Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
85 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 82 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,347 Year: 4,459/6,534 Month: 673/900 Week: 0/197 Day: 0/30 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   It's not really a theory
horsegal243
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 23 (7931)
03-28-2002 11:50 AM


The theory of evolution is not really a theory at all. In order to have a theory you must devlop a hypothesis. In order for that hypothesis to become a theory you must test it over and over to get results. Scienctists have never tested the hypothesis of evolution and gotten the results that they are claiming. So really and truly it is the HYPOTHISES of evolution not the THEORY of evoluion because they have no proof of their idea.

read it and weep evoluionists


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 03-28-2002 12:19 PM horsegal243 has taken no action
 Message 3 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-28-2002 6:38 PM horsegal243 has taken no action
 Message 5 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-28-2002 10:17 PM horsegal243 has taken no action
 Message 6 by no2creation, posted 03-29-2002 1:13 AM horsegal243 has taken no action
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 03-29-2002 1:40 AM horsegal243 has taken no action
 Message 9 by nator, posted 03-29-2002 7:38 AM horsegal243 has taken no action
 Message 21 by KingPenguin, posted 04-09-2002 12:33 AM horsegal243 has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 23 (7933)
03-28-2002 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by horsegal243
03-28-2002 11:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by horsegal243:
The theory of evolution is not really a theory at all. In order to have a theory you must devlop a hypothesis.

There WAS a hypothesis, when predictions are born out, & no falsifications made, it becomes a theory.

quote:
Originally posted by horsegal243:

In order for that hypothesis to become a theory you must test it over and over to get results.

Evolutionary theory has been tested & tested. How many out of order fossils are there, out of how many thousands of fossils? How many molecular phylogenies are there that closely match each other AND morphological phylogenies, compared to those that don’t? Put simply, molecular/genetic phylogeny is a test that continues to bear out the predictions of evolution. Sequences, whether they be nucleotide/amino acid/gene, all differ more the greater the predicted distance in time between species & taxa.

quote:
Originally posted by horsegal243:

Scienctists have never tested the hypothesis of evolution and gotten the results that they are claiming. So really and truly it is the HYPOTHISES of evolution not the THEORY of evoluion because they have no proof of their idea.

read it and weep evoluionists


Science doesn’t deal in “proof”. The VERY best scientific theories are tentative to a greater or lesser degree. You may be misunderstanding the scientific method. A scientific theory must have (here we go again) potential falsifications, predictions, & supporting evidence. The predictions of evolution have been born out time & again (see above for just two), & no falsifications have (none that require the theory to be discarded, anyway). Hence it is now a theory, not just a hypothesis.

What results are scientists claiming after they have “tested” the hypothesis?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by horsegal243, posted 03-28-2002 11:50 AM horsegal243 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 03-29-2002 2:46 PM mark24 has taken no action

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 23 (7942)
03-28-2002 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by horsegal243
03-28-2002 11:50 AM


As "impressive" as your arguement is, may I suggest you actually read a bit on TOE? Scientifically, evolution has borne out time and again in a wide array of experiments. Pick up any book on biology, microbiology, genetics, ect, and see the impact that TOE has had on life sciences.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Here is an interesting link. It is a poll about the publics beliefs about evolution and creationism. Overall, it says 47% polled believe in creation, vesus 49 % who accept TOE (theistic and non-theistic evolution combined). However, it will be interesting to note that scientists in the life and earth scientists only have 0.14% who accept creationism! Likewise, the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to believe in creationism. I wonder if that is simply a mistake? What do you think? Must be brainwashing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by horsegal243, posted 03-28-2002 11:50 AM horsegal243 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-28-2002 6:50 PM Darwin Storm has taken no action

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 23 (7943)
03-28-2002 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Darwin Storm
03-28-2002 6:38 PM


Oh, by the way, the poll is to show interesting corellaries in those polled. Remember, science isn't a popularity contest. 90% of americans could buy into creationism, yet TOE would still remain a valid scientific theory. If creationism had its way, we would have to cut out almost all of modern science, since so much of it contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-28-2002 6:38 PM Darwin Storm has taken no action

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2457 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 5 of 23 (7953)
03-28-2002 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by horsegal243
03-28-2002 11:50 AM


Horsegal, I could list chapter and verse the reasons that you are wrong but I think that I will settle for one, as it forms the lynchpin for your statements. Predictions as to what must have happened for NS basis of ToE to occur abound in the literature. My favorite as of the moment is the find in Pakistan that cleared up the line of descent for whales so that there was a better correlation between the molecular record (phylogeny) and the fossil record. It was in Science last summer/fall. If you want I can get you the volume and page numbers of the citation (I would post them here now but they are at work).

------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by horsegal243, posted 03-28-2002 11:50 AM horsegal243 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 03-29-2002 5:41 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

  
no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 23 (7964)
03-29-2002 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by horsegal243
03-28-2002 11:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by horsegal243:
The theory of evolution is not really a theory at all. In order to have a theory you must devlop a hypothesis. In order for that hypothesis to become a theory you must test it over and over to get results. Scienctists have never tested the hypothesis of evolution and gotten the results that they are claiming. So really and truly it is the HYPOTHISES of evolution not the THEORY of evoluion because they have no proof of their idea.

