|
|
#61
09-26-2007, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What does "is just a theory" mean to you? [/ QUOTE ] I understand where you're going. I'm not going down a "the devil put the bones there to confuse us" road. I'm not trying to refute evolution based on the fact that it can't "be observed" either. It is simply that I don't agree with the evidentiary basis for evolution. [/ QUOTE ] Thats not where I was going at all. Whenever someone uses the phrase "just a theory" when they are talking about evolution, it is a HUGE red flag. It nearly 100% of the time demonstrates a huge misunderstanding of what science is all about. I was just hoping you'd be able to clarify what you meant by that phrase, and what a "theory" is, to you. 
|
|
#62
09-26-2007, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What does "is just a theory" mean to you? [/ QUOTE ] I understand where you're going. I'm not going down a "the devil put the bones there to confuse us" road. I'm not trying to refute evolution based on the fact that it can't "be observed" either. It is simply that I don't agree with the evidentiary basis for evolution. [/ QUOTE ] Thats not where I was going at all. Whenever someone uses the phrase "just a theory" when they are talking about evolution, it is a HUGE red flag. It nearly 100% of the time demonstrates a huge misunderstanding of what science is all about. I was just hoping you'd be able to clarify what you meant by that phrase, and what a "theory" is, to you. [/ QUOTE ] I know that, in the scientific sense, a theory is something that can't be observed or replicated and the fact that something is classified as a theory (as opposed to a law) has nothing to do with its factual basis. I don't dispute evolution on the grounds that its classification is "theory." I question the evidence used in formulating it.
|
|
#63
09-26-2007, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What does "is just a theory" mean to you? [/ QUOTE ] I understand where you're going. I'm not going down a "the devil put the bones there to confuse us" road. I'm not trying to refute evolution based on the fact that it can't "be observed" either. It is simply that I don't agree with the evidentiary basis for evolution. [/ QUOTE ] Thats not where I was going at all. Whenever someone uses the phrase "just a theory" when they are talking about evolution, it is a HUGE red flag. It nearly 100% of the time demonstrates a huge misunderstanding of what science is all about. I was just hoping you'd be able to clarify what you meant by that phrase, and what a "theory" is, to you. [/ QUOTE ] I know that, in the scientific sense, a theory is something that can't be observed or replicated and the fact that something is classified as a theory (as opposed to a law) has nothing to do with its factual basis. I don't dispute evolution on the grounds that its classification is "theory." I question the evidence used in formulating it. [/ QUOTE ] No, that is not what a theory is at all. A theory is an all-encompassing explanation used to try to describe a set of observations. There AREN'T any laws, not any more, they don't use that term any more. You know why? Because its stupid. Nothing should ever be called a law, because it is never possible to test the infinite number of possible conditions. All of these "laws" we have are in fact theories, they are simply theories that have not been falsified for a long time and that almost certainly never will be. But they could be. A theory is MOST CERTAINLY NOT "something that can't be observed or replicated." Thats almost the exact opposite of a theory. The theory of evolution HAS been observed, many many times. Theories MUST be falsifiable. The Theory of Evolution is falsifiable. These dinosaur bones found among human bones would go a long way towards falsifying it, as long as there was no other reasonable explanation for it.
|
|
#64
09-26-2007, 03:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
Oh noes, not the 'it's just a theory' argument. Theory is a word, it has different meaning when used in science than in everyday speech.
I'm certain others will elaborate, but suffice to say 'it's just a theory' is kinda like saying 'it's only a herbivore' when a rhinoceros is running towards you. Correct, but not very useful, and even though semantically correct, a fairly big misrepresentation.
|
|
#65
09-26-2007, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What does "is just a theory" mean to you? [/ QUOTE ] I understand where you're going. I'm not going down a "the devil put the bones there to confuse us" road. I'm not trying to refute evolution based on the fact that it can't "be observed" either. It is simply that I don't agree with the evidentiary basis for evolution. [/ QUOTE ] Thats not where I was going at all. Whenever someone uses the phrase "just a theory" when they are talking about evolution, it is a HUGE red flag. It nearly 100% of the time demonstrates a huge misunderstanding of what science is all about. I was just hoping you'd be able to clarify what you meant by that phrase, and what a "theory" is, to you. [/ QUOTE ] I know that, in the scientific sense, a theory is something that can't be observed or replicated and the fact that something is classified as a theory (as opposed to a law) has nothing to do with its factual basis. I don't dispute evolution on the grounds that its classification is "theory." I question the evidence used in formulating it. [/ QUOTE ] No, that is not what a theory is at all. A theory is an all-encompassing explanation used to try to describe a set of observations. There AREN'T any laws, not any more, they don't use that term any more. You know why? Because its stupid. Nothing should ever be called a law, because it is never possible to test the infinite number of possible conditions. All of these "laws" we have are in fact theories, they are simply theories that have not been falsified for a long time and that almost certainly never will be. But they could be. A theory is MOST CERTAINLY NOT "something that can't be observed or replicated." Thats almost the exact opposite of a theory. The theory of evolution HAS been observed, many many times. Theories MUST be falsifiable. The Theory of Evolution is falsifiable. These dinosaur bones found among human bones would go a long way towards falsifying it, as long as there was no other reasonable explanation for it. [/ QUOTE ] What do you mean when you say "observed." Are you referring to small genetic changes via natural selection? That's just common sense but it doesn't prove that humans evolved from plankton over millions of years.
