Summations Only

Talk is cheap and I'll call your bluff - please give me an example of how the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism has, as you say, "enormous scientific value"? --------------------------"Knowledge needs no justification"? Really? Ok then, I have no need to justify believing in the Tooth Fairy or that a fleet of UFOs is parked on the darkmside of the moon - these will pass as knowledge. Imagine what would happen to mathematics if knowledge didn't need to be justified - someone could claim 1+1= 3.Clearly, knowledge needs be justified, otherwise every conceivable belief and idiotic idea qualifies as knowledge, which would result in a world infinitely more insane than it already is. So in short, you are talking patent nonsense.-----------------------------You claim that ToE has "overturned" what is written in the Bible. As I pointed out in my previous post, it is impossible to overturn a belief with another belief that cannot be establshed as a fact. Otherwise, it comes down to nothing more than a matter of one opinion verses another opinon. So what you need to do is stop talking rubbish and demonstrate how an untestable theory canbe established as a fact - which even the village knows is impossible, so I wish you luck.If you can't demonstrate how the aforementioned impossiblity can be made possible, then I will have no choice but to conclude that your aptitude for talking nonsense is very impressive and your aptitude for thinking logically is not so impressive.

"Evolutionists ... get to make the definition of evolution". Unfortunately, evolution science can't be trusted to tell the truth. The definition of evolution includes both micro- and macro-evolution, which permits evolutionists to get away with calling antibiotic resistance an example or evolution, for example. The process that allegedly allowed all life to evolve from a single-cell organism (macroevolution) requires much more than what is going on in antibiotic resistance (which is merely natural selection).
In other words, the term "evolution" is very misleading.-------------------------"And I suppose dripping water into a cup never fills it either". We know from observation that a certain amount of change can occur in a species, but to extrapolate this to potentially unlimited change is another matter.Let me ask you this:
Since the human beings are running the 100 meters sprint much faster than they were, say, 60 years ago, does this mean that they can run it still faster? Based on the available evidence, can the prediction be made that the current world record will be broken?

Perhaps I choose the wrong words and didn't express myself properlly previously. What I need isan example of how the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism (macroevolution) is useful. You've given someexamples of microevoluton, which is not what I'm after. I already know that microevolution has many uses.-----------------------------I never claimed that something has to be of practical use to be true.

To the best of my knowledge no one but Creationists would ever say something that silly or misuse terms so completely.

But it should be possible to "overturn" a belief with established facts. Unfortunately, with creationists, that is not possible.Scientists (who know about these things) have established a number of evolutionary sequences that 1) explain all the relevant evidence, 2) are contradicted by no relevant evidence, and 3) allow successful predictions. Whale evolution is just one of many.

The theory of that all life evolved from a single-cell organism cannot be put to the test, so this means that this theory lies outside the realm of the scientific method. So if, as you say, "Science is defined by following the scientific method", then said theory isn't science. Said theory is known as the theory of evolution.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

And yet the thing you're whining about is in fact the exact truth, as you will now admit:

Truth is valuable to some people. I don't expect someone like you to understand. Do you think your pathetic attempts at twisting words will convince anyone of anything except that you are deeply, wretchedly dishonest? What do you aim to achieve by degrading yourself in this way?

Study the scientific method and get back to us.Hint: avoid the creationist websites, as they will lie to you.

Actually, you are technicaly correct when you say that there are no creation scientists, since creation lies outside the realm of the scientific method and is therefore not science. Instead of using the term, "creation scientist", in future I shall endeavour to use something like, "scientists who believe in creation".But the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism also lies beyond the realm of the scientific method and is therefore not science, so if there is no such thing as a "creation scientist" there is also no such thing as a "evolution scientist" either.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

That would be better but still meaningless and worthless. And that is simply another really ignorant statement as expected. How life began has absolutely nothing to do with either the fact of evolution or that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for what is sen in reality.And that still has nothing to do with the fact that whale evolution is great support for both the fact that evolution happens and that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the reality seen around us.

I didn't mention abiogenesis, did I?--------------------------------How do you apply the scientific method to confirm the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism?

And even abiogenesis does not say "that all life evolved from a single-cell organism" or the fact that whale evolution is great support for both the fact that evolution happens and that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the reality seen around us.I really have to wonder if you have any point? First, you find someone other than a Creationist that thinks there is such a theory.The first step would be for you to learn some basic terminology; what a theory is, what a hypothesis is, you know, the stuff taught in elementary school.Then you try to post something that has some relation to the topic.Edited by jar, : hit wrong key.

Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):

​

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. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

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.

​

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process. [Source]

​

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

​

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

​

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

​

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

​

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

​

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

​

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

​

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

​

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

​

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

​

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

​

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

​

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

It's a fact, not a belief.Get your language straight. When talking about things that we accept but that are not supported by evidence we call them beliefs. When talking about things that we know to be true because they are supported by evidence they are called facts.It's an astounding discovery that all life is interelated and has a common ancestor. Knowledge that explains all life on earth is by definition of enormous scientific value. To think otherwise is just crass ignorance. You just confused knowledge with fantasy and lies. Knowledge is, by definition, known to be factually true."Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject." It seems to me that it was you that confused belief in the tooth fairy with knowledge. Well, of course that statement is wrong. Beliefs are overturned by other unevidenced beliefs all the time. How else are converts made? But scientific knowledge is not belief, there is no necessity to believe in facts - they are facts. Well, that is your wish. Unfortunately for you scientific knowledge is backed by evidence. Feel free to study it so that you'll at least understand what it is that you are disagreeing with. I mean, you didn't even know what speciation was, whilst claiming that it couldn't happen. That's like not knowing that the internal combustion engine runs on gasoline whilst telling the engineer he's wrong about why your car isn't working. Your ignorance is telling.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.