolution, blah blah are all "best explanations from the evidence at hand". In some cases, it ignores evidence to the contrary.

 

[georg jetson]

And you would be wrong.

Evolution has continued to be well substantiated Theory in every bit of the scientific sense.

Substantiated how?

Kick, stomp, make cute little religious quips all you like. It doesn't change the fact that evolution has more foundational science behind it than 90+ percent of the Bible.

Irrelevant

Evolution is as supported as Gravity, and hundreds of other theories.

Meaningless statement. These theories have differing levels of understanding. In other words, some theories are better because they do a better job of explaining reality than others.

Also, your adamant stance that Atheism is a religion really shows how crassly unintellectual you are.

Atheism is a single position on a singular topic. This is just as Theism is a singular position, on a singular topic.

Yeah... The topic of religion.

Most of you people commenting in the negative on Evolution literally have no idea what you're talking about and are simply doing your best to smash your caps lock key and make unfounded statements as if they were fact.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism

Read. Learn.

I read John Lennox and William Lane Craigs drivel. Least you can do is read what Atheism actually is.

Do you have a scientific background yourself?

 

[slowfiveoh]

I'm starting to get it now. There appears to be several lay persons with respect to science who are trying to explain this magical word "theory"

There are several lay persons indeed. Although your preparatory statement here is is simply to try and place those you disagree with below you so you can make you appeal to authority in the next comment, the only "lay people" here are the ones who conflate the word "Theory" with "Scientific Theory" as part of the attempt to discredit longstanding, valid, and repeatably verifiable science; The Theory of Evolution.

Well... I have a BS in EE with a minor in Physics. I understand the word as it pertains to science and as it pertains to the lay-person.

I am unaware that your BS (Bachelors) supercedes all Doctorates and Masters who are far better equipped to discuss these concepts and the functionality and viability of the scientific model. Oh boy, and so is the rest of the world. Bummer for you pal.

All that "Appeal to Authority" and that's all you have?

You do realize that your degree is laughably common, probably shared with others who retained their lessons on this very forum, and only states you are marginally able to act as a "journeyman" in your "field of expertise" yeah?

Sorry bud, a BS, while its great that at SOME point in your life you pursued actual education (and hopefully not a non-objective Christian college degree), your attempt at conflation here only works on the masses too stupid to even realize whats being discussed here.

I use electron theory often in my profession. However, I also understand that the observed phenomenon called electricity is real. It's not real because of the explanation, it is real because it's observable.

Thank you for offering your opinion as a 4-year graduate.

Perhaps you should write a peer-reviewed paper on your most delicate of observations.

Might I suggest: "Electricity is Observable" - By Georg Jetson ?

I'm sure you will be taken VERY seriously.

All of this discussion of the word "theory" is useless in the context of this thread.

Wrong. It is completely useful to understand why when a "lay-person" says "Evolution is just a Theory", yet does not understand the enormity of what constitutes a "Scientific Theory".

This is what you are trying to conflate here intentionally. That there is no value in understanding the enormity of "Scientific theory" in its totality, and as to how it compares to the casual use of the word "Theory".


At best this is ignorance on your behalf. Perpetuated by your religious desire to reinforce your cohorts ridiculous claims as a defense mechanism.

At worst, and most likely, you are a disgrace to the scientific community by suggesting there is no meaningful purpose behind understanding the scientific process.

It's an attempt to make things seem "mysterious" to the less educated.

Mysterious?

You mean like a grand sky wizard who is beyond your ability to prove existence worrying over whether or not you masturbate, yet never shows his presence?

Wow pal, that's mysterious! Good job there bucko, ya got me painted into a corner now.


No kiddo, the reason its being elaborated on here, is because a scientific theory is HUGELY different from the casual usage of the term. To even imply otherwise is again your corrupt attempt to conflate them and keep them conflated.

[video=youtube;ItxVLu8J_d0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItxVLu8J_d0[/video]

There is no observable incidence of a human evolving from something else.

Yes, there is. Its call our evolutionary ancestors, and the presence of their fossils, right where they need to be to be "correct".

It's an explanation looking for a reality.

Wrong pal.

