Santorum: Satan is working on the USA
- Thread starter SavannahDare
- Start date
- Status
i know what theory means, but it is still JUST THAT, a theory. In fact, until we witness something evolve before our eyes, it will never meet the scientific definition of a law. Even if we did witness evolution, we'd have to have it repeated more than once.
The way the word "theory" is used by popular culture, and opponents of science, is the way scientists use the word "hypothesis."
By the time a scientific explanation reaches the status of theory, it is as close to scientific fact as anything ever gets, with the exception of scientific laws, which are qualitatively different, being more observational than explanatory. Theories do not become laws with more support. To say something is "just a theory" is to say that it is "just the most reasonable explanation for phenomena that has a whole lot of evidence in support of it, having made specific predictions that turned out to be true, and having survived sincere attempts to falsify it"
Part of the power of the scientific method is that these propositions are NOT presented as incontrovertible fact, and that they are falsifiable. A falsifiable theory that has survived attempts to falsify it is strong. A worldview that makes no falsifiable predictions is not scientific.
The amount of evidence that exists in support of the theory of evolution justifies it as a factual explanation of how biodiversity happens. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origin of life itself, and there are ideas about that, but none has come to dominate the consensus.
Asserting divine origin is of no explanatory value, since that just leaves the question of who created the creator.
By the time a scientific explanation reaches the status of theory, it is as close to scientific fact as anything ever gets, with the exception of scientific laws, which are qualitatively different, being more observational than explanatory. Theories do not become laws with more support. To say something is "just a theory" is to say that it is "just the most reasonable explanation for phenomena that has a whole lot of evidence in support of it, having made specific predictions that turned out to be true, and having survived sincere attempts to falsify it"
Part of the power of the scientific method is that these propositions are NOT presented as incontrovertible fact, and that they are falsifiable. A falsifiable theory that has survived attempts to falsify it is strong. A worldview that makes no falsifiable predictions is not scientific.
The amount of evidence that exists in support of the theory of evolution justifies it as a factual explanation of how biodiversity happens. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origin of life itself, and there are ideas about that, but none has come to dominate the consensus.
Asserting divine origin is of no explanatory value, since that just leaves the question of who created the creator.
nah, razor will do it too if you aren't careful............... or so i've been told......Its pretty simple, don't use nair
and what specific predictions has the theory of evolution made that turned out to be true?
sorry for misreading your post???Uh, no, it does not apply to what he said in that post, specifically, to what I made bold, which was (since you obviously didn't read it the first time
The origin of life is where the Bible (OT) begins; the theories and back and forth on the many posts (including the one I qouted) all relate to whether the Bible, in Genesis, is true or not.
My post was in regards to some things in the OT that are difficult to grasp.
i get that the burning bush is not scientifically viable. HOWEVER, IF there is a creator/god of the universe, he'd be able to pull it off. again... IF just so that nobody else misreads the post...The origin of life is where the Bible (OT) begins; the theories and back and forth on the many posts (including the one I qouted) all relate to whether the Bible, in Genesis, is true or not.
My post was in regards to some things in the OT that are difficult to grasp.
OK, so here is a problem that I have been introduced to recently, not the only one, but just as an example:
The bombardier beetle has two chambers in it's abdomen containing chemicals that, when mixed, create an explosion. Evolution is a result of a series of mutations.... so, did he develop the two chambers first? To what end? If it was not a beneficial mutation, it would have vanished according to evolution. Did he create the chemicals first? What prevented the chemicals from reacting in the abdomen and blowing the bug up? The bombardier beetle would have had to simultaneously develop two separate chambers in its abdomen and at the EXACT SAME INSTANCE in time, begin to create the two chemicals. Otherwise, the chambers would have been of no benefit and would have devolved away right after evolving into existence.
The bombardier beetle has two chambers in it's abdomen containing chemicals that, when mixed, create an explosion. Evolution is a result of a series of mutations.... so, did he develop the two chambers first? To what end? If it was not a beneficial mutation, it would have vanished according to evolution. Did he create the chemicals first? What prevented the chemicals from reacting in the abdomen and blowing the bug up? The bombardier beetle would have had to simultaneously develop two separate chambers in its abdomen and at the EXACT SAME INSTANCE in time, begin to create the two chemicals. Otherwise, the chambers would have been of no benefit and would have devolved away right after evolving into existence.
You do realize that evolution occurs over thousands to millions of years, right? Nothing drastic happens at the EXACT SAME INSTANCE.
resistance to antibiotics is not the creation of a new species. darwin's very own birds in the galapagos islands changed their beak size, but then they would change back when food became plentiful again.... you can provide evidence of "adaptation", but not evolution in the sense that it would create a new species.
and in the case of the predictions that you sited, all but two said only that the predictions were supported by the evidence or "fit the predictions closely". If evolution is such hard science, why are we not saying evidence CONFIRMS or evidence PROVES, or "fit the prediction EXACTLY"? I understand that there is SOME compelling evidence for evolution... it is not the rock hard case that most of us would have the rest of us believe.
Last edited:
The idea is that mutually dependent complex structures appearing simultaneously would be highly improbable. Unfortunately for this argument, it is irrelevant because it ignores the fact that structure which may be optional at one stage of complexity may later become necessary due to modifications of some other structure.
that is addressed in the next sentence.... and I am assuming a relative "EXACT SAME INSTANCE" given that you are talking about millions and billions of years, actually
Last edited:
But, why did it evolve in the first place if it was "optional"? that is completely contradictory to the idea that evolution is a series of mutations/adaptations that benefit the species.
- Status
Latest threads
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
I'm Declaring the Emporer has no clothes (NCAA rules implosion)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 14
-
Home-and-Home Series Wraps Up as Alabama Welcomes UAB on Tuesday
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 1
-
-
A huge win today at my doctor's office...- Started by uafan4life
- Replies: 4