|
|
#66
09-26-2007, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
[ QUOTE ]
Oh noes, not the 'it's just a theory' argument. Theory is a word, it has different meaning when used in science than in everyday speech. I'm certain others will elaborate, but suffice to say 'it's just a theory' is kinda like saying 'it's only a herbivore' when a rhinoceros is running towards you. Correct, but not very useful, and even though semantically correct, a fairly big misrepresentation. [/ QUOTE ] The only part of the phrase "its just a theory" that I don't like is the word "just." There isn't anything more robust or strong than a theory. If he said "its just a hypothesis" then that would be one thing, it would make the point he is trying to make, but it would of course be very wrong.
|
|
#67
09-26-2007, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I honestly can't tell whether you are leveling. For your sake, I hope you are. [/ QUOTE ] So, if everyone else believes it, it must be true? Galileo might beg to differ. For my sake, I decided not to be spoon-fed and tried to investigate both sides of the story. I didn't say evolution was false but I did say that it is likely that it is a myth. [/ QUOTE ] Galileo: lover of dogma and religion. he'd be on your side?
|
|
#68
09-26-2007, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What does "is just a theory" mean to you? [/ QUOTE ] I understand where you're going. I'm not going down a "the devil put the bones there to confuse us" road. I'm not trying to refute evolution based on the fact that it can't "be observed" either. It is simply that I don't agree with the evidentiary basis for evolution. [/ QUOTE ] Thats not where I was going at all. Whenever someone uses the phrase "just a theory" when they are talking about evolution, it is a HUGE red flag. It nearly 100% of the time demonstrates a huge misunderstanding of what science is all about. I was just hoping you'd be able to clarify what you meant by that phrase, and what a "theory" is, to you. [/ QUOTE ] I know that, in the scientific sense, a theory is something that can't be observed or replicated and the fact that something is classified as a theory (as opposed to a law) has nothing to do with its factual basis. I don't dispute evolution on the grounds that its classification is "theory." I question the evidence used in formulating it. [/ QUOTE ] No, that is not what a theory is at all. A theory is an all-encompassing explanation used to try to describe a set of observations. There AREN'T any laws, not any more, they don't use that term any more. You know why? Because its stupid. Nothing should ever be called a law, because it is never possible to test the infinite number of possible conditions. All of these "laws" we have are in fact theories, they are simply theories that have not been falsified for a long time and that almost certainly never will be. But they could be. A theory is MOST CERTAINLY NOT "something that can't be observed or replicated." Thats almost the exact opposite of a theory. The theory of evolution HAS been observed, many many times. Theories MUST be falsifiable. The Theory of Evolution is falsifiable. These dinosaur bones found among human bones would go a long way towards falsifying it, as long as there was no other reasonable explanation for it. [/ QUOTE ] What do you mean when you say "observed." Are you referring to small genetic changes via natural selection? That's just common sense but it doesn't prove that humans evolved from plankton over millions of years. [/ QUOTE ] Lets not get ahead of ourselves. First I'm just trying to establish some common ground. I don't like to argue by having you list all your objections and then me having to try to refute them one by one. What ends up happening is that I DO refute them, or show they are irrelevant, but I end up spending 50 posts "explaining away" and it looks like "I always have an excuse for everything." In other words, its a lose-lose situation for me. Even if I successfully refute every one of your objections, anyone observing (including you) just thinks "Yeah but there we SO MANY, one or two of them are bound to be true, evolution has holes!" I would much prefer to start from basic principles and common ground and build up from there. Find out where we run into snags, or disagreements, and see if we can resolve them before moving on. However, if you are just interested in having someone give you a blow-by-blow refutation of your (typical, common) objections, I'd recommend Talk Origins. They have a FAQ with hundreds and hundreds of common creationist arguments and mostly well-thought out, expert rebuttals to all of them.
|
|
#70
09-26-2007, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I honestly can't tell whether you are leveling. For your sake, I hope you are. [/ QUOTE ] So, if everyone else believes it, it must be true? Galileo might beg to differ. For my sake, I decided not to be spoon-fed and tried to investigate both sides of the story. I didn't say evolution was false but I did say that it is likely that it is a myth. [/ QUOTE ] Galileo: lover of dogma and religion. he'd be on your side? [/ QUOTE ] I didn't say that. I was referring to him being the only one that challenged the geocentric beliefs of the time. He challenged the beliefs of everyone and his lesson to us should be to not always just accept all that we are taught as absolute truth.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