It's a huge mass of facts that all point to a single, tested, verifiable, falsifiable outcome. Know what this is called?

Take a guess bud, with your BS this should be "easy".


That's right, a THEORY.

*Pats you on the head*


Good job!

It reminds me of when I questioned the math in emag. It indicated that the magnetic field rotated axially with the ferrous material. Experimentally it is not true.

Wow I read your paper refuting this which was peer reviewed, then testing your hypothesis and finding what you claim to be true, then peer reviewed some more. Then falsified, then repeated, then officially renouncing the old entry in your coursework. Then you received recognition from your peers for correcting the previous theory based on new evidence and observations.

Except none of this happened, and I say flat out you are a liar.

Prove me wrong.

The theory of magnetism, gravity, evolution, blah blah are all "best explanations from the evidence at hand".

The best explanations at hand. You don't say?

Phew. The way you say it it's like whole branches of science just hodge-podged stuff together over the course of a few hundred years and didn't involve thousands and thousands of people coming to the same conclusions doing an enormous variety of varying tests all pointing to the validity of these scientific theories. It's not like people significantly smarter than you or I dedicate their entire lifespan to these studies.

Pfff, that would be preposterous.

Nope what we have here is the guy with the end explanation. georg jetson gonna fill us all in with his Bachelors Degree. :lol:

In some cases, it ignores evidence to the contrary.

Outside of Quantum Physics, give us just one example there Mr. "Not Quite A Doctor Yet Give Me 2 Or 3 More years"?

Cite it. Do it now or hold your peace.

 

[slowfiveoh]

Substantiated how?

Fossil records.
DNA/Gene mapping.
Evidence of newly developed body parts in the human body.
Adaptation of new and previously unseen characteristics in microbial and bacterial strains.
Intermediary forms in the Fossil Record.
Carbon and Radiometric Dating.
Geological Surveys providing accurate dating of tectonic/continent movement

The list is endless.

Irrelevant

Only to you, as it would be permissible for this kind of religious prattle to steer your decision making, and therefore it is best for you to deem it "Irrelevant".

Meaningless statement. These theories have differing levels of understanding. In other words, some theories are better because they do a better job of explaining reality than others.

Nice attempt at conflation.

They ALL are subjected to the scientific model. The same model you persistently claim is meant to "make things looks mysterious".

Coming from an individual who claims to have a scientific background, this is rather dubious.

Good thing you aren't a teacher.

Yeah... The topic of religion.

Incorrect sunshine.

Theism is one thing and one thing only. The belief that there is a deity. FULL STOP. ADD NOTHING MORE.
Many religions are "Theistic", and many are not.

Atheism is one thing and one thing only. The belief that there is no deity. FULL STOP. ADD NOTHING MORE.
Some religions are "Atheistic" (Buddhism and Janism for example), most are not.

Religion is a belief structure that has three major components: Ritual, Dogma, and Tenets.

Do you have a scientific background yourself?

Why yes I do, over 16 years in the field.

Your attempted appeal to authority is noted and discarded.

Unlike you, I do not lean on my credentials in any way as facts tend to stand on their own. It is on those facts I make my assessments and application of the scientific model.

 

[marshaul]

I am unaware that your BS (Bachelors) supercedes all Doctorates and Masters who are far better equipped to discuss these concepts and the functionality and viability of the scientific model. Oh boy, and so is the rest of the world. Bummer for you pal.

All that "Appeal to Authority" and that's all you have?

Lemme know when you guys finally decide whose appeal is bigger. :lol:

 

[77zach]

Fossil records.
DNA/Gene mapping.
Evidence of newly developed body parts in the human body.
Adaptation of new and previously unseen characteristics in microbial and bacterial strains.
Intermediary forms in the Fossil Record.
Carbon and Radiometric Dating.
Geological Surveys providing accurate dating of tectonic/continent movement

The list is endless.

