[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Every living thing is a transitional form. >>>[/quote]Are you sure?
[/quote]
Yup. Evolution isn’t a hypothesis, it’s a fact! 
[/quote]
Evolution is a theory, look it up.
I believe evolution to be a good theory, and strong theory, but it’s just a theory and nothing more.[/quote]
Most people do not understand what a theory is in scientific terms though.
Gravity is also ‘just a theory’
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
…Atheist websites are not biased…
[/quote]
[/quote]
LOL!!! LOL! LOL! That is what sheeple looks like in real life. “Hey these people with an agnda don’t have an agenda!” WOW!
I have seen many of these sites. The bias is almost embarrassingly bad.
Feel free to bring up any point from any atheist website, and I will gleefully destroy it with one arm tied behind my back[/quote]
Ok I suppose it’s impossible that there are NO unbiased atheists but my point is that the bias within the religious circles is about 10 thousand times worse. And Atheists are generally unbiased. If you think just because they push their agenda that that is bias then you’re wrong because their agenda would have to be biased for them to be biased. Or maybe you don’t know what biased means…
“Feel free to bring up any point from any atheist website, and I will gleefully destroy it with one arm tied behind my back”
Ok. Here is a point from a random article I just found using Google.
Site: http://atheists.org/content/creationism
Point: “Some people claim that “Science doesn’t have all of the answers” when it comes to the business of life. They are right.”
So the point brought up is that Science does not have all the answers. So you can go ahead and (try to) gleefully destroy that point with your arm tied behind your back.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
So the point brought up is that Science does not have all the answers. So you can go ahead and (try to) gleefully destroy that point with your arm tied behind your back.
[/quote]
Wait a minute, Pat is puffing it up just now.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Every living thing is a transitional form. >>>[/quote]Are you sure?[/quote]Yup. Evolution isn’t a hypothesis, it’s a fact! :)[/quote]Lemme make sure I got this. You’re sure that “every living thing is a transitional form” because evolution is a fact?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Every living thing is a transitional form. >>>[/quote]Are you sure?
[/quote]
Yup. Evolution isn’t a hypothesis, it’s a fact!
[/quote]
Evolution is a theory, look it up.
I believe evolution to be a good theory, and strong theory, but it’s just a theory and nothing more.[/quote]
I don’t think you understand what Theory means when used in a Scientific context. Here let me give ya a lesson kid:
"In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
"A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.” Scientific theory - Wikipedia
So now do you understand why it’s wrong to say “it’s just a theory and nothing more.”???
If you said that to a Scientist that would be pretty mean because you’d be insulted years and years of hard work. Evolution explains our past and it’s very important, not “just a theory and nothing more”.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< And in spite of their objections they continue to benefit from the various fields of science that were born from Darwin’s theory.[/quote]And in spite of your objections, you and the rest of the universe continue to exist because the creator God sustains that existence every second. ;D (Hebrews 1:3)
I trust you had a good summer?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Every living thing is a transitional form. >>>[/quote]Are you sure?[/quote]Yup. Evolution isn’t a hypothesis, it’s a fact! :)[/quote]Lemme make sure I got this. You’re sure that “every living thing is a transitional form” because evolution is a fact?
[/quote]
Changes in Genes over time (Evolution) is a fact, and my point is that all living things are always evolving, so therefore all living things can be classified as transitional forms, no?
Or perhaps if there’s no selection pressure then evolution stops. But you get my point in that saying there’s no transitional forms is nonsense because scientists have discovered many transitional forms and also we can be classified as a transitional form if we’re indeed still evolving which I believe we are.
You seem to not like what I’m saying though, is there something you don’t agree with?
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]
I am not a creationist in the traditional sense of the word. I believe that God is the creator of existence itself, that doesn’t mean I take Genesis 1 a literal account, through the paradigm of modern thought.
But like I said, the order of events does square with science. I believe, this universe we live in is about 13.7 billion years old, as we understand a year to be.
[/quote]
I still do not see why he would make it appear to be that old. What purpose does it serve. If he was directly involved it could have been done in a second.
