Eve of the Apocalypse: Twilight

An Aeon of Strife map for Warcraft 3
It is currently December 15th, 2018, 3:53 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 1:36 pm 
Offline
Addict
Addict
User avatar

Joined: July 13th, 2009, 11:36 am
Posts: 480
Location: Washington
Well, not entirely no. Many of Darwin's theory's are correct, as I have stated, such as microevolution. Macroevolution, however, has absolutely no premise, and is a total theory (crazy too, imo), yet it is repeatedly taught as truth.

In short, Evolution and Creationism are both theories. And should equally be taught as such. And the aspects of evolution that are factual and not fictitious, could easily be argued in favor of Creationism as well, it's not limited to just evolution, the factual parts, that is.

Quote:
point in the big bang theory does it state that matter is created. I can only assume you don't really know what it is? Did you think the theory was matter suddenly appeared and exploded outwards? Because that is not correct.


Summarized, the entire theory of evolution came about from nothing creating everything. Am I not right?

_________________
Image

America!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 1:50 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident
User avatar

Joined: February 19th, 2009, 3:36 am
Posts: 179
Creationism is not a theory.

You've ignored everything I've said, haven't you?

Willful ignorance is a sin according to my belief system. You are the worst sinner I have ever seen.

By the way, since you believe Creationism should be taught in schools, I believe that every single retarded creation myth that has been created by cultures since the beginning of time should be given equal time in classrooms, including the ever so much more likely version that the flying spaghetti monster did it.

All parts of the fact of evolution are factual and the theories are supported by overwhelming evidence, which you can't seem to find for your AHAHAHAHAHA "theory" of creationism. Therefore, those facts cannot be argued in favor of your myth.

Open your mind and see reality.

No, that is not what the fact or theories of evolution state.

Elreth, evolution happened, it's a fact, not "only a theory."

_________________
Remember to observe Towel Day on May 25th.


Last edited by Ford Prefect on August 19th, 2009, 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 2:16 pm 
Offline
Visitor
Visitor
User avatar

Joined: August 17th, 2009, 9:45 am
Posts: 28
Elreth wrote:
That is fine, I mean it is just a theory.

Dark_Nemesis wrote:
Macroevolution, however, has absolutely no premise, and is a total theory (crazy too, imo), yet it is repeatedly taught as truth.

Ford Prefect wrote:
Elreth, evolution happened, it's a fact, not "only a theory."


Tsk tsk tsk, have we all forgotten the definition of theory that I posted a while ago? (btw Ford, your quote is only in here since it is dealing with the same issue) Perhaps I should just post it again, and you should read it this time so you stop saying "just a theory".

Definition I posted earlier: "The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions." (in case you're wondering this is from the religion thread, where this discussion actually began)

Here's a nice little quote from http://anthro.palomar.edu: "The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as the search for truth. Science does this by continuously comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world. When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time. Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified. Because of this fundamental difference in the approach to understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of the biological sciences."

I'd summarize these, but they're coming from respectable websites and they're making my point for me.

Here's another thing from the same website, that talks about what a scientific theory is, it's a bit more blunt than my first definition, but it's also straightforward:

"When scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation. It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories. Most people would consider such fundamental theories to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts. As a result of the massive amount of evidence for biological evolution accumulated over the last two centuries, we can safely conclude that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. All life forms, including humans, evolved from earlier species, and all still living species of organisms continue to evolve today. They are not unchanging end-products."

I'll continue my research later.

Edit: I realized I never pointed out that, so far, DN has been using theory in the more common sense of the word, which means an opinion or speculation not necessarily backed by facts. If this were true, then DN's argument would be quite sound, but the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, which must be backed by facts. I'd continue defining it here, but you could just as easily read my definition up at the top, which you should have read twice by now.


Last edited by LeCitron on August 19th, 2009, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 2:17 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident
User avatar

Joined: February 19th, 2009, 3:36 am
Posts: 179
I've posted the definition of theory twice before, it hasn't helped.

I am sure that DN believes that we don't actually get drawn towards the ground, that the sun really revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat, and humans are made from mystical divine substance instead of DNA. Anything that contradicts any of these beliefs will be automatically ignored and forgotten.

By the way, he can claim everything you just said was made up on the spot.