Have you read about Darwin's sutdy of Finches in 1831 on the Galapagos islands? It's a good place to start.
[QUOTE][b]
read it and weep evoluionists[/QUOTE]

[/b]
I hate to burst your bubble, but there isn't any evoluionists here at


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by horsegal243, posted 03-28-2002 11:50 AM horsegal243 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Punisher, posted 03-29-2002 9:52 AM no2creation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 23 (7966)
03-29-2002 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by horsegal243
03-28-2002 11:50 AM


Hi there horsegal243, don't at all be discouraged by any of these well aquainted debaters (for the most part atleast ), If you have any questions at all regarding any aspect of the EVC debate, I would be most happy to attempt an answer to your questions, namely if you have a strong interest in the debate. kdWoRmy@yahoo.com

PS: Im a Bible Believing Young Earth Creationist (YEC)

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by horsegal243, posted 03-28-2002 11:50 AM horsegal243 has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 8 of 23 (7972)
03-29-2002 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
03-28-2002 10:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
Horsegal, I could list chapter and verse the reasons that you are wrong but I think that I will settle for one, as it forms the lynchpin for your statements. Predictions as to what must have happened for NS basis of ToE to occur abound in the literature. My favorite as of the moment is the find in Pakistan that cleared up the line of descent for whales so that there was a better correlation between the molecular record (phylogeny) and the fossil record. It was in Science last summer/fall. If you want I can get you the volume and page numbers of the citation (I would post them here now but they are at work).


Dr T,

You've probably seen it already, but-

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10261

Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales .

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-28-2002 10:17 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-29-2002 7:57 AM mark24 has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 9 of 23 (7973)
03-29-2002 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by horsegal243
03-28-2002 11:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by horsegal243:
The theory of evolution is not really a theory at all. In order to have a theory you must devlop a hypothesis. In order for that hypothesis to become a theory you must test it over and over to get results. Scienctists have never tested the hypothesis of evolution and gotten the results that they are claiming. So really and truly it is the HYPOTHISES of evolution not the THEORY of evoluion because they have no proof of their idea.

read it and weep evoluionists


I know that many folks here will do a better job of debating and explaining the specific claims on this one than I, so I will take a different approach.

So, are you a scientist? Had a lot of training and instruction in the sciences? Maybe you are just a lay-student, self educated in the philosophy of science, having read Popper, et. al.?

No?

Well, it always strikes me as incredible that Creationists, who seem to me to often be utterly uninformed about the subjects they are discussing, so very frequently think they are presenting some kind of devastating critique to science when they say something silly like the above statement. I mean, don't you think that scientists would have figured this out a long time ago?

It's kind of like saying to an engineer who designs automobile motors, "you know, you simply CAN'T have a machine that works on setting gasoline on fire! It will explode! So, the internal combustion engine isn't possible. See?"

Here is a good description of what science is. Please explain, with SPECIFICS, how the ToE doesn't meet these requirements:

http://www.skepdic.com/science.html

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by horsegal243, posted 03-28-2002 11:50 AM horsegal243 has taken no action

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2457 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 10 of 23 (7975)
03-29-2002 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by mark24
03-29-2002 5:41 AM


Mark, thanks. Yes I actually had been following the molecular work concerning the whale and hippo relationship for a while as it is closer to my field than the fossil work. I was very pleased last summer when they found some of the fossils for the mid-whale lineage which helped to settle the issue between the fossil and the molecular people.

------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 03-29-2002 5:41 AM mark24 has taken no action

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 23 (7980)
03-29-2002 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by no2creation
03-29-2002 1:13 AM


quote:
Have you read about Darwin's sutdy of Finches in 1831 on the Galapagos islands? It's a good place to start.

Hey n2c, I'm not sure Darwin's finch observation is a good example. Finches with big beaks and little beaks are still finches. That is not evolution. BTW, guess what is on the Galapagos Islands today? Finches with big beaks and little beaks.

Also, hate to burst your bubble, but no one has read about Darwin's sutdy here at

[This message has been edited by Punisher, 03-29-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by no2creation, posted 03-29-2002 1:13 AM no2creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 03-29-2002 1:31 PM Punisher has taken no action
 Message 13 by joz, posted 03-29-2002 1:44 PM Punisher has replied
 Message 18 by no2creation, posted 03-30-2002 2:01 AM Punisher has taken no action

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 23 (7989)
03-29-2002 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Punisher
03-29-2002 9:52 AM


"Hey n2c, I'm not sure Darwin's finch observation is a good example. Finches with big beaks and little beaks are still finches. That is not evolution. BTW, guess what is on the Galapagos Islands today? Finches with big beaks and little beaks."
--Well in all actuality it is diversity driven by an evolutionary process, analogous to the very slight diversity in humans from different world cultures (pigment, facial characteristics, ect).

-------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-29-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Punisher, posted 03-29-2002 9:52 AM Punisher has taken no action

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 23 (7991)
03-29-2002 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Punisher
03-29-2002 9:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
Also, hate to burst your bubble, but no one has read about Darwin's sutdy here at

Are you talking about "Origins..." here?

If so..
I read it here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
Sorry to burst YOUR bubble...

If not...

What study do you mean?

Oh and without knowing everything that everyone else here has read (prove me wrong by naming the last 3 books I read...) how can you say that no one here has read it? It seems to me you are making a claim with little basis in your possible knowledge of peoples reading habits....

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-29-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Punisher, posted 03-29-2002 9:52 AM Punisher has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Punisher, posted 03-29-2002 2:06 PM joz has taken no action

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 23 (7992)
03-29-2002 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by joz
03-29-2002 1:44 PM


You missed the entire point of that statement. It has to do with spelling errors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by joz, posted 03-29-2002 1:44 PM joz has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by no2creation, posted 03-30-2002 1:29 AM Punisher has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4273 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 15 of 23 (7994)
03-29-2002 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by mark24
03-28-2002 12:19 PM


M, This Hypothesis, IS not GENERIC or else any one can have any thing.

i take it in the Maxwell Vortex for the Newton Audible/Visible which I call electrotonic coast of Croizat's Cape


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 03-28-2002 12:19 PM mark24 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022