I have read the cosmological argument explanation you have presented in many threads and to me it is logical, it makes sense. What if that is taken a bit further, perhaps a bit of a panentheistic view. God created the first cause within that is the foundation/blueprint for the universe so, he is in everything but, not in everything, involved but, not involved. That way the time it took for creation to reach where we are now is not an issue. Once it was set in motion the conditions/natural causes would determine how long it takes. It would not be complete chance or dumb luck but, an inevitable result. Just like everything else, an apple will decay how long before it does will depend.
Young earth believers and non literal genesis arguments with the false carbon dating and a day was not a day seem to just want to fit the puzzle pieces together by any means necessary making it complicated and confusing. That is not to say it is not possible. [/quote]
Interesting take.
For all, has that explanation been used in a certain religion or philosophy?
[/quote]
The logic has been present in philosophy for a long time.
What xXSeraphimXx is presenting is a deistic point of view which is partiality correct, but still misses the overall hierarchical structure of the cosmological argument.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Every living thing is a transitional form. >>>[/quote]Are you sure?
[/quote]
Yup. Evolution isn’t a hypothesis, it’s a fact!
[/quote]
Evolution is a theory, look it up.
I believe evolution to be a good theory, and strong theory, but it’s just a theory and nothing more.[/quote]
Most people do not understand what a theory is in scientific terms though.
Gravity is also ‘just a theory’[/quote]
No gravity is a fact, the understanding of it is a theory. That is not the same condition as evolution.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Every living thing is a transitional form. >>>[/quote]Are you sure?
[/quote]
Yup. Evolution isn’t a hypothesis, it’s a fact!
[/quote]
Evolution is a theory, look it up.
I believe evolution to be a good theory, and strong theory, but it’s just a theory and nothing more.[/quote]
I don’t think you understand what Theory means when used in a Scientific context. Here let me give ya a lesson kid:
"In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
"A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.” Scientific theory - Wikipedia
So now do you understand why it’s wrong to say “it’s just a theory and nothing more.”???
[/quote]
You are the one who is mistaken. It is a theory and nothing more and you have no ground on which to say any different. You know why? Because it’s called “The Theory of Evolution”, not the fact. The fact that there is evidence lending to it’s credibility does not lift it out of theory status because the body of evidence very far from complete to completely validate it. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it means that their is not enough evidence to substantiate the theory. It’s a good theory, it’s a sound theory, but it’s still only a theory and it never will be anything more. the reason is because it’s impossible to gather all the evidence needed to push it into being a law of science. There are simply to many missing variables that cannot be substantiated. We don’t have enough historical evidence to tie all the missing variables together and it’s likely we never will. Further, it’s not a perfect theory. It’s doesn’t explain everything. For it to be a fact, it has to.
If you said to a scientist that the theory of evolution is an absolute fact, they would get their lab coat dirty from rolling on the floor laughing at you. You can’t make things what they aren’t simply because you want them to be.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]
I am not a creationist in the traditional sense of the word. I believe that God is the creator of existence itself, that doesn’t mean I take Genesis 1 a literal account, through the paradigm of modern thought.
But like I said, the order of events does square with science. I believe, this universe we live in is about 13.7 billion years old, as we understand a year to be.
[/quote]
I still do not see why he would make it appear to be that old. What purpose does it serve. If he was directly involved it could have been done in a second.
I have read the cosmological argument explanation you have presented in many threads and to me it is logical, it makes sense. What if that is taken a bit further, perhaps a bit of a panentheistic view. God created the first cause within that is the foundation/blueprint for the universe so, he is in everything but, not in everything, involved but, not involved. That way the time it took for creation to reach where we are now is not an issue. Once it was set in motion the conditions/natural causes would determine how long it takes. It would not be complete chance or dumb luck but, an inevitable result. Just like everything else, an apple will decay how long before it does will depend.
Young earth believers and non literal genesis arguments with the false carbon dating and a day was not a day seem to just want to fit the puzzle pieces together by any means necessary making it complicated and confusing. That is not to say it is not possible. [/quote]
Interesting take.
For all, has that explanation been used in a certain religion or philosophy?
[/quote]
The logic has been present in philosophy for a long time.
What xXSeraphimXx is presenting is a deistic point of view which is partiality correct, but still misses the overall hierarchical structure of the cosmological argument. [/quote]
Thanks, Would you mind elaborating or recommending some reading/past threads.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Every living thing is a transitional form. >>>[/quote]Are you sure?
