Political Crossfire Forums

[Headrattle]

larryau wrote: Evolution has many flaws. And it is just a theory.

Which is more then you can say about Creation (which has no scientific basis and isn't even a theory) or Young Earth (which has no scientific basis and isn't even a theory.)

Saying that Evolution is "just a theory" only really shows us how little you know about science. Gravity is "Just a theory." Atomic theory is "Just a theory." Yet you don't question those. Electron theory is "Just a theory" and yet that theory is being used to power the computer you are at right now. To say that any scientific theory is "just a theory" is to prove that you don't know what a scientific theory is.

[larryau]

Evolution is supposed to be a scientific way to explain our origins. Science is supposed to have everything throughly made sense and explainable, no flaws. Creation is not science. Hell yeah it has lots of unexplainables, but it doesn't need to be throughly explained but evolution does.

[Headrattle]

larryau wrote: Evolution is supposed to be a scientific way to explain our origins. Science is supposed to have everything throughly made sense and explainable, no flaws.
It doesn't have flaws, only mysteries. Parts we don't completely understand. However, we have observed evolution going on now. We have observed it, we have evidence of it, and we can recreate it in a laboratory environment. The only part that is theory is how things have happened before. As such, it is the only theory that hasn't been disproved that involved the adaptation of life.

Quote: Creation is not science. Hell yeah it has lots of unexplainables, but it doesn't need to be throughly explained
Technically it has significant flaws, and has been thoroughly disproved. Creation is scientifically untrue. There is no evidence, or even logic to it. So yes, you are right, it is not a science, and no one should pretend that it is.

Quote: but evolution does.
Evolution has been thoroughly explained. But we are finding out more about it every day. It is a science and one of the stronger sciences we have. I think it is a lot stronger of a science then you believe actually.

[Wizard From Oz]

Gravity has been proved in many places. On Earth - drop the apple.

On the Moon - a feather and a hammer where dropped in front of a camera. The astronaut laconically offered. "If this dont work, we aint coming home" It worked

Neptune was discovered using a prediction based on Gravity

10 Light Years away - Sirius B was discovered using a prediction using gravity.

Interacting galaxies are often studied, then measured against gravity to confirm is one galaxy in front of the other, or are they bound by gravity.

On the macro scale - things like gravity lens and Einsteins Cross have both been observed showing gravity works in similar fashions billions of light years away

Oh a couple of corrections. The Moon does not orbit the Earth.... They rotate around each other. It just so happens that the centre of gravity is below the Earths surface.

Obeservations of Lagrange points and Trojan points around other planets in our solar system confirm gravity is consistent with what we observe on Earth.

There are places where Newtonian Gravity does not work. Einstein has offered explanations for that - Still considered theories cause there has never been direct observations of Black Holes and such.

[Wyatt Earp]

larryau wrote: Evolution is supposed to be a scientific way to explain our origins. Science is supposed to have everything throughly made sense and explainable, no flaws. Creation is not science. Hell yeah it has lots of unexplainables, but it doesn't need to be throughly explained but evolution does.

Huh? what your saying is that Creationism does not have to be explained but evolution does?

I would rather look at the ummm fossil evidence and I can see with my own eyes how it probably happened then to believe that some old guy snapped his fingers and Adam and Eve appeared, what your saying is a plain ferry tale. But do I believe in God? heck yea, what do I look stupid or something?
But to believe in the Bible word for word is just ridiculous.

[ieatfood]

larryau wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: I have been reading here on these sites who say that anti-global warming people have no proof, I have been reading in other room's that pro- evolution people have no proof well some one please prove to me there is something called gravity, why don't you give it up and admit there is no proof of gravity.


Okay.

Jump off the top of your nearest parking garage.

Come back and tell us there's no proof of gravity.

Yea I love telling that to the Anti-Evolution people. when they keep on insisting Evolution is just a theroy.

Evolution has many flaws. And it is just a theory.