_________________
Remember to observe Towel Day on May 25th.


Last edited by Ford Prefect on August 19th, 2009, 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 2:22 pm 
Offline
Visitor
Visitor
User avatar

Joined: August 17th, 2009, 9:45 am
Posts: 28
Ford Prefect wrote:
I've posted the definition of theory twice before, it hasn't helped.

I am sure that DN believes that we don't actually get drawn towards the ground, that the sun really revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat, and humans are made from mystical divine substance instead of DNA. Anything that contradicts any of these beliefs will be automatically ignored and forgotten.


Yeah well I'm stubborn enough to just keep posting it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 2:27 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident
User avatar

Joined: February 19th, 2009, 3:36 am
Posts: 179
I've also come to the conclusion that he won't read any long posts. Notice that he ignored the post I made last night.

_________________
Remember to observe Towel Day on May 25th.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 2:48 pm 
Offline
Visitor
Visitor
User avatar

Joined: August 17th, 2009, 9:45 am
Posts: 28
I guess at the very least then, I'll keep making him check this thread :roll:. It's not like I think anything I say to him will change his beliefs at all or his mind drastically, I'm just trying to show him the facts so at the very least he can argue against facts. My high school biology teacher always said that him teaching evolution wasn't with the intent of making us believe in it, but so when debates like this one came up that we'd at least know what we're arguing for or against, because he, like most evolutionists, was rather tired of the same old argument based off of misconceptions (which so far I'm really happy because no one has said: "I don't believe in EVILution" or "I don't believe in evolution because I don't believe we evolved from chimpanzees", but I realize while I'm typing this that someone is bound to say it sarcastically now, or just to annoy me).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 3:52 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident

Joined: July 7th, 2007, 3:10 pm
Posts: 142
As has been mentioned, it is not a theory in the same sense that evolution is; that is, the scientific sense. While they are both certainly theories in the general sense, another theory is that other species don't exist at all and it is a race wide mass delusion where there is no evolution because other life does not exist on the planet. There is no way to disprove my theory but that doesn't make it as likely as evolution. The most likely and most useful theory is taught by itself for two reasons.

1) Evolution is taught in a science class, and since creationism has no scientific standing (ie, not a theory as per the scientific definition), it isn't taught. Much like my mass delusion theory isn't taught. I'm not sure which specific creation theory you are supporting but if we taught say the catholic version then we'd have to teach them all, and some of them are long and complex. This is why we have comparative religion classes, and so in a sense they are both taught.

2) More importantly, evolution theory will actually help them understand other sciences while creationism is essentially useless.

There is another thing I want to address which is that you seem to trying to tie evolution and the big bang theory together. While each is certainly related to creationism, they are completely unrelated from each other and I hope you keep that in mind. Specifically the theory of evolution begins in an already mostly formed universe on a simply much younger Earth. Whereas the big bang theory has nothing to do with the creation of life, but the creation of the universe.

While this may seem like a minor detail, it's important to note that there is far fewer evidence of the big bang, and the two theories are completely interchangable with other theories. Maybe one scientist believes [The big bang] -> [Panspermia], and then another believes [God created the universe] -> [Evolution]. The problem is that creationism simply takes up both slots, which is hardly evolution's fault.

Also the big bang theory does not even state that prior to the big bang there was nothing.

So your summary is not only not right, but not even close.

PS to Ford: No, it is a theory.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 4:06 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident
User avatar

Joined: February 19th, 2009, 3:36 am
Posts: 179
Nope, it is a fact and the theories of evolution attempt to explain the fact. I've explained this before, read the first post.

_________________
Remember to observe Towel Day on May 25th.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 4:55 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident

Joined: July 7th, 2007, 3:10 pm
Posts: 142
I really don't want to be on dn's side for any reason but that isn't true. The facts are things like biodiversity and adaptation, the theory trying to explain them is evolution. For instance the fact is that giraffes have long necks, the fact is not that evolution causes giraffes to have long necks, that is just a theory trying to explain why they have them.

In order for you to say something is fact it has to be directly provable. For instance if you have existed since the end of time and say that you saw evolution occuring in exactly the way the theory descibes it, then it is a fact. However even in this extreme example there is a problem because then there would be no theory to explain this fact because it wouldn't need explaining.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 4:56 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident
User avatar

Joined: February 19th, 2009, 3:36 am
Posts: 179
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

"Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution."