[/quote]
Yup. Evolution isn’t a hypothesis, it’s a fact!
[/quote]
Evolution is a theory, look it up.
I believe evolution to be a good theory, and strong theory, but it’s just a theory and nothing more.[/quote]
Most people do not understand what a theory is in scientific terms though.
Gravity is also ‘just a theory’[/quote]
No gravity is a fact, the understanding of it is a theory. That is not the same condition as evolution.[/quote]
Nope they are both theories.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Changes in Genes over time (Evolution) is a fact, and my point is that all living things are always evolving, so therefore all living things can be classified as transitional forms, no? >>>[/quote]So now lemme make sure I got THIS. Changing genes are by definition evolution? If so, define evolution please. You then conclude from this “therefore all living things can be classified as transitional forms,”. Transitional from what to what? If you would be so kind.[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Or perhaps if there’s no selection pressure then evolution stops. >>>[/quote]“Perhaps” isn’t allowed here. You said you were sure. “Selection pressure” from where? Why would it ever stop (or start for that matter) and we still need a definition for “evolution”.[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< But you get my point in that saying there’s no transitional forms is nonsense because scientists have discovered many transitional forms >>>[/quote]Again. Please define “transitional” [quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< and also we can be classified as a transitional form >>>[/quote]We can be classified as the latest limited edition marshmallow treat in Lucky Charms ( Lucky Charms - Wikipedia ) until we get these definitions settled. [quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< if we’re indeed still evolving which I believe we are. >>>[/quote]"If and “belief” are statements of uncertainty and faith respectively friend. Not allowed.[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< You seem to not like what I’m saying though, is there something you don’t agree with?[/quote]What I like is irrelevant and yes I disagree with everything you’ve been saying. I trust you will continue to help me demonstrate why. Don’t lemme down now. You came bustin in here wavin academic creds like a rookie cop with a badge and a gun. I have high hopes.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Every living thing is a transitional form. >>>[/quote]Are you sure?
[/quote]
Yup. Evolution isn’t a hypothesis, it’s a fact!
[/quote]
Evolution is a theory, look it up.
I believe evolution to be a good theory, and strong theory, but it’s just a theory and nothing more.[/quote]
Most people do not understand what a theory is in scientific terms though.
Gravity is also ‘just a theory’[/quote]
No gravity is a fact, the understanding of it is a theory. That is not the same condition as evolution.[/quote]
Nope they are both theories.
[/quote]
Hmmm, let me research a little. Yes, there is a theory of gravity, but I am not certain that’s the same a gravity itself. But you may be right, I need to poke around a bit.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Changes in Genes over time (Evolution) is a fact, and my point is that all living things are always evolving, so therefore all living things can be classified as transitional forms, no? >>>[/quote]So now lemme make sure I got THIS. Changing genes are by definition evolution? If so, define evolution please. You then conclude from this “therefore all living things can be classified as transitional forms,”. Transitional from what to what? If you would be so kind.[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Or perhaps if there’s no selection pressure then evolution stops. >>>[/quote]“Perhaps” isn’t allowed here. You said you were sure. “Selection pressure” from where? Why would it ever stop (or start for that matter) and we still need a definition for “evolution”.[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< But you get my point in that saying there’s no transitional forms is nonsense because scientists have discovered many transitional forms >>>[/quote]Again. Please define “transitional” [quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< and also we can be classified as a transitional form >>>[/quote]We can be classified as the latest limited edition marshmallow treat in Lucky Charms ( Lucky Charms - Wikipedia ) until we get these definitions settled. [quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< if we’re indeed still evolving which I believe we are. >>>[/quote]"If and “belief” are statements of uncertainty and faith respectively friend. Not allowed.[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< You seem to not like what I’m saying though, is there something you don’t agree with?[/quote]What I like is irrelevant and yes I disagree with everything you’ve been saying. I trust you will continue to help me demonstrate why. Don’t lemme down now. You came bustin in here wavin academic creds like a rookie cop with a badge and a gun. I have high hopes.
Does anyone still not understand why “creation science” can’t be taught in science class or as a science?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Every living thing is a transitional form. >>>[/quote]Are you sure?