"just a theory"?

a very ignorant comment

a theory is something that is very well founded
in science, you don't get to be "a theory" without a lot of proof
evolution has no flaws with regard to its validity
that doesnt mean that there arent lots of things about the evolution of certain things that we don't understand
but none of those quesiton its validity

evolution is not debatable in the world of science--the proof is too great

[ieatfood]

Babylon_Horuv wrote:

The law of gravity has only been proven on a local scale. Any assumptions about its effect on a universal scale are purely hypotheses based on locally available evidence. They also appear to predict a different universe than we actually observe which is why astro-physicists have postulated the existance of "dark matter" to force the observed universe to conform to the law of gravity.


uh no

we see gravity all over the universe

how do you think we can calculate the existance of other planets?

other planets don't emit light, and yet we know they are there.

we know they are there because of the effect of GRAVITY between the planets and the stars which do emit light. We actually can see the stars wobbling from the gravity of the planets and we can calculate the size/distance of the planets based on this.

it is true that it is possible that the laws of gravity may be different elsewhere. After all, in life, "ANYTHING" is possible

but there's no evidence to support that.

[GTTofAK]

ieatfood wrote: larryau wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: I have been reading here on these sites who say that anti-global warming people have no proof, I have been reading in other room's that pro- evolution people have no proof well some one please prove to me there is something called gravity, why don't you give it up and admit there is no proof of gravity.


Okay.

Jump off the top of your nearest parking garage.

Come back and tell us there's no proof of gravity.

Yea I love telling that to the Anti-Evolution people. when they keep on insisting Evolution is just a theroy.

Evolution has many flaws. And it is just a theory.

"just a theory"?

a very ignorant comment

a theory is something that is very well founded
in science, you don't get to be "a theory" without a lot of proof
evolution has no flaws with regard to its validity
that doesnt mean that there arent lots of things about the evolution of certain things that we don't understand
but none of those quesiton its validity

evolution is not debatable in the world of science--the proof is too great

It is just a theory. It can never become a law because a law is a theory that has been verified time and time again through the scientific method. The theory of evolution cannot be verified because it cannot be observed.

[Brooklyn]

Quote: Evolution has many flaws. And it is just a theory.

I personally don't see how people can continue to doubt the theory of evolution when the basics of the theory are being used every single day.

One little example:

Any time you get a bacterial infection and you take antibiotics, thank the theory of evolution for helping you beat the infection.

Quote: The theory of evolution cannot be verified because it cannot be observed.

Not yet.

[GTTofAK]

Brooklyn wrote: Quote: The theory of evolution cannot be verified because it cannot be observed.

Not yet.

Therefor it is a theory and not a law.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: The theory of evolution cannot be verified because it cannot be observed.




Unfortunately he is right. Evolution will never be a law.

To become a law you must able to predict an out come using the theory. With evolution we cant. We can gain perspective through lab and genetic experimentation, but this is invalid for the obeservation on the macro scale. Example we can not predict and observe a water buffalo's next evolutionary step.

Darwin raised the concept as an umbrella tag to cover all we have observed in nature and in the past. In reality evolution encompasses to many other scientific knowledge bases and events to ever reach the status of law.

Example the role of climate, astronomy and geology to mention but a few have played a part in the evolution of life on this planet. Science will never tie all these disciplines into an all encompassing equation.

Finally - and I hope time fixes this one. We have a statistical summary of One. Unlike the unraveling the life cycle of a star - in which we have literally billions of samples to draw from and observe. To date Earth is the only place we have found life.

[ieatfood]

GTTofAK wrote:

It is just a theory. It can never become a law because a law is a theory that has been verified time and time again through the scientific method. The theory of evolution cannot be verified because it cannot be observed.

that's not true
a theory can never become a law

they are two different beasts

in science, a theory is about as solid as you can get

I don't have time to explain it, but read this:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

as for evolution not being observed, many things in science can't directly be observed.

Has anyone ever seen a molecule? Has anyone ever seen a gene? Has anyone ever seen an atom? So that means these things don't exist?

Science isn't about direct observation. Science is about taking data and coming up with rational conclusions. There is no rational conclusion that can explain all the data other than the theory of evolution. If you can come up with one, I'd like to hear. (and saying that god created everything really doesnt explain a lot of the data)

This is the problem I have with lay people trying to butt their heads into science, which is a world they simply don't understand. Evolution, like many other theories in science, is complicated. It is very difficult for a layperson to fully understand evolution. Therefore, many false perceptions are created. 99.9% of biologists think that evolution is true. Lets just leave it at that.

[ieatfood]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: The theory of evolution cannot be verified because it cannot be observed.




Unfortunately he is right. Evolution will never be a law.

To become a law you must able to predict an out come using the theory. With evolution we cant. We can gain perspective through lab and genetic experimentation, but this is invalid for the obeservation on the macro scale. Example we can not predict and observe a water buffalo's next evolutionary step.