_________________
Remember to observe Towel Day on May 25th.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 4:59 pm 
Offline
Addict
Addict
User avatar

Joined: July 13th, 2009, 11:36 am
Posts: 480
Location: Washington
It's not really about sides, Elreth, it's about what is true and what is not.

And I've decided to largely ignore Ford, Elreth (I recommend you do the same) as he refuses to believe that Evolution has always been, and will always be...a theory.

_________________
Image

America!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 5:04 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident
User avatar

Joined: February 19th, 2009, 3:36 am
Posts: 179
The mechanisms of evolution are the only part which is a theory, as a theory is an explanation of how something happens.

To everyone else: See, told you he ignores logic and reason.

_________________
Remember to observe Towel Day on May 25th.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 5:14 pm 
Offline
Jelly Doughnut
User avatar

Joined: May 27th, 2006, 8:13 am
Posts: 1431
Location: Germany
Oh yeah you are the first one to point it out.

_________________
<EotA@Azeroth> YAKS GO MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Dekar: the ultimate ocean themed hero should buff and depend on spawn waves!
DarnYak: why is that
Dekar: WAVES
Dekar: :D
DarnYak: i was afraid that was the answer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 5:15 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident
User avatar

Joined: February 19th, 2009, 3:36 am
Posts: 179
Heh, I'm sure I'm not, but keep in mind I'm relatively new here. I didn't realize he was completely unable to even consider different viewpoints.

_________________
Remember to observe Towel Day on May 25th.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 5:23 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident

Joined: July 7th, 2007, 3:10 pm
Posts: 142
The article you linked is of dubious quality. They're using multiple definitions of the word evolution. For instance when they are referring to it as fact they are talking about the evidence of species changing over time to adapt to changing enviroments. The adaptation I was referring to earlier. But when they talk about it is a theory they talk about the interpretation and explanation of it. This pretty much matches up with what I said earlier except they changed the names around (probably to simplify their argument at the expense of accuracy).

There is also the problem that they talk about adaptation in the past as a fact which although very close to fact as per the evidence, it is not really a true fact as they readily admit. The article itself redefines what a fact is. So basically they changed definitions around until it sounded the way they wanted to. Not very scientific in my opinion.

I am not trying to argue with you here, and I would not hesitate to call it a fact outside of a scientific context, but it is what it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 5:28 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident
User avatar

Joined: February 19th, 2009, 3:36 am
Posts: 179
I don't necessarily agree with you, but thank the gods for someone who is willing to actually look and think about it.
How about this, then: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/ ... heory.html

_________________
Remember to observe Towel Day on May 25th.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 5:45 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident

Joined: July 7th, 2007, 3:10 pm
Posts: 142
Most of the article that deals with defining it as both a fact and a theory is the part that was quoted as the crux of the first article. The rest of it just deals with the validity of various facets of the theory of evolution and doesn't really deal with it being a fact and a theory at the same time so much as argue as to why it is a very good theory.

The whole thing comes off as trying to fight the negative connotation associated with the word theory outside of a scientific context. That is to say, it deals more with persuasion than an examination of whether something really can be both a fact and a theory and especially whether or not evolution is. Now I don't mind that they kind of stretch definitions in the face of considerable and willful ignorence that they are desperate to fight but that doesn't mean I will look to them for reliable definitions, and I don't feel that they would want me to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 6:00 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident
User avatar

Joined: February 19th, 2009, 3:36 am
Posts: 179
It seems I was wrong about a fact being interchangeable with a law. The fact is the thing itself, the law describes it, and the theory explains it.
"So in summary, a scientific fact is an observable natural occurrence; a scientific theory is an attempt to explain how this natural occurrence works; and, a scientific law is a mathematical description of this natural occurrence. "

I was going to search for more explanations of how evolution is a fact, but simply googling "the fact of evolution" provides an overwhelming array of links that include summaries such as: "The Encyclopedia Britannica confidently assures us that 'we are not in the least doubt as to the fact of evolution.'" and I dug this one out of one of the links: "Just as much as gravitation is a fact, is so evolution. It has been observed, in both the laboratory and the field, and through the evidence of the fossil record. It is not debated in mainstream science that evolution has occurred (and is still occurring); but it is the mode and tempo of evolution that is being debated." That link is worthy of being viewed in it's own right, so: http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm

_________________
Remember to observe Towel Day on May 25th.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 6:09 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident

Joined: July 7th, 2007, 3:10 pm
Posts: 142
That processes related to evolution (read 'evolution') can occur is a scientific fact. You can observe it in action in many experiments. The theory of evolution is different in that it specifically explains the state of the Earth. You can not observe the history of life on Earth and so that context of evolution can never be a scientific fact.

This is akin to the difference between saying yes it is very possible that evolution occured and saying yes it did occur.

Much like if there is a ball on the ground that used to be in the air. Now it is a fact that gravity exists and tends to pull things to the ground, and it doesn't take a genius to conclude that gravity probably pulled it to the Earth where it is currently located. However that is only a theory, not a fact. It is also possible that say someone took the ball and put it on the ground themselves (and lets say for the sake of argument that first they used a pulley and weight to first counter gravity's force so that gravity had no part in it's movement).

Now the chances of this other person existing when there is no good evidence for it is very slim; in my opinion, negligable. In such a situation I would not even consider such a possibility and certainly would not want people going around trying to teach children that it was a valid theory but i'm not going to say that it was a fact in a scientific context where I was no where near the ball for the entire event and it is only my best guest as to why, how, or if the ball was even in the air to begin with.

Really, using the definition of scientific fact provided by you, no interpretation of the past can ever be scientific fact because it cannot be observed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 6:18 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident

Joined: July 7th, 2007, 3:10 pm
Posts: 142
I am trying to distinguish between evolution as a process and evolution as a historical occurance.

It is an observable fact that the types of life we are familiar with will evolve to adapt to their enviroment over time.

There is strong evidence that this is what occured on Earth, but it is not an observable fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 6:26 pm 
Offline
Addict
Addict
User avatar

Joined: July 13th, 2009, 11:36 am
Posts: 480
Location: Washington
Why do you keep bringing up Evolutionary biologists who happen to be overtly anti-christian as well? Don't you think their opinion just may be slightly biased? Regardless of their achievements?

_________________
Image

America!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 6:28 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident
User avatar

Joined: February 19th, 2009, 3:36 am
Posts: 179
My apologies, Elreth, it seems you are correct. There are many facts which directly support the theory of evolution, and many observed alterations (evolutions) which also fit into the fact category. However, while the bones of one slightly different version of a creature found above the bones of an older version of that creature presents a fact, only a theory can provide an explanation linking the two.
All of the people claiming that evolution is a fact are saying so because nothing else explains our world. However, it remains an explanation, which is the territory of theories.

Until you actually read the links I have provided and provide a counter argument, nothing you say is worth countering, DN. Especially since you won't listen to it anyway. Oh yes, and I will also require you to retract your ignorant claim that creationism is a theory. At best, in the scientific world, it could be called a hypothesis.

_________________
Remember to observe Towel Day on May 25th.


Last edited by Ford Prefect on August 19th, 2009, 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 6:38 pm 
Offline
Resident
Resident

Joined: July 7th, 2007, 3:10 pm
Posts: 142
Don't sweat it, it is really all just semantics, since I feel like we have the same opinion as to whether or not it actually occured. As to possible bias, there can be no bias if you avoid heavily favoring their explanations and instead use the data provided to form your own conclusions.

For example, while a biased scientist might word an article to try to persuade more people, he is unlikely to get away with planting fossils progressively changing species.

However, it is impossible for us to convince you that things we observe in the world around us are more credible than say Chaos giving birth to Gaea and eventually Zues and friends creating all life or whichever unspecified creationism theory you hold to.


Last edited by Elreth on August 19th, 2009, 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution
PostPosted: August 19th, 2009, 6:40 pm 
Offline
Addict
Addict
User avatar

Joined: July 13th, 2009, 11:36 am
Posts: 480
Location: Washington
Quote:
Oh yes, and I will also require you to retract your ignorant claim that creationism is a theory. At best, in the scientific world, it could be called a hypothesis.


No.

_________________
Image

America!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group