None of the above does anything for me. The fossil record is confusing and they're always changing the theories. There's always a big announcement about how a big new discovery in that field will rewrite the rules about blah blah blah. Here is a recent example:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/newly-found-ancient-skull-could-rewrite-human-history/

Not sure if you read the OP or any of the earlier discussions, but everything must happen at the atomic level. I have a BS in chemistry, mostly that consists of memorizing and understanding the "mechanisms" of chemical reactions. The assumptions of the evolutionists are breathtaking to say the least. From my view, God is an infinitely more satisfying answer to the origin of life than impersonal forces of evolution. Chance is, per se, effete. Yet, you want me to believe that it is responsible for the unfathomable complexity around me. For me to buy that I'd have to shut down my brain.

 

[marshaul]

Chance is, per se, effete. Yet, you want me to believe that it is responsible for the unfathomable complexity around me. For me to buy that I'd have to shut down my brain.

Your appreciation of the mechanisms of chance is limited to a fault.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb has written extensively on his "Black Swan Theory", which I would say colors your objection as being rather moot.

In short, if the highly probable banalities of every day are of little to no effect nor consequence, then we should fully expect every spontaneous system and outcome to be the result of a long sequence of rare (or even one-time) occurrences, each highly improbable at any given moment (but approaching inevitability across all possible moments) and more importantly of consequence.

Your arguments clearly also presuppose purpose and intent, imagining a predetermined goal and "forces" at play. Whatever it is, evolution is not driven in this manner.

 

[slowfiveoh]

None of the above does anything for me. The fossil record is confusing and they're always changing the theories. There's always a big announcement about how a big new discovery in that field will rewrite the rules about blah blah blah. Here is a recent example:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/newly-found-ancient-skull-could-rewrite-human-history/

Not sure if you read the OP or any of the earlier discussions, but everything must happen at the atomic level. I have a BS in chemistry, mostly that consists of memorizing and understanding the "mechanisms" of chemical reactions. The assumptions of the evolutionists are breathtaking to say the least. From my view, God is an infinitely more satisfying answer to the origin of life than impersonal forces of evolution. Chance is, per se, effete. Yet, you want me to believe that it is responsible for the unfathomable complexity around me. For me to buy that I'd have to shut down my brain.

Then you are dismissing legitimate evidence on the grounds of you, as a chemist, being "unimpressed". Sounds like the scientific standard to me, except the opposite. I'd be happy to discuss any inconsistencies you felt there were from observations within your field, or from those you feel innately qualified, but taking the paint brush and covering it all up in one stroke is a fallacy on your part.


Listening to people refer to the Watchmakers Analogy over and over is tragic.

If you really feel that your position is resolute, and that you have a sound argument, do us all a favor and straighten out these guys over here:

www.atheist-experience.com


They'd be happy to discuss things with you. Unless you are happy living within your comfort zone and challenging your ideas is way too stressful for you.

 

[eye95]

Again, carbon dating CANNOT be used to establish the kind of evolution (the creation of a new species) that evolutionists are trying to prove. Anyone who lists it as part of the "proof" of evolution is talking through his hat.

The development of changing body parts is NOT the kind of evolution the evolutionists are trying to proselytize about. That kind of evolution is indisputable because it has been directly observed. That kind of evolution does not produce a new species, just a difference within the species. If it is useful, the adaptation continues. If not, it dies off. No great surprise here.

The problem is in extraspecial evolution, the appearance of a new species altogether. Such has NOT been observed. There is no evidence of it. It is just one explanation of observations and, based on Occam's Razor, not even the best one!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[marshaul]

Again, carbon dating CANNOT be used to establish the kind of evolution (the creation of a new species) that evolutionists are trying to prove. Anyone who lists it as part of the "proof" of evolution is talking through his hat.

The development of changing body parts is NOT the kind of evolution the evolutionists are trying to proselytize about. That kind of evolution is indisputable because it has been directly observed. That kind of evolution does not produce a new species, just a difference within the species. If it is useful, the adaptation continues. If not, it dies off. No great surprise here.

The problem is in extraspecial evolution, the appearance of a new species altogether. Such has NOT been observed. There is no evidence of it. It is just one explanation of observations and, based on Occam's Razor, not even the best one!

Your standard for "extraspecial evolution" is really quite arbitrary, as is the concept of a "species".

You seem to imagine there's some bright line, but there isn't.