[/quote]
Yup. Evolution isn’t a hypothesis, it’s a fact!
[/quote]
Evolution is a theory, look it up.
I believe evolution to be a good theory, and strong theory, but it’s just a theory and nothing more.[/quote]
I don’t think you understand what Theory means when used in a Scientific context. Here let me give ya a lesson kid:
"In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
"A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.” Scientific theory - Wikipedia
So now do you understand why it’s wrong to say “it’s just a theory and nothing more.”???
[/quote]
You are the one who is mistaken. It is a theory and nothing more and you have no ground on which to say any different. You know why? Because it’s called “The Theory of Evolution”, not the fact. The fact that there is evidence lending to it’s credibility does not lift it out of theory status because the body of evidence very far from complete to completely validate it. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it means that their is not enough evidence to substantiate the theory. It’s a good theory, it’s a sound theory, but it’s still only a theory and it never will be anything more. the reason is because it’s impossible to gather all the evidence needed to push it into being a law of science. There are simply to many missing variables that cannot be substantiated. We don’t have enough historical evidence to tie all the missing variables together and it’s likely we never will. Further, it’s not a perfect theory. It’s doesn’t explain everything. For it to be a fact, it has to.
[/quote]
The way you are speaking it sounds like you’re still confused. It sounds like you’re still under the impression that a Theory is the same thing as a Hypothesis.
You say it has to be “Lifted out of theory status” but for it to even get to theory status requires a very high amount of evidence: Hypothesis becomes Theory when there is crap loads of evidence to support the hypothesis. Evolution graduated from Hypothesis to Theory based on crap loads of evidence.
So when you say “Evolution is Theory and nothing more”, what you are saying is:
“Evolution is an explanation which is based on several consistent facts and is supported by a very large body of tested and confirmed scientific evidence, and nothing more.”
You’re getting mixed up with the everyday usage of the word Theory.
Also, wrt to chiro and ART. I consider them to be separate techniques, and IMO the only reason chiros use ART is because it is effective while traditional chiro is not only ineffective in most of its claims but fraudulent.
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]
I am not a creationist in the traditional sense of the word. I believe that God is the creator of existence itself, that doesn’t mean I take Genesis 1 a literal account, through the paradigm of modern thought.
But like I said, the order of events does square with science. I believe, this universe we live in is about 13.7 billion years old, as we understand a year to be.
[/quote]
I still do not see why he would make it appear to be that old. What purpose does it serve. If he was directly involved it could have been done in a second.
I have read the cosmological argument explanation you have presented in many threads and to me it is logical, it makes sense. What if that is taken a bit further, perhaps a bit of a panentheistic view. God created the first cause within that is the foundation/blueprint for the universe so, he is in everything but, not in everything, involved but, not involved. That way the time it took for creation to reach where we are now is not an issue. Once it was set in motion the conditions/natural causes would determine how long it takes. It would not be complete chance or dumb luck but, an inevitable result. Just like everything else, an apple will decay how long before it does will depend.
Young earth believers and non literal genesis arguments with the false carbon dating and a day was not a day seem to just want to fit the puzzle pieces together by any means necessary making it complicated and confusing. That is not to say it is not possible. [/quote]
Interesting take.
For all, has that explanation been used in a certain religion or philosophy?
[/quote]
The logic has been present in philosophy for a long time.
What xXSeraphimXx is presenting is a deistic point of view which is partiality correct, but still misses the overall hierarchical structure of the cosmological argument. [/quote]
Thanks, Would you mind elaborating or recommending some reading/past threads.[/quote]
We have had some very extesive, detailed discussions about the cosmological argument, but here are a couple of very good links that should get you a long way to getting it better.
This gives you the basics:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
This one will answer most questions you may initially have and dispel some of the more popualr myths about it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ok. It seems you’re just lashing out at me. Not sure why…
If you want to know simple definitions just use google. You’re going too crazy for my liking and it seems like your emotions are taking away from your objectiveness. If you honestly have this many questions about evolution then you’ll need to do some studying on your own because I’m not spending hours re-iterating the information that’s already out there.
Asking me to define transitional form and define evolution are basic questions that can be answered with your own research.