Came across this in an old bookmark. It pretty much kills the point.
quote:Evolution as fact and theory
Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent".[1] A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]
Each of the words evolution, fact and theory has several meanings in different contexts. In biology, evolution refers to observed changes in organisms over successive generations, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution. To a scientist, fact can describe a repeatable observation capable of great consensus; it can refer to something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it; and it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition. To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation". With this number of choices, people can often talk past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis.
Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I listened to another scientist who claimed this calculation was incorrect. His calculations were that the odds were 1x10^33. Its still a probability so huge you have a better chance of winning lotto I think.
People try to used the rhetorical device called, "playing it down", in several ways when confronted with the improbability-factor.
You are right that you will get a huge number no matter what the number is. But evolutionists are likely to come back with the classical canard on that by showing examples of unlikely things that occur every day.
However they don't show examples of unlikely things that have and can happen, that in any way compare to the size of the improbability-figure you logically MUST get from these scenarios if you entertain the absurd notion that the plain scientific fact of design is incidental.
Yes, someone in every twenty people may turn out to have my birthday, but what evolutionists miss is that this is underwhelming because the numbers and commonality make it actually a probable scenario.
Probability has to be understood in terms of WHICH probability-figure to focus upon.
What evolutionists miss is that with design it isn't a matter of supreme improbability and if we look at statistical probability, science-fact give you a figure that 1 in 1 things that had all of the usual features of intelligent design such as specified complexity and code, all turned out to have an intelligent designer.
The only reason to OPPOSE the conclusion of an intelligent designer when weighed against the absurd credulity abiogenesised evolution requires, is a BIAS against that designer turning out to be God.
That motive is not scientific because they argue against design VOCIFEROUSLY. But a person with a scientific attitude merely says, "okay, if it's design and that is more reasonable then so be it."
That is why I am one person that will NOT BE IMPRESSED with the evolutionists here ASSOCIATING themselves with science and us with religion, because the designs in life are not a religious creed, they are proven to be more intelligent than ours.
You replied to the first message of a thread with over a thousand messages. That post, indeed all posts from Porkncheese in this thread, are from over five years ago.
You replied to the first message of a thread with over a thousand messages. That post, indeed all posts from Porkncheese in this thread, are from over five years ago.
I have at all times at Evc when partaking often and hardly at all have went to, "all topics" to see what is on the first page. At the bottom of that page the most recent posts are 2023.
If I haven't had my say in that topic I may go to the first post. If the member is no longer active the issues will be because they are always debated so I don't see this as a major thing.
But it is funny that NOW you grow a brain over a timing-issue considering your confusion when I was last here about a present-tense statement I made about trying to be an interlocutor.
You seemed to think that my participation from long ago in an EvC forum far, far away was VERY RELEVANT when you wanted to conduct some bizarre personal study of my behaviour based on that PRESENT-TENSE comments about being an interlocutor.
Not exactly consistent behaviour or clear thinking is it?
But this is why I don't stay long here any more, it all becomes a personal evaluation of every move the creationist makes. It's tedious and transparent. Are you a dullard or a dotard is what I find myself asking whomever the player is that seeks to play with mikey Kirk.
If I haven't had my say in that topic I may go to the first post. If the member is no longer active the issues will be because they are always debated so I don't see this as a major thing.
I just wanted you to be aware that Porkncheese might not be responding any time soon.
OOPS, he stuck around! We don't mind firing spells at Dumbledore if he is on his way out of the room but what do we do if he stays?
I'll make it easy.....here is my back Tangle....have at it. (unfortunately for you, I won't be reading your troll bait. Nothing new here and this forum, just the same old propagandists of atheistic evolution churning out the inconsequential canards that cannot refute the wisdom we find in God's nature.)
My website, my calculations, my decades long research and study of the very archaic notion of admittedly "mediocre" Charles Darwin, a vile racist, who knew nothing about biochemistry or the compexlty of a simple one-celled organism.
Re: Insuperable Statistics of Naturalistic Polypeptide Synthesis
So, you going to show those calculations or this decades long research? I went to your website but really, there's pretty much nothing there. Also, over here, you need to substantiate your claims with your own words. You can't just link to something, claim it's the end of... Darwinism? And then that's that.
So first up, what is Darwinism? I'm going to ignore what you have to say about Charles Darwin, we're not living in those times, there's plenty to say about your comments about him, but it's irrelevant, because the theory of evolution now is so much more broad and expansive because of all the research that has been, the new technology.
It's a weird comment that because he didn't know of certain things, that somehow makes it wrong now.
So can you substantiate those claims? Or are we playing a game where we just pick a time in the past and say 'people were wrong back then, thus they are wrong now'?
We can play that game, but you'll find that the religious dark age falls short so much harder than Darwin ever did and we look at the past of religious doctrine and indoctrination and the force used to uphold it.
So yeah, show some of those calculations and research you've done, right here.
My website, my calculations, my decades long research and study of the very archaic notion of admittedly "mediocre" Charles Darwin, a vile racist, who knew nothing about biochemistry or the compexlty of a simple one-celled organism.
As Zucadragon mentioned, points should be made in your own words with links provided as supporting references. See the Forum Guidelines:
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Re: Insuperable Statistics of Naturalistic Polypeptide Synthesis
Every word in the website is my personal creation, as I said in the beginning. All of the words are "my own words." There is no point in repeating "my own words" nor in saying what I already said. Just because you can't refute anything there, you have to fall back on your rules which obviously refer to citing websites made by others, not the writer of the post.
If anyone does not understand calculating 1/20 raised to the nth power, I cannot explain it to you because your math skills are hopelessly inadequate.
The real answer is that Darwin's worshippers simply reject anything contradicting His Gospel - "selection".
It is utter magic. Your *scientists* have repeated it so often, you can never change your minds.
The number and length of proteins in humans alone is staggering. Why don't you Darwinists suggest how your magic selection picked exactly the correct L-amino acid and formed a peptide bond with precisely the next L-amino acid over and over and over again in that primordial soup.
Go ahead. You claim *science* is on your side. Show me some.
Re: Insuperable Statistics of Naturalistic Polypeptide Synthesis
Typical stupid creationist who cannot answer the most fundamental question: "What the hell are you talking about?"
If you think that there's some problem that we would need to solve or answer, THEN STATE IT! And explain WHY you think that it is a problem.
Until you have done that as a bare minimum requirement, you have not even begun to present any kind of a question for us to answer. How are we to be expected to answer a non-existent question?
But being a typical stupid creationist, you are incapable to doing that because you have no clue what you are talking about.
The only actual problem we see is your misunderstanding of the subject matter. That is your problem, not ours.
BTW, are you also a young-earther (YEC) or do you just try to hide behind the smoke screen of "intelligent design" bullshit?
All debate takes place here at the website, meaning all evidence and argument must be entered here. Links to other websites, including your own, can be used as supporting references, but if you don't say it here it's as if you didn't say it.
™ Version 4.2
(1)