Darwin raised the concept as an umbrella tag to cover all we have observed in nature and in the past. In reality evolution encompasses to many other scientific knowledge bases and events to ever reach the status of law.

Example the role of climate, astronomy and geology to mention but a few have played a part in the evolution of life on this planet. Science will never tie all these disciplines into an all encompassing equation.

Finally - and I hope time fixes this one. We have a statistical summary of One. Unlike the unraveling the life cycle of a star - in which we have literally billions of samples to draw from and observe. To date Earth is the only place we have found life.

you are right that evolution will never become law
but you are wrong about the reason

evolution is a theory and by definition, no theory can become a law--see previous post

as for predicting outcomes, that is totally off base
science is not about prediction
science is about observation
prediction is what fortune tellers do
if we can use science to make predictions, then that's great
but that's not what science is mainly about

science takes observations about the world and uses them to fomulate an explanation that fits those observations. It then tries to test this explanation with experiments. That's all science is.

Secondly, you are confusing the CONCEPT of evolution with the APPLICATION of evolution. The concept of evolution, is that anything based on genetics will undergo change over time. This concept is true--all genetic lifeforms change over time. That is known because we can sequence the genes. The APPLICATION of evolution to any particular species or gene is not necessarily well studied at all. For example, the evolution of gene XYZ in organism ABC has not necessarily been looked at. That doesnt mean that the CONCEPT of evolution is any less true.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: as for predicting outcomes, that is totally off base
science is not about prediction
science is about observation
prediction is what fortune tellers do
if we can use science to make predictions, then that's great
but that's not what science is mainly about

Help me out here because the way I read the above directly contradicts this section


Quote: science takes observations about the world and uses them to fomulate an explanation that fits those observations. It then tries to test this explanation with experiments. That's all science is.


As I read this you agree with me

Quote: Secondly, you are confusing the CONCEPT of evolution with the APPLICATION of evolution. The concept of evolution, is that anything based on genetics will undergo change over time. This concept is true--all genetic lifeforms change over time. That is known because we can sequence the genes. The APPLICATION of evolution to any particular species or gene is not necessarily well studied at all. For example, the evolution of gene XYZ in organism ABC has not necessarily been looked at. That doesnt mean that the CONCEPT of evolution is any less true.

Sorry if I sound arguementative, but I am not confusing anything. We are not even vaguely close to sorting out the mechanisms of evolution. Until we get a reasonable grasp on that, we cant tackle the issue of application.

So many organisms carry so much redundant code, it is really debatable if we could define what evolutionary steps would trigger in what circumstances.

There was a brilliant book I read a number years ago "Life the unoffical biography" By a British paleontologist - sorry I would grab his name, but cant find the darn thing - He described evolution as a giant game of dice. He argued if we rewound evolution back 500 million years a thousand times, there would be no surety that inteligence would evolve, or that man would be the final outcome.

That was my orginal point about Darwin. He got the concept on the table 150 years ago - and we are going to need a lot more time, and a huge bunch of really clever minds across an enormous number of disciplins to get the nuts and bolts sorted out

[GTTofAK]

ieatfood wrote: GTTofAK wrote:

It is just a theory. It can never become a law because a law is a theory that has been verified time and time again through the scientific method. The theory of evolution cannot be verified because it cannot be observed.

that's not true
a theory can never become a law

they are two different beasts

in science, a theory is about as solid as you can get

I don't have time to explain it, but read this:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

as for evolution not being observed, many things in science can't directly be observed.

Has anyone ever seen a molecule? Has anyone ever seen a gene? Has anyone ever seen an atom? So that means these things don't exist?

Science isn't about direct observation. Science is about taking data and coming up with rational conclusions. There is no rational conclusion that can explain all the data other than the theory of evolution. If you can come up with one, I'd like to hear. (and saying that god created everything really doesnt explain a lot of the data)


This is the problem I have with lay people trying to butt their heads into science, which is a world they simply don't understand. Evolution, like many other theories in science, is complicated. It is very difficult for a layperson to fully understand evolution. Therefore, many false perceptions are created. 99.9% of biologists think that evolution is true. Lets just leave it at that.

Oh god. Science isnt about direct observation. Science is about taking data and comming upp with a rational conclusions. What is that but observation?

dictionary wrote:
A physical law or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations.

As I said before evolution cannot be observed. There for it can never become a law. However any theory can become law once it is observed in practice.